Latest entry
- Peter Barron
- 1 Feb 08, 03:18 PM
One or two of you have written to us this week to complain that we're unfair to politicians, assuming they're up to no good and generally giving them a hard time.
It is true we've done an awful lot of items in recent days concerning dubious employment practices, dodgy donations and the general lack of transparency about the goings-on of the honourable members.
Do we do too much? It would be good to hear your thoughts.
I certainly subscribe to the view that the majority of MPs are honourable, hard-working people whose primary aim is to serve the public.
I also sympathise, a bit, with the view - expressed again by Alastair Campbell this week - that the media can tend towards a culture of negativity and loves a crisis, real or imagined.
But, given all the sleaze crises that politicians have suffered in recent years, it is amazing that even a small number still appear to be willing to bend or ignore the rules.
And while - in this age of transparency - our MPs continue to resist the kind of scrutiny and sanction that others in the public eye face, it is surely right that we ask the likes of Crick, Grossman and Paxman to keep asking awkward questions.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Recent entries
- Steve Herrmann
- 1 Feb 08, 10:02 AM
There’s been some good, well-informed feedback from you on the status of pictures on personal and social networking sites. Several – I think rightly - highlight copyright as the key issue.
I think Juno has a point about people confusing ease of access to material with freedom to use it. I hope we don’t do that.
I also think Jay has a point when he says he – and probably others – don’t necessarily pay close attention to the terms and conditions for use of the photos they post on various sites.
Alf – the idea of “intended audiences” is an important one, and I agree it does and will create ethical dilemmas, not just around images and video, but personal information in general. Maybe the best advice to us on the matter is from Nick: treat others as you’d like to be treated yourself.
Thanks for the responses. The whole issue is being discussed by various people in the BBC, and I’m sure we’ll revisit it soon.
Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website
- Jamie Angus
- 31 Jan 08, 02:11 PM
I was ear-wigging a conversation between the Newhour presenter and duty editor yesterday: our presenter Mike Williams was questioning why, since the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Jendayi Frazer has used the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to describe what's happening in some Kenyan provinces, we should be coy about using the phrase ourselves.
A wider discussion amongst our programme team revealed mixed views about 'ethnic cleansing', as well as the word 'tribal'. Some felt that 'tribal violence' has a pejorative sense of Heart of Darkness about it - that it implies that this violence is cultural and inevitable.
Others on the team, including some who have spent many years working and reporting in Africa, think this is liberal guilt - ”Kenya is a tribal society. That terminology is perfectly accepted there, and we shouldn't worry about using broadcasting it from London”. The question of direct comparisons with the Rwandan genocide has also been raised. It seems to me most commentators are going out of their way to explain why it's not appropriate.
Richard Dowden's piece in the Independent has been very useful; the author spoke about it both on World Service's Newshour and on Today (which you can listen to here), and the message seems to be “think Balkans rather than Rwanda” which is probably why the 'ethnic cleansing' phrase is tripping off the tongue.
There are a couple of reasons why the situation in Kenya is more complex than in other 'tribal' conflicts. This is not a binary dispute - there are at least three major tribes involved plus other smaller tribes, and power in Kenya has not always been held by President Kibaki's Kikuyu as his predecessor Arap Moi was a Kalenjin. Opposition leader Odinga is a Luo, two of whose former presidential candidates have been assassinated since independence. The settlement of land and resources in the post-colonial era is a large factor in the violence, as is the general absence of the rule of law in the wake of an acute political crisis.
In the end many of these phrases work fine in a fuller context; the difficulty comes when we boil them down to shorter forms in headlines and cues. So are we being too coy about the language we're using? Or is this caution justified?
Jamie Angus is editor of daytime news programmes, World Service
- Gavin Allen
- 30 Jan 08, 10:15 AM
It's the broadcast equivalent of being beaten over the head with a very heavy economics manual. Repeatedly. After a while it becomes a tad wearing. You duck and weave, to try to avoid the crashing blow, but back comes the manual with an inevitable thud. And there's Gordon Brown wielding it relentlessly. He'd like you to know that inflation and interest rates are at a low level in this country. And the economy's stable. And as luck would have it we're in a very good position to withstand any global economic downturn. Hold on, what was the precise question again? He doesn't care - thud, here's his answer.
The interview that Jon Sopel conducted with the prime minister for the Politics Show this weekend addressed the economy, street crime, welfare reform and Europe among other topics.
The questions were thoughtful and serious and so were the answers. But any resemblance between the two was entirely coincidental.
Instead the interview became a traditional Two Ronnies sketch in a modern setting: prime minister answers his own question, again and again, with no comedic results whatsoever. But maddening though it is for Jon and the production team - hours of finely-honed questions battered into submission by the weighty manual - can you actually blame Gordon Brown for playing the straight man? In short, no.
Our job is to analyse and test and hold to account. But it's not his, so why should he play our game? Why play mouse to our cat when he can sidestep the traps and instead tell the viewers directly what he feels they need to hear?
He made absolutely sure he got his message across. The economy's in safe hands. And so are our streets. And British sovereignty. While the media generally hails gloom and recession round every corner - failure, disaster: great story! - politicians deal in triumphs at every turn. No wonder, as Mr Brown told us, being prime minister "is the best job in the world".
