bbc.co.uk Navigation

Latest entry

Adrian Van-Klaveren

Remembering Mike Donkin


donkin203.jpgToday was the funeral of Mike Donkin, the BBC News correspondent who died of cancer last week at the age of 56.

There have been many tributes paid to Mike, who was not just a great reporter but a lovely man as well.

I worked with him many times as a television producer on the Six and Nine O’Clock news in the 1980s and 90s. Later, when I was running Newsgathering, Mike was providing radio and television reports of the highest quality from a huge variety of locations – he was always someone you could rely on absolutely to get the best from an assignment or story.

In tribute to Mike we have assembled a collection of some of his memorable reports. In 2002 he defied Robert Mugabe’s ban on BBC journalists entering Zimbabwe with some graphic reporting on conditions in the country. You can watch some of the results here.

iraqbaghdad.jpgIraq was a country Mike visited at various points in its recent troubled history. What Mike always tried to do was to make his stories come alive by telling the story of ordinary people and that particularly true in this piece.

One of the great things about Mike was the range of subjects he could cover. He was not a war specialist or someone who could only comfortably deal with softer features. His reports from the Pacific, as the world prepared for the new millennium, showed one of his defining characteristics - his power with the English language.

Libya is not an easy place to gain people’s trust and openness but this account shows how Mike made the effort to talk to people and get them to open up.

And in one of his final assignments Mike explored a theme of our age – the impact of migration across Europe. Being Mike, he found a fresh angle and produced a vivid report ,again based around the accounts of the people directly affected.

On this day more than any other, I think it’s right we allow Mike’s reporting to speak for him. His death has left a sense of loss and shock for all those who knew him in BBC News We often talk about the values we stand for; Mike was a great embodiment of them.

Adrian Van-Klaveren is deputy director, BBC News

Recent entries

Peter Barron

'Disastrous misjudgement?'


Last night on Newsnight, Dean Godson of the think tank Policy Exchange accused me personally (watch it here) of making a "disastrous editorial misjudgement" and of "appalling stewardship of Newsnight". I think I should respond to that.

Newsnight logoMr Godson was responding to Richard Watson's investigation (watch it here) into Policy Exchange's recent report - entitled "The Hijacking of British Islam" - which accused several leading mosques of selling extremist literature.

In October Newsnight had been due to run an exclusive report on the findings and Policy Exchange had given us the receipts to corroborate their claim that a quarter of the 100 mosques their researchers had visited were selling hate literature.

On the planned day of broadcast our reporter Richard Watson came to me and said he had a problem. He had put the claim and shown a receipt to one of the mosques mentioned in the report - The Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre in London. They had immediately denied selling the book and said the receipt was not theirs.

We decided to look at the rest of the receipts and quickly identified five of the 25 which looked suspicious. They appeared to have been created on a home computer, rather than printed professionally as you would expect. The printed names and addresses of some of the mosques contained simple errors and two of the receipts purportedly from different mosques appeared to have been written by the same hand.

Two of the receipts

I spoke to Policy Exchange to try to clear up these discrepancies but in the end I decided not to run the report. This is not because I "bottled" it as Mr Godson suggests, but because I did not have the necessary level of confidence in the evidence presented.

In the days that followed we focused further on the five receipts about which we had concerns and eventually asked a forensic scientist to analyse them. This is what we found.

1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.

2. The expert analysis showed that all five had been printed on an inkjet printer - suggesting they were created on a PC.

3. The analysis found "strong evidence" that two of the receipts were written by the same person.

4. The analysis found that one of the receipts had been written out while resting on another receipt said to be from a mosque 40 miles away.

Mr Godson says he stands by his report 100%. I also stand by our report 100%. I don't think we can both be right.

Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight

Host

Site anniversary

  • Host
  • 13 Dec 07, 10:03 AM

As part of the celebrations to mark the tenth anniversary of www.bbc.co.uk, Mike Smartt, founding editor of the BBC News website, writes here on the BBC Internet blog about some of the background to the site.

Alistair Burnett

The Kosovo question


What to do about Kosovo? The Serbian province that is populated overwhelmingly by Albanians who want nothing to do with Serbia, but which Serbs regard as the heartland of their culture and nationhood.

The World TonightThis is a question that we have been tracking on The World Tonight for the past two years (most recently this Monday which you can listen to here) since international efforts to push for a solution intensified. It is also a question that is now preoccupying the European Union - as it periodically preoccupied the Great Powers in the last two centuries along with Serbians and Albanians as well as the Ottoman Turks, of course, who ruled the place for several hundred years.

