TV news (archive)
- Peter Horrocks
- 5 Oct 06, 05:30 PM
The Daily Star yesterday had a memorable headline - "PC Prats cross at TV Fiona crucifix". I imagine the Star had a 麻豆社 boss like me in mind as a "PC Prat" - although I'm not angry and certainly not angry about .
Let me be clear, the 麻豆社 hasn't banned anything - whether veils, crosses, hijabs, scarves, skull caps, turbans or burkhas. What we have been discussing is what it's appropriate for newsreaders to wear, especially at a time of heightened religious tension.
The debate puts in opposition some principles the 麻豆社 stands for. The 麻豆社 is a supporter of freedom of expression. Equally we want our newsreaders to be seen as entirely impartial. Any religious clothing or insignia they wear could make some viewers question their impartiality. We were asked the hypothetical question of what we would do in the event that a Muslim newsreader wanted to wear a head scarf or veil. I suspect that some of the newspapers that have been poking fun at our consideration of wearing crosses would find a veil-wearing newsreader highly newsworthy, to put it mildly.
Anyway this is just a debate at the moment. It's a new area for us to consider and that means there is an opportunity for viewers to let us know what you think. So what would you prefer: Freedom of expression or complete impartiality in attire?
Peter Horrocks is head of TV News
- Amanda Farnsworth
- 26 Sep 06, 03:15 PM
We've had a few comments about our coverage of , after she was mauled by two Rottweiler dogs.
Did we vilify Rottweilers? Did we create panic amongst dog owners? I think the answer to the latter point is no, judging by the responses from the audience I've seen, but it's a fair point, and a good thing for us to take a look at our coverage and see what we said.
Looking back I really don't think we demonised the dogs. They did kill a child, and it's news exactly because it is very unusual. Every broadcast outlet and national newspaper covered this story for this reason. But we didn't refer to them as "devil dogs".
I think it would have been irresponsible for us to speculate on the exact circumstances that led to the dogs attacking the child, because we simply didn't know them and we couldn't blame parents, friends or family - we had no information.
We did however put some context about controlling dogs in the coverage from the local councillor (watch the report here).
Personally, I am a big animal lover, and know two Rottweilers. I wouldn't want our coverage to imply any blanket assertion about any breed. I hope in this case we didn't.
Amanda Farnsworth is editor, Daytime News
- David Kermode
- 22 Sep 06, 04:51 PM
Richard Hammond . His doctors are apparently "cautiously optimistic".
When news of his accident broke on Wednesday night, details were sketchy. It had an, "oh god, that's awful" factor, and I was in doubt that it should lead Thursday morning's Breakfast.
Decisions over which story should get most prominence are often very difficult. Thursday morning's news agenda was relatively quiet and this story stood out to me, and the rest of the team working on the programme.
Was it the right lead? There's definitely a debate to be had. Quite a few viewers got in touch, either by email and text during the show, or by the more formal complaints procedure route, to suggest it was the wrong call.
"Is there nothing more important going on in the world?" was one view. "The coverage was excessive," was the view of many others. One person even complained that the accident "was self inflicted and should not be news".
At the same time, we had a big response from people who wanted to relay their shock and pass on their best wishes for Richard's recovery. We use a panel of viewers to monitor which news stories have the most impact and which stories viewers want to know more about. The answer, on both counts, was 'Richard Hammond's accident'.
We don't always get the choice of lead story right and the clarity provided by hindsight is powerful. However, on this occasion, I would stick with our choice of lead. He is a well known and much loved presenter, he was attempting something extraordinary and, as we now know, there was a huge amount of interest in what happened and in his condition.
I share my thoughts on this not because I think they are necessarily particularly important (self important journalists annoy people) but because I think it's important to try to shed light on our decision-making process.
What's much more important is that he recovers - and there are clearly so many people out there who want to see him back on screen as soon as possible.
David Kermode is editor of
- Peter Barron
- 22 Sep 06, 04:02 PM
Every time we run an item about climate change - which let's face it is quite often - we get a number of complaints about media hysteria.
"Oh no! Branson has just pledged 3 billion to fight Global Warming. ANOTHER excuse for Newsnight to champion the cause. It is becoming so tiresome."
"By your own standards tonight's item on global warming was a disgrace... One oversimplified interpretation of global warming is now force-fed to the public."
"Exxon funding groups critical of the increasing hysteria around climate change? Great news!"
Then you get articles like Tom Utley's in the Mail today, railing against the bien pensants of the 麻豆社, using to dismiss concerns about melting ice-caps his own ice-in-gin-and-tonic theory. It goes like this. If the doomsayers are right why doesn't your gin and tonic overflow when the ice melts?
I remember debating that one myself - a little incoherently - over iced drinks in my student days about 20 year ago.
So are we at the 麻豆社 peddling some sinister international climate change myth, or are sceptics like Mr Utley in hock to the CO2 nay-sayers of big business?
Neither I think. For years on Newsnight we've reported concerns about the effects of climate change with caution, due scepticism and balance. But at a certain point I think you've got to assemble all the available evidence and decide whether the threat is real or not. I think we're past that point and that the threat is real.
It doesn't necessarily mean, as Mr Utley mocks, that his beloved Norfolk will be under the sea any time soon, it's much more likely surely that Britain will feel the strain from the refugees from the effects of climate change who will make their way to our shores.
So what explains the staying power of the sceptics' argument?
One possibility is that they're right. But I think the real reason is that subconsciously many of us hope they're right. If Mr Blair really believed climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism, for example, wouldn't he devote more of his energies more urgently to it?
And Ethical Man aside, wouldn't you and I change our lifestyles more than the bits around the edges we've done so far?
I think most of us have an inner George Bush, or a part which is in denial and believes it can 't be as bad as all that, that surely something will turn up.
