Ask Us A Question
Post categories: blogs
| 12:27 UK time, Thursday, 6 December 2007
In a week's time we'll be recording our very first podcast (or perhaps more accurately, download of an interview in audio) for this blog.
Rory Cellan-Jones () has very kindly agreed to act as interrogator.
And sitting around the microphones will be Matthew Cashmore and Ian Forrester of , James Cridland of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Audio&Music Interactive, Giles Wilson (editor, ´óÏó´«Ã½ News blogs) and last, and very much least, myself.
The discussion will be about how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is using blogs to try and talk to licence fee payers, ("blogs as accountability", if you like), rather than the technical or broader editorial questions about the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s blogs, which have been covered by Robin Hamman here and here.
But I suspect and hope the conversation will range far and wide. So if you have any questions you would like Rory to ask, please do leave a comment on this post.
The results will be published before Christmas.
Nick Reynolds is editor, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet Blog
Comments
I'm really looking forward to some of the challenging questions we will get asked.
Ok try this:
Why have all the references to the discussion concerning the 9/11 murders been taken off the "Being Discussed Now" column?
I suggest that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been shown to have been deceitfull with its Feburay 07 Conspircay File program (Ref: complaint by John Blacker and Ors) and is being embarrsased by the unanswerable logic and argument put forward by those who know it was an inside job. Any doubts? Ask Faranscesco Cossiga (past President Italy) reported in Corriere della Sera last week. Learn Italian, be informed!!!
Mallee
Hello Nick.
´óÏó´«Ã½ output is generally known to be fact-orientated than opinion-orientated; indeed that's one of the key ways the ´óÏó´«Ã½ strives to avoid bias in it's content. However, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ moves into conversational formats what is being done to ensure that the conversation continues to be fact, rather than opinion orientated. I'm particularly thinking about content areas away from News output, where those involved may not have a professional editorial background.
I'm mindful that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s classic "here's a topic, tell us what you think" is not really 'conversation', and so as a wider question, to what extent do you guys think that conversation can occur without opinion, and at what point does the "conversation with your audience" approach begin to become at odds with the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s neutral values?
Mallee,
The links to 9/11 discussions on the Editors Blog have not been "removed". It's simply that when people don't comment on a particular post after a period of time they are automatically replaced by posts which are getting comments.
NB This post is not about 9/11 and I will not post general comments about it which are off topic.
Hi Nick,
I used to be a regular on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ R4 Today message boards.
In the old days, posters could start threads about any topic - and boy they did.
Then someone at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ decided to change all that - now we can only talk about subjects that "teacher" has chosen.
This seems contrary to the idea of getting the public more involved. What are your thoughts ?
Let's get the ball rolling about when and how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can deliver current TV programs and all its archive material on-line, world wide. What are the issues preventing this - Copyrights? Technology? Conflicting interests in the corporation (DVD sales vs Streaming)? etc
For example you say you have 900000 items in your database, and are adding 1000's/day. If you were to put these on iTunes and charge £1 each, just how much money do you think you could make? Lots and lots and lots, billions probably.
What I feel is needed is a double step process for using listener/viewer inputs.
Basically it is an editorial process. Gather all the inputs, categorise them, tabulate the various points of view, and put in numbers who feel each way, then contribute an editorial summarising objectively people's inputs.
Is this the way to go? What resources does it needs? How frequent should a "build-up" be made? How to get the input (Have your say?)? Where to file the output (´óÏó´«Ã½ web site, audio or video broadcast)?
This is a welcome change that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is offering a 'conversation' at last. Too frequently interviews and articles have been written, published and read by us viewers with no way of commenting or questioning the author.
But I would re-iterate this point: with freedom of dialogue like this, comes opinion, bias and controversy.
Does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ want to remain impartial, or is this a new dawn for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to now have a strong opinion on matters?