UN-sponsored talks between the Serbian government and Albanian leaders ended without agreement earlier this week and Kosovo is now saying it will go ahead and declare independence anyway. This presents a problem for the European Union because the EU is divided over whether to recognise the independence of Kosovo if that is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council - and that is unlikely given Russia is opposed to any solution to the Kosovo problem that is not agreed to by both the Serbs and the Albanians. As the Serbs are offering wide autonomy and the Albanians - backed by the United States - are demanded nothing but independence, a solution sanctioned by the Security Council that satisfies international law doesn't seem possible at this stage.

EU foreign ministers met again earlier this week in another attempt to agree a common approach. Ahead of the meeting, several ministers were making very optimistic noises that they were basically all agreed - except for Cyprus - that a unilateral Kosovo declaration of independence should be recognised despite Serbian and Russian opposition. The briefings to journalists ahead of the meeting were that the last countries which were unhappy with this policy - Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia - had come round because they were putting EU unity in the face of Russian pressure ahead of their objections to independence for Kosovo which are largely based on the precedent it could set for their own minority regions who may want to follow suit.

This seemed a bit odd given that both Slovakian and Romanian ministers, for example, have been quoted over recent days saying they would probably not be able to recognise Kosovo. So we've been asking for interviews with the foreign ministers from these countries, but to no avail, not one would come to the microphone. We also waited for a statement from the EU foreign ministers after their meeting. One arrived in my inbox on the situation in Lebanon and another on the Middle East peace process, but nothing on Kosovo.

Now we are being told EU leaders will discuss the issue at their summit starting today in Brussels. Maybe they will announce an agreement, but we are not holding our breath as it seems they are further away from an agreed position than they are suggesting.

So what should we report to listeners? When ministers and officials won't do interviews it makes for far less interesting radio and so we have the choice of getting one of our correspondents to do an interview in which they tell the audience what they are being told behind the scenes and then assess how reliable this is - in other words to describe the spin - which in my view is a technique subject to the law of diminishing returns - or we don't do the story at all at that moment. It would be interesting to know what you think the best approach is.

In the meantime, our reporter, Ray Furlong will be in Brussels trying to get that interview. Wish him luck.

Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight

Richard Sambrook

75 years of World Service


Seventy five years ago this week the BBC's first director general, Lord Reith, launched what was then called the BBC's Empire Service with these words:

World Service logo"Radio is an instrument of almost incalculable importance in the social and political life of the community. Its influence will more and more be felt in the daily life of the individual, in almost every sphere of human activity, in affairs national and international… It has been our resolve that the great possibilities and influences of the medium should be exploited to the highest human advantage… The service as a whole is dedicated to the best interests of mankind."

When he spoke, radio was a relatively new technology, much as the internet is today. In the 75 years since, BBC World Service, as it is now called, has attempted to live up to the high aspirations behind its launch.

It is no longer focused on Empire or Commonwealth of course. Its purpose today is to connect Britain and the world with a modern, genuinely international, service of high quality news and information. Global broadcasting is undergoing unprecedented growth with new international channels opening almost every month - Russia Today, France 24, Al Jazeera, Press TV from Iran and many more.

So it is an achievement that today more than 180 million people each week listen to the World Service - the highest audiences there have ever been - and surveys tell us it is still the most trusted international news service anywhere.

That's testament to the extent the service has developed during its lifetime. During World War II, "London Calling" was the iconic station identification - highly valued by audiences across Europe. Today, we have interactive discussion programmes like World Have Your Say, taking calls, texts, e-mails and letters from people in regions as disparate as Chennai and California, Kampala and Kuala Lumpur. Globalisation and international issues from terrorism to climate change, from failed states to economics and trade, to sport and entertainment link countries and cultures more than ever before.

The programmes are available in 33 languages including English, on traditional short wave, re-broadcast on FM stations around the world, on the internet, with sites in all 33 languages, and from 2008, on television in Arabic and Farsi.

To mark the 75th anniversary, there is a season of programmes about free speech debating the principles behind freedom of speech, looking at how news is produced, and discussing how international media can connect people around the world.

A global poll, released today, shows that opinion around the world is divided on free speech. While an average of 56% across all countries think that freedom of the press is important to ensure a free society, 40% believe that controlling what is reported may sometimes be necessary for the greater good. Of the countries where press freedom is most highly valued, Western developed countries are more critical of how honestly and accurately the news is reported. This suggests that the broadcasting of news and information around the world is as important - and contentious - today as it has ever been.