Luckily for us, non-answers and side-stepping can still make for an interesting interview and Jon did a fine job trying to nail the proverbial jelly to the wall (no offence, prime minister).
Let's be clear: we are absolutely committed to the in-depth extensive interview - and Gordon Brown's welcome to come on again. But if the long-form exchange is going to offer more than a short-form interview on an extended loop, then we might need to re-think how we get answers to the actual questions we (repeatedly) put. That's our job and it matters, as our viewers made clear from their responses. The question is how to achieve it. A clunking fist is, I fear, not an option.
Gavin Allen is editor, Politics Show
- Peter Horrocks
- 28 Jan 08, 09:16 AM
Last week, the director general Mark Thompson gave a speech, which was also published on this blog, in which he had some thoughts about the BBC's responsibilities towards reporting crime.
"A child murder under any circumstances is a unique and terrible tragedy," he said. "But we shouldn’t allow our coverage of one or even an unconnected series of individual events to give the public impression that these things are an everyday occurrence or that the trend is up when in fact it is down."
He did say that he thought the BBC was "less guilty of this kind of exaggeration than almost any other part of the British media" but added that being less guilty didn't mean we were always entirely innocent.
We've been giving his words some thought this week. On Thursday the quarterly crime statistics showed there had been a 9% drop in overall crime in England and Wales, though there had been a 4% rise in gun crime. What should our response to that have been? The story was reported online, and early in the day on other parts of BBC News, but as the Peter Hain resignation and the SocGen story came along it fell down the running orders. Had the crime figures revealed a 9% rise in crime, would we have allowed it to drop down the agenda so much?
It's clear to me that commercial media has an interest in reporting increasing crime because it knows that it sells. There's no particular obligation on them - or commercial interest - in reporting falling crime. It's not the BBC's job to play down crime, but it is our duty to report it accurately and where appropriate to act as a corrective to the rest of the media. Often that will mean giving context, as well as reporting specific incidents.
I've written on this blog before about why I think the BBC coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was responsible.
Crime that is unusual and extreme will always have news value for audiences. The BBC is correct to report such crime as part of its broad news service. But we should always make efforts to explain how typical, or otherwise, such crime is. And we should report it in calm terms. We should not be scaring our audiences unnecessarily nor should we ignore and underplay crime that harms many members of our audience.
Peter Horrocks is head of BBC Newsroom
- Alistair Burnett
- 25 Jan 08, 04:28 PM
On Friday The World Tonight is mounting a special debate on British Values. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has talked a lot about British values and has called for them to be defined. Robin Lustig will be discussing whether there are any common British values, and if so, what they are with a panel of politicians, writers and historians from across the UK. He explains what we intend to do on his blog.
For those of you who commented on my last post about whether or not we are giving the US primaries too much coverage by calling for more coverage of Europe, rest assured. As regular listeners to The World Tonight will know we do cover the rest of Europe regularly - in fact we plan to send Robin Lustig to present the programme from Madrid for the coming Spanish general election which is set to be a bitter and close contest in an increasingly influential EU member with a large expatriate British community.
And for those of you who called for more substance and less trivia in the primary coverage, I hope our continued coverage of the contest is demonstrating The World Tonight's commitment to reporting what is at stake for the US and rest of the world.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Steve Herrmann
- 24 Jan 08, 11:14 AM
When is it acceptable for us to make use of personal pictures and video available on the internet? In the past, personal pictures of members of the public who become the subject of news stories (particularly tragic events) have usually only been available if supplied by family or friends.
With the growth of social networking and personal websites, it has become far easier for the media to get hold of such pictures. If we do use them, can this be justified? This is an issue we're giving some thought to at the moment, and I'd be keen to hear your views.
We don't yet have a definitive policy but my feeling is we need to tread carefully, and where people have posted personal pictures or video in a space which they might reasonably expect to be accessed only by friends and family, I think we need to be mindful of that. There might be an overriding public interest in using the picture and publishing it more widely, say, if we were working on a story about someone involved in criminal activity and sought by the police (though we’d still need to verify it). But where there isn't, it seems right to seek permission first. We also have to be aware of copyright around any use we want to make of pictures and video, and this will need checking case by case.
The boundary between what's public and what's private isn't always easy to define online, and I think it’s also true to say it’s not something people always give a huge amount of thought to when posting. For most people, most of the time, the media and wider public won’t be focusing on them. That gives them a certain anonymity – nicely described by Alf Hermida as "privacy through obscurity".
That quickly changes if the spotlight of media interest turns their way, for whatever reason.
Some will say that - by definition - there isn't really anything private if it's there and accessible by others. But that still leaves the question of what use people other than the intended audience can legitimately make of what they find. And people use different sites for different reasons - they might be on Facebook just talking to friends, on Flickr sharing photos with their family and on MySpace to publicise their music. Would the same considerations apply for each?
These are all things we’re still discussing – I’ll keep you posted on how it develops.
Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website
- Rod McKenzie
- 22 Jan 08, 09:08 AM
Newsbeat has taken a bold new step into the interactive world with the launch of our new website. I'd love to hear what you think of it.