I hope we're right.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Richard Porter
- 21 Sep 06, 01:44 PM
If you'd been watching 麻豆社 World at 23:50 GMT last night, you would have seen a report about the Thai prime minister arriving in London, after flying from the United Nations in New York.
Except in Thailand, however. There, just as the report began, a caption appeared in place of our signal to say "programming will resume shortly" - and then, bizarrely, a montage of Western movie stars appeared. We'd been censored... as we have been since the coup began on Tuesday.
Things have got a little better. Initially we were taken off air completely, as were CNN. We re-appeared yesterday morning, Thai time, but since then have both been subject to selective censorship.
Footage of the coup leaders appears to be allowed to go out uncensored, but anything involving Thaksin Shinawatra is being blocked. Does this mean, however, that the Thai people know nothing of what he is saying?
I doubt it very much. In this digital age, information travels freely - if it's not by satellite television, it's via email, the Internet, or by SMS. The crude censorship being deployed in Thailand may hark back to an age when Governments really could control all the information, and surely those days are gone.
Incidentally, we know exactly what's happening thanks to our colleagues at , based at . They have been carefully monitoring all the media reports in Thailand, and I'm grateful to them for providing us with the necessary information.
So last night they were able to tell us more details about the terms of the censorship, by monitoring a report on the Thai Channel 9. This is the text of the statement read out:
"Having successfully seized the executive power of the country, the Administrative Reform Committee under the Democratic System with the King as the Head of State commands the ICT Ministry to censor, prevent, block out, and destroy dissemination of information in the information technology system, transmitted through all communication networks, that contains articles, messages, verbal speech or any other discourse that might undermine the reform for democracy under constitutional monarchy as already specified in the Administrative Reform Committee Under the Democratic System With the King as the Head of State's earlier announcement."
Perhaps we should be grateful that at least they're admitting to censoring the media. This morning there was a bit more detail to accompany that statement. 麻豆社 Monitoring reports the Thai Nation newspaper's website as saying...
"The permanent secretary for Information and Communications Technology Ministry Thursday (21 Sep) held a meeting with representatives of various media. Kraisorn Pornsutee, the permanent secretary, asked the media representatives to cancel the show of SMS comments of audience on TVs as well as cancelling phone-in comments on radio programmes. Those attending the meeting were representatives of state firms, website operators, mobile phone operators, print and electronic media. The meeting took place at 13:30 local time (06:30 GMT). Kraisorn also asked the website operators to monitor comments on their webboard to screen out provocative comments."
So the authorities are trying to restrict the new media as well as the "traditional". As I've said, I doubt if that can really be effective. But it would be interesting to see what you think about that - especially if you're in Thailand...
Richard Porter is Head of News,
- Jon Williams
- 15 Sep 06, 10:35 AM
麻豆社 News has bureaux in 39 foreign cities - but only in one can we go anywhere, anytime and broadcast live for radio and television using the web.
So where is this technological nirvana - Tokyo, Los Angeles, Brussels?
The answer might surprise you - it's Kabul. The city is one of the first in the world to be a giant wireless zone. Using "wi-max" and a trusty laptop, correspondent Alastair Leithead can broadcast from pretty much anywhere in Kabul - and all at a fraction of the cost of traditional satellite links.
Using a small black box on the roof of the car, the team in Kabul can pick up a 512k broadband signal right across the Afghan capital - and all powered from the cigarette lighter in the car. Gone are the days when we had to fly out staff and equipment from London to make this stuff happen.
Why does it matter?
Because Afghanistan is now rivalling Iraq as one of our biggest stories. Thirty British servicemen and women have been killed there since June. The 麻豆社 is the only international broadcaster to have a permanent presence in Kabul - and by harnessing the latest technology, it means that money we used to spend delivering the news from remote places in the world can now be spent on gathering the news. And that has to be good news.
Jon Williams is world news editor
- Jamie Donald
- 13 Sep 06, 10:31 AM
One of the perils of being an editor is the brainstorm - that time when you know the ideas need refreshing, and you ask the team to come together to think up new ways of covering the same situations and stories.
You tell them - and you think you mean it - ‘the crazier the better’, ‘nothing is ruled out’, ‘think laterally’, and - most foolishly of all - ‘you can decide on the best ones and I promise we’ll carry them through’.
In the fashionable backwater that is political programmes we don’t have ‘watering holes’ or ‘green hat, red hat’ games when we brainstorm: we toss them out over drinks, laugh about them and vote.
And so it is that political programmes will be taking a Little Andrew Neil and a Little Jenny Scott to the conferences this year, and I have to defend it as a brilliant idea.
Over 600 kids entered our competition - run with Newsround - to find a ‘Little Andrew and Little Jenny’. Thirty have been shortlisted and interviewed by phone. And the winners are 12-year-old Christopher Duffy from Inverclyde, and 12-year-old Becky Philips from Devon. We’ll take them to each conference for a day to report and interview leading politicians. And they’ll start with Sir Menzies Campbell at the Liberal Democrats conference a week on Monday.
You may say it’s a straight rip off of Little Ant and Little Dec on ITV, and so neither original nor appropriate to serious political coverage. Fair enough. But for me there are at least two good reasons for doing this, apart from the fact that it’s different and fun.
Politics is no longer the draw it used to be. Viewing figures are falling. Fewer people are voting. And most alarmingly, the average age of those who say they’re interested in politics is rising sharply. Very few people under the age of 45 take our political processes and institutions seriously. So 600 young hopefuls is a fantastic return before we’ve even started. And if it draws just a few more younger viewers to the conference coverage this autumn, and introduces the million and a half who watch Newsround every day to this annual political event, we’ll have done a public service.