Richard Sambrook is director, Global News

Craig Oliver

Eight O'Clock summary


Tonight we're launching a new news summary on BBC One at 8pm (which I first wrote about here back in May). There'll be a UK section presented by Kate Silverton and a local section from each of the BBC Nations and Regions.

BBC Ten O'Clock News logoThe reason why it was commissioned is simple: audience research revealed that while BBC News remains extremely popular, it could do more to attract younger audiences and what the Americans call "blue collar workers". We discovered many people in these groups found traditional news programmes didn't speak to them and would prefer a different approach.

Before it's even been broadcast, the summary has already attracted a substantial number of column inches - even making the front page of Saturday's Daily Telegraph (though I'm not naïve enough to think this was more about the fine points of BBC editorial policy, than the large image of Kate Silverton).

Kate SilvertonMany of the articles have claimed this is an example of the BBC "dumbing down" - I believe this is wrong for a number of reasons:

1) The summary is an extra offering from BBC News. It won't replace anything - the Six and Ten O'Clock News, News 24 and Newsnight will still continue to offer a broad range of stories, analysis and debate.

2) It won't ignore the key stories of the day, but will tell them in an accessible way.

3) Encouraging as many people as possible to be interested in the news is surely a good thing, and one of the primary reasons why the BBC exists.

Many people rightly have very strong feelings about how BBC News is presented - I hope they will understand that different groups have different needs and tastes, and the BBC should aim to inform as many of them as it can.

Craig Oliver is editor of the Ten O'Clock News

Steve Herrmann

Environmental briefing


We often write on this blog about how we've covered something - after we've done it. I thought for a change it would be worth letting you know how we're preparing for a story - namely the Bali climate talks this week and next.

A graphic of the BBC News websiteIt's a high-level meeting, organised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is trying to deliver a new global agreement on how to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions.

We've sent three environment correspondents - Roger Harrabin, Matt McGrath, David Shukman - and on the website we've already published a "set-up piece" on the talks, outlining what they are about and how they fit into the ongoing global political negotiations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Our correspondents at the talks are going to have their work cut out filing for all BBC outlets, and on occasions like this the website newsdesk in London usually writes some of the stories here, drawing on the reporting from our correspondents at the event.

On this occasion Richard Black, the website environment correspondent is not, for once, going to the talks himself, but he's helped us prepare for them with a few tips and things to watch for in this complex story. Specialist briefings like this ahead of a major story are extremely useful for the newsdesk. Here's what he sent us.

---

By Richard Black.

    There are some issues that we sometimes do not get completely right in reporting the anoraky end of climate change, and which are pertinent to the UN climate talks in Bali that run this week and next.

Sign promoting UN climate change conference in Bali

    1. The Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. What does expire in 2012 is the first set of targets that the Protocol contains for emissions reductions.

    2. The Protocol covers a group of six greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. As they are the six major ones involved in modern-day warming, it is acceptable shorthand to say "greenhouse gases".
    3. The conference contains two major "tracks", one relating to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, and the other to the Kyoto Protocol. The US is involved in the first, but not the second. Some of the news coming out over the next couple of weeks will relate to one, and some to the other.
    4. Australia has not just signed the Kyoto Protocol - it did so in 1998 - it has just ratified it. The US has also signed the protocol, but has not ratified. Both have signed and ratified the UNFCCC.
    5. The Protocol does include developing nations - but it does not set them targets for reducing emissions.
    6. The key difference between the EU and the US positions is whether targets should be global and mandatory, or whether they should be national and voluntary. Sometimes we say the US approach is based on technology - that isn't entirely correct - everyone wants clean technology, it is a question of a) what approach you use to stimulate its development, and b) whether you rely on technology alone with no implied lifestyle changes.
    7. The Kyoto Protocol is about far more than emissions targets - it includes measures to spread technology to developing countries, for carbon offsetting, and funds to help developing countries "climate-proof" their economies and societies. This is a key difference between the UN process and the kind of voluntary approach proposed by the US.
    8. The subject of Indonesia's own emissions will inevitably come up during the Bali meeting, and we will see the country labelled as the world's third-biggest emitter. Whether that is true or not depends on how you measure it; my feeling is we should not as a short-hand call Indonesia the third-biggest emitter, but just one of the world's major emitters.

Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website

Gary Smith

Leaving Millbank


This week I leave Millbank (the BBC's political news HQ) after nearly 10 years, to take over as UK news editor at Television Centre. There was a time when I thought I might depart before Tony Blair, but in the end he managed to slip out of SW1 a few months ahead of me.

When I arrived at the beginning of 1998, Prime Minister Blair had just declared himself a “pretty straight sort of guy,” after getting caught up in the row over a million pound donation to Labour from the Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone.

I leave as Prime Minister Brown battles to limit the damage from big donations given to Labour through intermediaries by the property developer David Abrahams.

Plus ça change?

Actually a whole lot has changed. Not only has Downing St welcomed a new PM, the Tories - under William Hague in 1998 - are on to their fourth leader (the others being Howard, IDS, and Cameron, of course); and the Lib Dems - firmly in the grip of Paddy Ashdown when I started - are also soon to choose their fourth leader (the others, of course, Kennedy, Campbell, and from just before Christmas, either Clegg or Huhne). So a touch of the Steve McLarens in Tory and Lib Dem circles...

Westminster has seen two general elections (and nearly a third this autumn); the government has sent British forces into action five times; devolved government has taken shape in different forms across the UK; and there have been countless scandals and resignations.

But what haven’t changed much are the editorial issues that cross my desk. So I thought as a parting shot, I’d leave you a Christmas quiz on the kind of knotty problems that people have asked about, complained about, and that I’ve found myself writing blogs about in the past months. Unlike most yuletide quizzes, I'm afraid there are no handy answers upside down at the bottom of the page! Here goes:

    • When is it ok to turn up at 0630 with a camera outside a politician’s home?
    • When is it legitimate to investigate a politician’s private life? For example is it right to broadcast a story about a Labour Cabinet minister sending his or her child to a private school?
    • On short TV reports on policy matters should we always include clips from all three main parties?
    • Why do the best political stories tend to break in the newspapers?
    • Is pre-briefing on government or party announcements a good or bad thing?
    • When the BBC uncovered a story from good sources that a senior politician had a serious drink problem - but the politician’s spokesperson totally denied it - should we have gone ahead and run the story?
    • Should political correspondents get out of London more, or is their job to report on what’s happening at Westminster?
    • How do you tell a political correspondent they need to brush their hair, or wear a better coat?

All these and more, I leave to my successor and to you!

Gary Smith is editor, political news

Alistair Burnett

Nuclear ambitions?


Has Iran given up on ambitions to make nuclear weapons? That is the question dominating international media and American political debate today following the publication yesterday of the National Intelligence Estimate in Washington and led The World Tonight last night (which you can listen to here).

The World TonightThe NIE is the collective view of all the various intelligence agencies operated by the US government and carries considerable weight in the formulation of American foreign and security policy. The report says Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme but suspended it four years ago, though, the intelligence agencies believe, the Iranian government retains the option to restart its programme.

On The World Tonight, we have been criticised by listeners in the past for viewing the world from an American perspective - something I have blogged on before. But whether the US intelligence agencies are right or wrong about Iran - and since the failure to find evidence of a current chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programme in Iraq following the invasion of 2003 we know intelligence agencies are fallible - I believe the report is worth the attention it's getting because it feeds so directly into US policy-making.

To try to get the most balanced perspective we could last night we turned to the Iranian analyst, Abbas Milani, who is now based at Stanford University in California. He pointed out that both Tehran and Washington would probably cherry-pick the report and claim it bolstered their position - this has been borne out today with statements coming from the two capitals - but he said it does neither.

Iran has denied it intends to make nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. But Professor Milani said it is probable that Iran did have a weapons programme and may well have suspended it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq and defeated the Iraqi army which the Iranians were unable to defeat in the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s - something that could have given Tehran pause for thought.

On the American side, as recently as six weeks ago, President Bush said that anyone interested in preventing World War III should be worried about Iran's nuclear programme and senior US officials have given the impression that Iran's nuclear ambitions are an imminent threat, so this report should give policy makers in Washington pause for thought too.

The BBC's North America editor, Justin Webb, has blogged on this too and he wonders whether this impression may have been what motivated the intelligence agencies in framing this report. Our presenter, Robin Lustig, has also taken a close interest in US/Iran relations on his blog.

The report - like all intelligence - will inform, but not determine, policy towards Iran. After all it's politicians who make policy, not intelligence agents.