We're not trying to replicate other BBC news websites: There is more emphasis on music news with our lead story on Klaxons at the Brits, a piece about a possible sunbed ban for Scottish under-18s and some great video content shot by our maestro Andy Brownstone who's shot and produced 30 films for the site.
It's all about visualising our journalism. Video and pictures are the biggest themes to emerge so far. With more and more people listening to the radio over the internet, people will be able to see and interact with our stories in a way they've never done before.
I think we're on the verge of radically changing the way Newsbeat does business. It's not about radio anymore, it's about relevant content being available in lots of different ways (web, mobiles etc) and at last we have the tools for the job. And yes, there is a surprising picture of Lindsay Lohan...
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra News
- Peter Barron
- 18 Jan 08, 12:21 PM
You couldn't open a newspaper this week without bumping into coverage of the battle of the Newses at Ten. On the bulletins themselves, ITN and the BBC battled to outdo each other with a series of carefully planned exclusives - it was great fun to watch.
I think most of us who work in TV news welcome the return of News at Ten, mainly because it brings back the frisson of head to head competition which should keep both products on their toes.
On Newsnight, we're especially delighted to welcome back Sir Trevor and co. as we're now the only news programme at 10.30. In truth there hasn't been a huge overlap between our audiences or competition between our programmes - we tend to look to Channel 4 at 7pm for that. But while others have focused on the ratings at 10 we've noticed a small but significant rise in our audience now we have the slot to ourselves.
And there was one totally unexpected windfall. On Tuesday, ITN sent us the press release of their exclusive interview with the prime minister in which he called the work and pensions secretary Peter Hain incompetent. We asked them for the clip and they provided it - so we were baffled when the quote didn't appear on News at Ten.
For that you had to tune in to Newsnight, at 10.30.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Alison Ford
- 17 Jan 08, 08:29 AM
25 years ago breakfast television launched on BBC One. I'd like to say I remember it well, but the truth is, my mother thought (and still does) that turning the television on first thing in the morning was the work of the devil, so I wasn't allowed to watch. She wasn't alone – no-one knew whether there would be a real and sustainable appetite for an early morning television programme of this sort - and it's been reinvented several times over the last quarter of a century in search of the perfect breakfast formula. From its beginnings as Breakfast Time - a bright, light mixture of features, star signs and cookery slots, through Breakfast News - a more traditional news programme - to where we are today - simply Breakfast.
The programme today pays homage to its predecessors - we aim to bring you the big stories of the day alongside a lighter mix of features and celebrity guests. It can be difficult at times to get the balance right, but we must be on the right lines - up to five million of you watch us every day.
So here's to the next 25 years. I hope we'll carry on bringing you all the news, information and entertainment you need to start your day, and in a way that is as warm and friendly as possible.
One of the biggest changes of the last few years has been in our relationship with you, the audience. With so many ways to get in touch, you can let us know what you like, what you hate and what you want more of, in an instant. I'm looking forward to getting to know you even better in the months and years to come.
Alison Ford is editor of BBC Breakfast
- Mark Thompson
- 15 Jan 08, 06:15 PM
In September I blogged here about the importance of trust in the BBC. Today I have given a speech in Westminster which picks up on some of the same themes but also addresses the wider impact on society of trust in institutions. The full text of my speech is below and I'd be interested to know what you think about it.
Continue reading "The trouble with trust"
Mark Thompson is the BBC's director general
- Alistair Burnett
- 14 Jan 08, 04:14 PM
We have had our first complaint about our coverage of the US presidential election primaries - the gist is that we are already doing too much.
"Please, enough of the US 'primaries' and Hillary's tears. This pre-election election will go on for 11 months yet. Let the Americans steep themselves in this serial. Why must we?"
There seem to be some listeners who have a very low tolerance of coverage of American politics, but I have to say in this case I would disagree with them.
On last Friday's World Tonight (which you can listen to here )we discussed why the world outside the US is interested in the primaries. During the discussion, the London correspondent of Brazil's Globo News, Silio Boccanera, joked that the rest of the world should have a vote in the US elections too because of the impact the US has on all our lives.
His observation encapsulated the reason why I believe it's important we devote more coverage to the presidential election in the US than say Russia or France. Voters in the US have started the process that will lead to the selection of the next president of the world's only remaining super power. And as we have seen repeatedly over the past few years, who runs the US administration has a big impact on this country and the rest of the world - Iraq and Afghanistan are just the two most dramatic examples of this for Britain.
During the primaries, the candidates for the two main parties’ nomination get the chance to set out their stall and hone their ideas for what they would do if they get to the White House. American voters get to have a say on which of these visions they prefer and it gives the rest of us a chance to assess what the future may hold in terms of the health of the US economy and America's policy on climate change, as well as foreign policy issues like the US dispute with Iran and their growing rift with Russia.
There is also the inherent drama of the primaries as a story in themselves, and this year the elections are more dramatic than for many a year because they are wide open and quite unpredictable - as many media outlets found to their cost last week when Hillary Clinton confounded many predictions to win the New Hampshire Democratic contest.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)