The other reason: Little Ant and Little Dec got to interview the prime minister, and put to him some very challenging questions. For four years, Mr Blair and Mr Brown have consistently refused to be interviewed for the 麻豆社’s conference coverage, believing it doesn’t reach the people they want to speak to. Maybe now they’ll change their minds.
Jamie Donald is editor of live political programmes
- Gary Smith
- 12 Sep 06, 12:57 PM
Should the 麻豆社’s political editor, Nick Robinson, have asked about UK politics during press conferences over the last three days given by Tony Blair with the Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese leaders?
Nick’s questions - used in his reports on TV and radio bulletins - have sparked a heated debate on his blog. Some contributors feel they were totally inappropriate - “an embarrassment to his profession.” - one says that asking about important domestic issues is valid “anywhere at any time.”
It’s a tricky issue. On foreign trips like this, a group of newspaper journalists, broadcasters and agency reporters travels with the prime minister, and - often to the bemusement of foreign leaders - takes every opportunity to pester Mr Blair about what’s going on back in the UK.
At the 麻豆社 we try to do more than this. We have huge numbers of different programmes and platforms and audiences with different interests, and we try to cater for everyone.
So yes, of course we ask about domestic politics; but we cover the diplomatic story as well, allowing editors back in London to decide which angle is the right one at a particular time for their audience.
In the Middle East over the past few days, we’ve had Nick Robinson and Five Live’s John Pienaar in place to pursue domestic politics; but we’ve also had the Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, and correspondents based in the region such as James Reynolds, Matthew Price and Alan Johnston on the diplomatic story.
The reporting across three days has reflected different aspects of the developing stories.
So for example the 麻豆社 One Ten O’clock News on Sunday night led with Gordon Brown’s interview with Andrew Marr, and included Tony Blair’s reaction to it, which Nick Robinson then talked about from Jerusalem. But the programme also included a report by Jeremy Bowen on the substance of what the prime minister had discussed with Mahmoud Abbas.
Would it have been right for Nick Robinson NOT to have taken the opportunity to ask Mr Blair about what his Chancellor had said? Surely not – domestic politics can’t be put on hold while the prime minister travels abroad.
Political junkies will remember only too well Margaret Thatcher’s performance on the steps of the British Embassy in Paris in November 1990 after she’d failed to beat Michael Heseltine outright in the first vote for the Conservative Party leadership.
The 麻豆社’s fearless chief political correspondent, John Sergeant, pounced with his killer question: “Mrs Thatcher, could I ask you to comment?”
Her spokesman Bernard Ingham then brushed Sergeant to one side to allow Mrs Thatcher to declare her intention to fight on. Two days later, she resigned.
Who remembers now that she was actually attending a meeting about European security? I’m sure John Sergeant was right NOT to ask about that.
When the history books are written about this past weekend, will Mr Blair’s Middle East trip be remembered as a moment when negotiations restarted between the different sides in the Middle East, or as a significant staging post on Mr Blair’s way out of Downing Street. As the old reporting cliché goes, only time will tell.
But at least Nick Robinson’s questions opened up the possibilities for alternative versions of history.
Gary Smith is editor of political news
- Kevin Marsh
- 11 Sep 06, 12:07 PM
When we asked 麻豆社 journalists - a lot of them - what they most wanted to do for them, one answer dominated the list: "Make me more confident about the Law".
All conscientious journalists care about contempt and defamation - the journalist who puts a foot wrong in either area can find him or herself personally liable for damages, a fine or even a spell in prison. And self-interest aside, it can never be the aim of any journalist to spread an untruth or interfere with the processes of the courts.
Hence the College's recently launched legal online course for staff covering defamation and contempt - modules on copyright and contract follow next year - supplemented by face-to-face courses for all and sessions aimed at senior journalists.
But however excellent, detailed and interactive a course is, it's only the beginning. Journalists also have to become confident in applying the principles they learn, absorb and practice on the online and face-to-face courses - and as any media lawyer will tell you, all cases are different. Perhaps the most important thing for a journalist to take away from any law course is an ear more finely tuned to the alarm bell that alerts them to the need to seek expert legal advice on the specifics of their piece - to avoid being too cautious as much as too reckless.
Take an example. Last week, Raphael Rowe presented raising important questions about the scientific evidence used in the trial of Barry George, the man convicted for the murder of Jill Dando. Raphael also interviewed two of the jurors in George's trial - revealing uneasiness about the scientific evidence and suggesting that some members of the jury had ignored the trial judge's instructions not to discuss the case outside the jury room.
Those interviews will have sent many journalists scurrying to find their copy of the legal bible "McNae's Essential Law for Journalists" to confirm their - possibly vague - memory that there is a blanket ban on interviewing members of a jury; that it is a clear contempt of court.
As it happens, that's not quite the case... though as a rule of thumb, it's not a bad one; the 1981 Contempt of Court act makes it an offence to "seek or disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of its deliberations". And a 1994 House of Lords ruling made it clear that the intention of the act was to keep "the secrets of the jury room inviolate". Plus, some lawyers believe that the identification of any juror is itself a contempt.
So what to do when a careful, lengthy investigation uncovers evidence that the conduct of the jury in a case might have rendered a conviction unsafe? And that evidence is voiced by the jurors themselves?
I wasn't privy to the discussions between Raphael, Panorama and the lawyers; but it's clear that the decision to broadcast the juror interviews was made in the specific context of the programme and on very precise grounds. As a humble viewer, I was able to detect no questions were put or offered concerning the deliberations in the jury room - and any conversations outside the jury room were contrary to the judge's express instructions; Raphael pointed up more than once in his script that he was aware of the legal restrictions; and, of course, the matter was one of great public interest.
The challenge for the College is to make sure that our journalists are aware of the way in which the law is applied in cases like this - and don't draw the wrong conclusions. It would be wrong, for example, to conclude from this Panorama special that interviewing jurors was now fine in all cases.
The Panorama decision also illustrates another truth about the application of the law - and another challenge for the College. In very few cases where there's a legal risk is the decision to cut or broadcast a clear one. Almost always, the editorial team has to make its decision based on the balance of risk - and since most defamation cases, for example, are settled out of court, there are often too few similar precedents to be a clear and unequivocal guide. In the end, though, it is always should be an editorial decision informed by precise legal advice.
The College can do two things; provide the knowledge that no journalist should lack through online and face-to-face courses; and second, to provide awareness of important cases and decisions. In the end, though, the most important lesson is that all cases are different and there is no substitute for detailed, specialist advice.
Kevin Marsh is editor of the 麻豆社 College of Journalism
- Ben Rich
- 8 Sep 06, 05:40 PM
There are two problems with having your programme .
One is that he's a distinguished , so the defence of muttering "what would he know about news programmes anyway" is unavailable.
The other is that he is a pre-eminent prose stylist whose polemics are laced with cutting phrases - in this case describing the Six O'clock News as a "parody of something between Down Your Way and Nationwide".
His ire had been raised by our decision to send Natasha Kaplinsky out for a week to places ranging from Dorset to Glasgow to present a series of segments on social change under the banner "The Changing Face of Britain" - you can watch some of the reports by clicking here.
He took up his pen after watching the first, in which we went to Christchurch in Dorset, the town with the most elderly population in Britain, to report on what might be the future for many other parts of the country. The segment contained a report from Richard Bilton, a piece by Natasha looking at what the town was like decades ago and an interview with the 71 year old Mayor of the town about what it was like to live there.
Now I would be the first to admit that this wasn't the strongest of the five stories we covered in Six on Tour - and if I'm honest the interview with the Mayor was a bit too local in content - but there is a more general point that Martin Bell was making. Should we be out in this way - sending a presenter to cover the growing elderly population (or the exodus of young people from Wales, Polish immigrants doing the jobs Asians used to do in the Midlands, town dwellers moving to the country, and Glasgow's record in dealing with asylum seekers as we did on the other days) in this way, when there are people dying in Afghanistan, Iraq and, on Monday, a British tourist shot in Jordan.
Of course we did cover events in the Middle East well ahead of Six on Tour. But his question remains valid - why did we devote eight minutes a night to being on the road like this? There are a number of answers I would give. Principal among them I would say that the issues we covered were important and that they sometimes get lost in among the more urgent daily stories.
But we did have a wider purpose than that - to get our programme out among some of the audiences we serve to report on things that were happening locally, but had some greater national resonance. Our reporters and Natasha also appeared in the local newspapers and on local media, providing more potential viewers with a reminder of the service we offer. And our overnight research showed that our report on the elderly was the programme item people most wanted to know more about.
As a man with a full 麻豆社 career behind him, who looks set to continue using his talents for many years to come, I might have hoped Martin Bell himself would have agreed with that.
Ben Rich is deputy editor, One and Six O'Clock news
- Peter Barron
- 8 Sep 06, 02:21 PM
There's always been a debate about what is and isn't acceptable on TV news programmes, and now that we have blogs, forums and podcasts it's only getting more complicated. And should Newsnight's on-line persona be exactly the same as that on TV? Here are a few of this week's posers.
• Our Ethical Man Justin Rowlatt caused a degree of outrage when, in a film about cycling proficiency (watch it here), he asked a youngster if he was "pissed off". By today's standards that's hardly obscene and I'm sure the minor in question had heard, and probably said, much worse, but I must admit I spluttered into my cocoa watching at home.
On the other hand, when I used the term "crap prizes" in a response on this blog, I was surprised that some viewers thought that was inappropriate language for the editor of Newsnight, even in an obscure corner of the blogosphere.
• A few of you have been writing on the blog complaining that some of your comments have been censored and asking why. In short, I don't know. On Newsnight, we censor nothing that appears on the site, but we do employ an outside moderating company who check for, among other things, "profane, abusive or threatening language" (full guidelines here).
So, in response to a question about graffiti scrawled on his abandoned car, the foul-mouthed Justin's strictly factual response was barred from publication. I'm not going to repeat it here, but it begins with "w".
• Where does informality end and falling standards begin? Yesterday on the website, we asked you - as a diverting pastime while we waited for Mr Blair - to construct a statement which might get the PM off the hook. About 300 hundred of you obliged, but one bridled: "I find this exercise pretty stupid for the level that 麻豆社 and Newsnight traditionally were holding and still claim to hold."
• I enjoyed the fact that when Laura Kuenssberg said that Jack Straw had been talking in the past tense some of you pulled her up, pointing out he was actually talking in the present perfect (the operative phrase was "has been"). Then again - as some of you have also raised - the standard of spelling and grammar among viewers' contributions to the blog is sometimes pretty appalling. Not what we would expect from Newsnight viewers.
• Two quick ones which raised eyebrows inside and outside the programme. Tony Blair portrayed as Christ at the Last Supper as an illustration of . Blasphemy or genius? And what about Kirsty's description of Gordon Brown's command and control network as Al-Qaeda-like? One of our own programme editors thought that was appalling.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Fran Unsworth
- 18 Aug 06, 09:01 AM
Some blogs, as well as emails we've received, have said that 麻豆社 correspondents are failing to report that when covering the war, they are operating under reporting restrictions imposed by Hezbollah. Others complain that we did not refer to Israeli censorship rules on air. I'd like to answer those points.
One of the forms that all journalists sign, to be accredited members of the press on arrival in Israel, is a promise that you will obey the rules of the military censor. In the context of the latest war in South Lebanon, those rules mean - we are not allowed to report any Hezbollah hits on military bases, not allowed to broadcast news of ministerial visits to the frontline until ministers are safely back out of Hezbollah’s range.
And if rockets land whilst we are live on air, we have to be vague as to where they fall (the theory being that Hezbollah may be watching 麻豆社 World or equivalent, and using our information to help them calibrate their rockets launchers). Also we are not allowed to report on military casualties until the Israeli censor says so.
In practice, Israel finds these rules very hard to enforce. It is a small, talkative country and the media usually finds out about casualties quickly. The rolling news networks based outside the country are not bound by the censorship rules, so if they find out from other sources they will broadcast.
James Reynolds, one of our correspondents reporting from Northern Israel, writes...
“Throughout the conflict we have pretty good access to soldiers, generals and ministers - all extremely keen to put Israel’s case to the international media. By and large we’ve been allowed to go wherever we want on the Israeli side of the border. We’ve often driven straight into Israeli bases right next to the frontline - in the middle of battle preparations - and nobody has kicked us out.”
So what about Hezbollah? Were they any better able to control what reporters can and cannot see? Jim Muir - our correspondent who has just spent the last month based in Southern Lebanon - says...
“There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such - there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort. There was however an issue at the beginning of the conflict over the live broadcast of pictures of rockets going out from locations visible from our live camera position. We were visited by Hezbollah representatives and told that by showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives, and that our equipment would be confiscated.”
Editors in London discussed both how we should handle both this request, and the Israel rules, in terms of what we said on air.
We agreed that rather than begin each broadcast with a 'health warning' to audiences, we would only refer to it if it was relevant. If rockets started to go off while were live on air, we would not show the exact location but would tell the audience that we had been asked by Hezbollah not to; on the grounds they claimed it endangered civilian lives.
In the event the situation never arose. Apart from that one incident we have been free to report whatever we wanted.
On the Israeli side, we agreed to refer to the censorship rules when it prevented us from reporting anything. In practice, it never did, so we did not see the need to mention it.
Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering
- Peter Barron
- 17 Aug 06, 04:25 PM
In recent months the Newsnight website has been growing like . , blog, forum etc. And as result of this rapid organic growth it's become a bit unruly.
Some of you aren't impressed. Ian Mc sent us this - "I don't think I've seen such a mess of a home page since... well, I don't know when... Web designers should ALWAYS remember: just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."
Stung by that challenge we've resolved to enter a period of rationalisation.
Let us know what you love and hate, what you visit all the time, what you never visit but are glad is there. Some of you have said - is your forum a forum or is it a blog, and vice versa? Does it matter what it is? Tell us what would make it better.
Is there simply too much stuff? Website design fashion seems these days to be heading towards the minimal, personally I like the excitement of having loads to explore. What do you reckon?
Do you want to read long articles, view video, download podcasts or talk to each other? If there was a Newsnight Club, with all sorts of low cost freebies, would you join? And are there features we should quietly put out of their misery? In our office the cry of "Kill " has gone up. Should we?
The pruning shears are in your hands.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Amanda Farnsworth
- 14 Aug 06, 06:41 PM
It's all been pretty confusing for passengers - just exactly what can you take as hand luggage on a plane?
So some bright spark on the Six O'Clock News came up with the idea of making our own baggage size checker, and taking it to passengers so they could find out on the spot whether their bag would pass muster.
So we did it - in fact our friends at C麻豆社 made it for us for free. Not quite sure why they did, but they did...
It turns out lots of passengers are still bringing the old size hand luggage and getting told to repack - perhaps every check in desk should get one of our size checkers - we could start our own business!
Amanda Farnsworth is editor, Daytime News
- Ben Rich
- 8 Aug 06, 08:13 AM
If we're not careful, it's going to become something of a theme.
Last week the Six O'Clock News ran a piece showing a dangerous game being played by teenagers on a playground roundabout - in which a motorbike engine was used to drive it around at ever greater speeds, with two teenage girls hanging on grimly in the middle. Yesterday it was a fireman who got spun round inside an industrial tumble-dryer to the vast amusement of his friends, and the horror of fire service bosses (watch it for yourself here).
In neither case was anyone injured, but they might have been. Why did we do these stories?
Well, one discussion we've had recently concerns what we should do about things that a large number of people are clearly interested in, but which do not have some political or other wider significance. These are the kind of items that get filmed these days and end up being passed around, sometimes to literally millions of people, via e-mail, or are watched by huge numbers via internet sites.
Many are just curiosities, but sometimes a particular piece of human folly strikes a chord and has that shock factor that makes people want to see it - and we've decided that at least sometimes they should be able to even if they do not have access to the web.
What made these two more relevant is that they were cautionary tales that happily did not end in tragedy and could serve as a warning.
Now that's all very well, but what about the risk of copycats? Of course that is something we have to consider (for example 麻豆社 guidelines make it clear that we should never show in detail the way people prepare and take illegal drugs) but you could argue that we might actually stop a few people doing these things too.
It's a difficult calculation to make and a potentially troublesome one for a journalist. Should we show people driving dangerously? What about film of anti-social behaviour?
I believe that as editors we have to have a fairly high threshold for censoring something just because it might lead to imitators. So long as we point out the dangers, we then have to leave it to people's own good sense, the control exerted by parents and, in this particular case, the difficulty of finding industrial-sized tumble dryers.
Ben Rich is deputy editor, One and Six O'Clock news
- Daniel Pearl
- 7 Aug 06, 02:05 PM
Have you been emailed about ? Or maybe ? If you're like me you've probably been sent both.
There is an enormous online campaign by both sides to persuade the world that the media is biased one way or another in its reporting of the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
Yesterday the story took an unexpected turn. Reuters announced that it has dropped a freelance photographer after, Reuters claim, he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut to show more smoke (details ).
"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," , the head of public relations for Reuters.
But what are the chances of the online community believing that? On Newsnight tonight we'll be discussing the images the public sees, how they are chosen and whether they are manipulated.
Leave a comment and let me know what you want us to include in the programme.
UPDATE, TUESDAY 1015: Click here to watch the item that went out last night (including an interview with Paul Holmes from Reuters).
Daniel Pearl is deputy editor of Newsnight
- Mark Barlex
- 7 Aug 06, 11:58 AM
Update. Update.
STORYFix is now available as a news take-away video podcast (vodcast?). Get it , or, excitingly, from itself, although it's yet to displace Ricky Gervais - or Newsnight, for that matter - at or near the top of the Apple hit parade.
It's the same content, brought to you in a different way. Let me know what you think.
Mark Barlex is responsible for STORYfix
- Peter Barron
- 4 Aug 06, 02:20 PM
Though it pains me to say it, Jeremy Paxman's has been proved comprehensively right.
Viewers prefer their TV with pictures. Following the launch just last week of , our digital digest of the best bits of the week has shot straight to number one in news podcast chart. Ms Kitcast has been duly dispatched and , who has dominated the overall podcast chart for months, sleeps a little less easily as Paxman and co. storm to number 14 in that chart. For those without the technology or a quaint preference for TV without pictures, is still available at number 30 .
On this week's chart-topping edition there's another chance to see the week's most controversial moment - oddly enough from the comfortable world of designer knitwear. On Monday we asked the fashion designer Bella Freud to take part in a discussion among members of Britain's Jewish diaspora about their reaction to the events in Lebanon. Ms Freud's empassioned denunciation of the Israeli offensive provoked plenty of comment.
"Why on Earth have you got a fashion designer yarbling on about the Lebanon crisis?" wrote Neil Briscoe from Bristol, reflecting the view of many. Good word that, yarbling.
But Penelope Allen of Cornwall disagreed. "What a lovely lady Bella Freud is, if only all people behaved the way she does the world would be a better place." Better dressed too.
Even family members of the production team joined in. Download the podcast to check out the choice language of one - she'd better stay anonymous - who phoned in to berate her relative's booking.
Controversial too, and timely, was John Harris's report (watch here) this week on Cuba's healthcare system to launch our series on .
Of course, as many of you pointed out, Cuba's communist system has all manner of problems, but the statistics show that Cuba's health record compares very favourably with countries of the first world. Two points leapt out of John's report - Cuba's poverty has taught the country's health professionals that prevention is cheaper than cure, and because of the US embargo most Cubans live on the equivalent of war-time rations. During the Second World War, we Britons weren't obese either.
The aim of the exercise is not to suggest we import Cuban healthcare practices wholesale into Britain, but given the challenging state of our own public services, surely we'd be mad or very arrogant to think there's nothing we can learn from them.
And this is where we'd like your help. Many - probably most - subscribers to this blog and to our podcast are living abroad. Leave a comment and let us know what works where you are in terms of healthcare, education, transport, criminal justice. Or state broadcasting.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Piers Parry-Crooke
- 3 Aug 06, 01:15 PM
On Monday the economics editor Evan Davis turned in a neat little piece for the Ten O'Clock News about the heatwave. It started out as quite a serious concept - "let's say something new about the impact on the economy" - but turned a bit more fluffy.
The question "does the thermometer have an agent?" probably gives a flavour (you can watch the piece by clicking here).
In a roundabout way this illustrates that economists aren't limited to things like J curves and monetary policy. Evan, for example, sometimes does essays for the Today programme about obscurely fascinating pieces of research. And from time to time economists gather somewhere in the world to exchange papers on apparently trivial subjects; a well known one, I hear - and some years ago - is an examination of why people don't sit in the front row at public meetings (that's not just a shyness thing).
But more importantly, the truth is there's pretty much nothing an economist won't take a look at, and often find something new to say about it. The reason being that economics is not just the study of big economy things: look no further than the popularity of the book Freakonomics. And, coming soon on 麻豆社 Two, a series called "Trust me, I'm an Economist" - one programme is about love.
Consider too a few recent pieces on radio and TV displaying what you might call the economist's take - why finishing the 2012 Olympic stadium too early would be a costly mistake; more controversially, why closing hospitals or wards can be a sign that NHS reforms are working. Interesting stuff. If you want to hear more about how economics relates to the small things in life as well as the big, maybe we can wheel out Mr Davis here to enthuse...
Piers Parry-Crooke is assignments editor in the business and economics unit
- Fran Unsworth
- 1 Aug 06, 10:30 AM
You would have had to have been in hibernation for the past few years to have missed the ascent of the environment up the news agenda. We have been suffering a heat wave this week that many people have found unpleasant, the south east is crippled with drought and the UK apparently now produces award-winning wine because we can grow vines successfully in this country.
Many are questioning whether climate change is responsible for all this; others argue these events are cyclical.
There is a huge responsibility on us to be a trusted and reliable source of information. But to report the subject properly we have to look not only at the science, but also the impact of environmental issues on economics, business and politics. Like all journalistic organisations we tend to have difficulty doing joined-up reporting.
That's why we have decided to appoint an environment analyst to try to pull together some of these threads. Roger Harrabin has covered the environment for two decades, largely for radio where he has reported the story as it appears through energy, transport, housing and politics.
In his new post he will spread this approach across a wider range of 麻豆社 outlets offering original stories and new perspectives, and tackling such subjects as...
• What is a safe level of climate change?
• Can technology provide the solution?
• How much would we need to spend to stabilise the world's climate?
• Can we adapt to climate change?
Hopefully through his work (such as this report on last night's Ten O'Clock News), audiences will be armed with more information to help better understand controversial and complex issues surrounding the subject.
Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering
- Barney Jones
- 26 Jul 06, 12:39 PM
So, I was pilloried by The Thunderer on Monday - that's - for having such enthusiasm for Hezbollah that I must in fact be the leader of this organisation.
Quite a damning attack on a long-standing and relatively anonymous staffer steeped in the ethos of objectivity and fair play. An ethos perhaps not applicable to columnists who earn a living from being provocative; making waves.
But what to do? The news of this full-frontal attack reached me rather late in the day. After working in Television Centre most of the weekend, I headed off for the wilderness of the Brecon Beacons on Sunday evening, with my teenage son. Come Monday lunchtime, arriving at a hilltop that picked up a faint mobile phone signal, I learned of the damaging denunciation.
and I agreed that since the piece was wrong in detail, as well as broad implication, a response was essential. He prepared a brief eloquent letter and I offered a more detailed lumbering explanation. An amalgam was eventually submitted to the Times letters page and .
The programme on Sunday 23rd (which you can currently watch here) was not, as stated by Pollard, "mostly... given over to events in the Middle East". It was centred on a long interview with the deputy prime minister, the first live TV interview since his personal and political life imploded three months ago.
Attacks for being too tough or too soft on Prezza I anticipated. Masterminding Hezbollah was a surprise.
The sole interview with any player with a direct tie-in to the Middle East was with a minister in the Lebanese government. A brief interview with a woman who is not aligned with Hezbollah, whose husband was assassinated in a bombing she believes was associated with Syrian factions, and who was questioned by Marr about the culpability of Hezbollah for the mayhem now engulfing her country.
With Israeli troops massing on the border, the interview seemed entirely appropriate and was followed by a live link with the 麻豆社's man in Jerusalem for an overview of the diplomatic manoeuvres and the Israeli government’s stated response to the British minister – just arrived – and the American minister – arriving shortly.
The previous weeks’s programme was rather more Middle East orientated. It featured a substantial interview with the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres (watch it here), followed by a briefer interview with the former Palestinian negotiator Hanan Ashrawi (watch that here). And earlier in the month, the acting Israeli ambassador to London was interviewed on his own.
Zionist plots on these occasions? Don’t be absurd!
Pollard also lambasted us for the paper review. It started with the Middle East, as many papers did, but covered a host of other topics including domestic politics. The two reviewers were chosen to reflect different facets of UK politics, as they usually are. A former Tory MP and a current Labour MEP. In the minority of the review that was devoted to the Middle East, both indicated that they thought the Israeli response disproportionate. In an ideal world we would have two reviewers with differing views on this contentious subject. However the fact that these two distinguished figures both happen to share a perspective does not, surely, disbar them from comment.
The Beeb doesn’t always get it right and this blog is one forum for those of us charged with producing programmes to put our hands up and say “sorry”. Indeed it’s essential that we all consider carefully what we do, strive to follow the 麻豆社 guidelines and admit when we’ve got it wrong. I’m convinced, however, that the Pollard attack was unwarranted.
And I think that a visit to the Sunday AM website, which hosts transcripts of all the interviews - and a record of who appeared each week - will reassure most viewers that our record for fair play remains intact.
Barney Jones is the editor of Sunday AM
- Craig Oliver
- 24 Jul 06, 03:00 PM
Here are some stark statistics:
• Around 30 to 40 people are killed every day in the current Israel/Lebanon conflict.
• About 100 people are killed every day in the violence in Iraq.
• And 1,200 people are killed every day in the war in the Congo.
All three of these stories are due to appear on tonight's Ten O'Clock News. They will probably run in that order - with the Middle East getting by far the most attention.
Does this say something about how we value human life? It's a fair question and one I worry about.
Here is our reasoning for not reversing the order. The war in the Congo has been going on for decades - it is desperately important (as we will reflect tonight), and a story we will keep returning to. Similarly the Ten has led the way in attempting to show the scale of the violence in Iraq in recent months - we have regularly led the programme with stories from there, and the 麻豆社 is the only British broadcaster with a full time commitment to being there.
The Middle East needs more time and space for a variety of reasons:
• The sheer complexity of the situation requires space to help provide context and analysis.
• The current conflict plugs into so many other stories around the world, from what Tony Blair and George W. Bush call the "War on Terror", through to the price of oil, even the situation in Afghanistan.
• Many people fear the consequences of conflict in the Middle East more than anywhere else, and it is our job to help people understand a "scary world".
In short, our judgement is that Middle East is currently the biggest story in the world - by a wide margin - and it has the greatest implications for us all.
Craig Oliver is editor of the Ten O'Clock News
- Daniel Pearl
- 21 Jul 06, 01:38 PM
It's become a cliché that new technology has changed TV, for ever.
In some ways the biggest change is how much closer we, as programme makers, are to our audience. If you email us during the programme the chances are that, if I'm editing, I'll read your message almost instantly. So on Wednesday night Ian emailed me during the programme to say: "Why is your interviewer standing while Menzies Campbell is sitting?"
Now unfortunately for Ian, the item (watch it here) was prerecorded, so even if I had agreed with him that should sit, which I didn't, there wouldn't have been much I could have done. None the less, it's much easier for you all to tell us what you like and dislike, and the truth is we do read it. I recently found slumped in front of his computer. He looked despondent and when I asked why, he briefly showed me his email inbox.
Let's face it, it's not that difficult to guess 麻豆社 email addresses - and a hell of a lot of people take a punt on his. I didn't read any of his messages but I can reassure you all that, from the look on his face, he had.
Anyway, communication from you to us is not new. What I think is new is that we can now know what you are talking about and interested in without you ever telling us. Sounds sinister but it's not really. It takes seconds on a site like to discover what people are talking about and searching for. This has begun to make an impact on the programme.
So, for example, late on Monday night the most talked about subject was 's appearance on America's , in which he said that we are in the midst of a Third World War.
The next day we contacted Gingrich and that night he repeated his claims on Newsnight (watch it here). So in that sense blogging had an immediate impact on Newsnight's running order.
Also, we know what you are saying about us (really, we do).
If you write anything about Newsnight, or about me, on a blog, I'll probably find it via Technorati. So for example, I know that there's a whole debate going on about Ming Campbell's performance on Newsnight - the question being asked is whether Ming is the Lib Dems' Iain Duncan Smith... see or .
The thing I find strange about all this is that often people who write blogs, or contribute to them, somehow think that they are involved in a private forum.
I recently came across a comment claiming Jeremy disliked recording . I posted a response and the blogger seemed appalled - "the 麻豆社's watching us - spooky" was his reply. But if you write something about us on the internet surely I have every right to read it and respond - that's not spooky.
I had to confront this the other day. We often have students with us on work experience. Twice in the last 6 months I've come across blogs in which people trailing the programme have written things about the team. When I approached one of these people, her reponse was that the blog was supposed to be just for her and her friends!
It wasn't the confidentiality issue that bugged me, but that anyone would think that we as programme makers don't have as much right as everyone else to read what you're all writing, especially if you are writing about us. So, what do you think? Stick it on your blog and I'll respond.
Daniel Pearl is deputy editor of Newsnight
- Richard Porter
- 21 Jul 06, 11:05 AM
Consider these two items:
• "The sight of a huge flotilla of ships carrying thousands of foreigners out of harm's way has only served to highlight the plight of those left behind. Civilians - mostly, but not exclusively, Lebanese - are the main casualties. There is now a rising chorus of experts who have raised the question of international humanitarian law."
• "British navy warships and helicopters are in Beirut this lunchtime - to rescue more British nationals - trapped by the fighting in Lebanon. They're being loaded on to two Royal Navy vessels - which will take them to Cyprus later this afternoon."
Clearly two news organisations with vastly different views on the main story at midday (UK time) Thursday.
Actually, they're both the 麻豆社. One was 麻豆社 World, broadcasting to audiences outside the UK. The other was 麻豆社 News 24, the domestic news channel. And at lunchtime today we had very different ideas about what we wanted to concentrate on. It's a great thing about the 麻豆社 that we have sufficient editorial independence to be able to make these decisions. Both, in their own way, are very focused on the audiences served by the programmes. Neither (in my view) is more correct than the other.
At 麻豆社 World we have devoted a lot of time to the international operation taking people out of Lebanon. And it's true that we have looked at it more through British eyes - partly because for safety reasons we're sharing a lot of resources with domestic 麻豆社 outlets in Beirut.
But we've also reported on what nations like India, Sri Lanka and Canada have been doing. And we keep coming back to issues facing the people who can't leave the country. One of our longest-serving Middle East correspondents, Jim Muir, is in Tyre in southern Lebanon, which has been very badly hit by the bombardment. Gavin Hewitt has reported on Lebanese people trying to escape to Syria. And of course this is a story with two sides - so our correspondents in northern Israel have been reporting on the consequences of the missile attacks there. News 24 has covered the same issues - and at times we've been "simulcasting" - ie both channels carrying the same coverage, presented from both Beirut and Haifa.
The challenge for us - whether we be serving domestic or international audiences - is not to lose sight of all the issues. It's complicated; it's changing rapidly; opinions are strongly-held on all sides and need to be properly reflected. So even if we spend a few hours of one day focusing on one aspect - such as the British evacuees - we must make sure that over time we keep coming back to the core questions. What's happening now? What caused this? What's going to resolve it? And many others...
Richard Porter is editor of
- Adrian Van-Klaveren
- 20 Jul 06, 04:29 PM
So we at the 麻豆社 have had one of those “organisational moments”, making substantial changes to how we run ourselves.
included an emphasis on 麻豆社 Journalism as one of the main planks of what the 麻豆社 does – alongside Audio & Music and 麻豆社 Vision. The idea at the heart of 麻豆社 Journalism builds on what we’ve been doing over the last few years. We’ve worked hard to create stronger links between the 麻豆社’s journalistic output, locally, nationally and internationally. Sport now joins the mix as well.
Our aim is to ensure we fully achieve our mission of delivering the world’s best journalism and that what we do is available to as many people as possible across all appropriate platforms.
Of course this only really matters if it makes a difference to audiences. I think it will. It should help us be more ambitious in what we do across the big themes of our time – climate change, energy supply, China, global security and many more.
When all of the 麻豆社’s journalists work together we can give audiences an unrivalled insight into major issues. The expertise of the World Service, the innovation of our interactive teams, the grass roots understanding from our teams across the UK can all combine to strengthen our coverage of subjects ranging from immigration to the environment.
Of course it’s happened in the past but we know we can and should do more.
Secondly it’s vital that all areas of the 麻豆社’s journalism work together as we adapt to the changing technological world. Finding the right ways of offering content and the best technology to support that content needs to be thought about across the 麻豆社 – not just in individual areas.
What we provide in terms of news services to mobiles for example is likely to cuts across boundaries of local, national and international.
In a world where greater personalisation will be one of the key themes, audiences will be in control rather than our traditional boundaries and demarcations. There will be people who regularly want a diet of news which ranges from the local to the global and we need to make sure our way of doing things supports, rather than gets in the way of, providing this.
Journalism is at the heart of why the 麻豆社 exists. The changes to the organisation reflect this and I think can only encourage anyone who wants the 麻豆社 to continue to offer the best in on-the-spot reporting, analysis and explanation, robust interviewing and original story finding.
Adrian Van-Klaveren is deputy director of 麻豆社 News
The 麻豆社 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