Our sister programme, The World at One, had a go earlier at trying to find out how this report may affect British policy - Britain being one of the three EU countries (along with Germany and France) who are leading negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, was cautious though. He refused to commit, saying Britain would study the report but make its own intelligence assessments, but he said the report fits into the wider strategy of negotiating, and offering carrots and threatening tougher sanctions on Iran to try to get Tehran to agree not to continue enriching uranium.

As with any story that involves intelligence as well as trying to interpret what is going on behind closed doors in Western capitals as well as Tehran, we will continue to ask questions of all sides and look at this issue from the perspectives of all sides to try to help make sense of what is going on. I hope we can shed some light.

Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight

Peter Rippon

Car crash radio?


Oh dear, a moment on Broadcasting House this weekend has upset a lot of listeners. It featured an exchange between the former Labour insider Derek Draper and the Liberal Democrat acting leader, Vince Cable, in what is supposed to be a review of the Sunday papers. They were discussing this. (Click here to listen to it). Among the comments:

Broadcasting House logo"I wouldn't welcome Derek Draper's boorish behaviour in my home, so please don't invite him into my home on my behalf. Debate fine, abuse no."

"There is one guest taking over the discussion and voicing his biased political opinions. There should be a briefing of guests prior to the programmes informing them of protocol and the BBC's constitution."

All the responses we got were critical of Mr Draper and some blamed us for allowing it to happen. It reminded me of when Joan Rivers met Darcus Howe on Midweek (which you can listen to here).

I agree the BBC should not be deliberately manufacturing confrontations. We did not in this case. We should also not allow bullying and intimidation. I do not think we did that either. Vince Cable is very capable of defending himself. However, I would resist the urge to avoid confrontation altogether. There should be a place for strongly held views vigorously expressed. People get angry because they care about things. Whilst it may have backfired in Mr Draper's case this time, radio should show how deeply views are held. Good programmes should not always be gentle and friendly. They need to be challenging and uncomfortable at times as well.

Peter Rippon is editor of World at One, PM and Broadcasting House

Sinead Rocks

Happy birthday to Newsround


In 2002, when Newsround celebrated its thirtieth birthday, we invited John Craven back to co-present the show. As Newsround’s first and longest-serving presenter it seemed a fitting tribute and gave us the chance to take a nostalgic look back at three decades of news for kids - and to get our pictures taken with him, much to his bemusement.

Newsround logoNow we’re 35 we’ve chosen to mark our latest milestone in a different way. We’ve commissioned an in-depth survey into children’s lives, attitudes and beliefs and the results are fascinating. In many ways they contradict the commonly held belief that young people today have it much harder than previous generations. Yes, they are aware of crime, terrorism and the like but most think Britain is still a great place to live and despite speculation about increased exam pressure and overly crowded classrooms – the majority say they enjoy school and describe themselves as happy.

But it’s not all good news. Dads don’t come out of the survey too well. 1 in 4 children in the UK don’t count them as immediate family and if something went wrong, only 11% would go to their fathers for help (compared to the 76% who’d turn to Mum.) We’ll be bringing the survey to life all week on Newsround and will give our audience the chance to have their say on the issues that it raises.

Newsround has come a long way over the past 35 years. The show started with just three members of staff sharing two typewriters in a corner of the BBC newsroom. Now a fifty strong team produces 37 TV programmes every week and our website is staffed 365 days a year. Yet our central premise remains the same as it was back in 1972. We aim to help children make sense of the world around them and give them the chance to have their say on what is going on.

It’s impossible to predict what the broadcasting landscape will be like in 2042, but I think we have proved that children have a real appetite for news and if we can continue to bring this to them in an interesting and engaging way then hopefully Newsround will still have the same resonance and relevance in another thirty five years time.

Sinead Rocks is editor of Newsround

Steve Herrmann

Blogging awards


I wrote here recently about the launch of the tenth in our series of correspondent's blogs and looked back at how they've developed into a key element in our journalism.

A graphic of the BBC News websiteThis week I was delighted to hear that two of our bloggers have won awards. Robert Peston won the digital media category of the BVCA Private Equity & Venture Capitalist Journalist of the Year Awards for his work on Peston's Picks (more details here), while Nick Robinson was the recipient of the Political Studies Association's 'political journalist of the year' award. The judges commented on the "clarity and verve" of his political coverage, his ability to "convey accurately and concisely key political and electoral developments", and commended his Newslog for encouraging "lively political debate".

Both Robert and Nick have been blogging particularly energetically of late, as they have chronicled the Northern Rock and Labour donations stories, and the recognition is very well earned.

Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites