- Peter Barron
- 28 Jul 06, 03:57 PM
I feel like one of those DJs who comes back from a break. "...And thanks to Simon who's been keeping my seat warm during the hols," they used to say through gritted teeth with an anxious eye on the ratings to see if they'd gone up. So thanks to Newsnight's Deputy Editor Daniel Pearl, whose entry on the editors' blog last week broke all box office records in terms of comments posted. Yeah, thanks a lot mate.
Actually, I could claim there's been a steadily upward trend of which Daniel has been the beneficiary. The fact is these days we get so many comments, suggestions and complaints that our webmasters Ian and Stuart are struggling to cope. They wade through the heaving inbox each morning - there were 300 odd for example after last night's Animal Testing debate
and thousands on our coverage of the - but is it really the best use of their creative minds to spend hours everyday cutting and pasting your comments on to the site? It doesn't feel very modern.
So we reckon it's time - overdue you might say - for your comments to take on a life of their own. Taking a leaf from the success of The Editors blog across 大象传媒 News, Newsnight will shortly allow you to send your comments direct to the correspondent, editor, possibly even the presenter responsible for the piece in question.
Many of you of course, , do that already - it doesn't take a genius to work out the 大象传媒 e-mail addresses go joe.bloggs@bbc.co.uk - but now you'll be able to direct your ire or appreciation to a particular piece or individual, share that with everyone else, and get into further protracted dispute with other viewers who may disagree. All guaranteed not to languish unread in an overflowing inbox.
This has caused a little DJ-like holiday disquiet to Paul Mason, Newsnight's cream cracker among bloggers - the original and still best. Paul's cult offering has been going for months and in his latest posting - not untypically titled Giotto, Giolitti, graft, Gramsci... - he muses about what might happen in Newsnight's blogosphere in his absence in Italy.
I don't think he should be too worried. As business correspondent and technology dilettante he'd be the first to question the utility these days of protectionism - though Gramsci might disagree - and I'd be amazed if there's anyone else on the programme who'll be as prolific.
The point is you'll be able to choose whether you want to read and discuss all the comments made about Newsnight pieces, or just about particular items, or the blogs of Paul or another correspondent, even - who knows - the thoughts of Daniel Pearl.
All that coming soon. In the meantime, this week's new arrival is the l, a video podcast featuring the best bits of the programme. This week's includes Monday's debate asking if there in an institutionalised bias in our reporting of the Middle East, David Grossman on political memoirs and excerpts from Thursday's Animal Rights debate from Oxford.
Tell us what you think of it, or indeed Martha's pink and white dress code.
PS I need at least 152 comments please.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Paul Brannan
- 28 Jul 06, 02:58 PM
The language of conflict has always given birth to euphemisms 鈥 collateral damage, kinetic targeting and ethnic cleansing are among the more recent entries to the argot of the times.
George Orwell covered this ground in Politics and the English Language back in 1945. He wrote: "鈥淒efenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.
鈥淢illions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers."
Orwell saw this retreat into euphemism as a consequence of political expediency by those seeking to defend the indefensible. Such phraseology was needed by those who wanted to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.
A more recent commentator, Keith Woods of the Poynter Institute, cautioned against adopting the language of the military in reporting on war. 鈥淟anguage has always had a power that tilts towards those who define the terms,鈥 he observed.
And my colleague Jon Williams has also written of the sensitivities of language, specifically the words used to describe the recent taking of the two Israeli soldiers.
The weight of history and its years of tit-for-tat reprisals in the region would lead many people to take issue with Orwell鈥檚 conclusion about language. Some would insist that Israel鈥檚 actions in southern Lebanon were entirely defensible. But when, in a recent report, we mentioned the proposal for a 鈥渂uffer zone鈥 between Israel and Lebanon as part of a wider ceasefire plan it prompted one viewer to write and complain.
"'Buffer zone' is a propaganda term used by the Israeli government. It should not be simply repeated by a news organisation.鈥
Such a description would be mendacious to many Lebanese. For them it鈥檚 a straightforward invasion and occupation of their territory.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict, using the Israeli terminology - 鈥渂uffer zone鈥 - without ascribing it to them would make it appear that we accept the view of it as a purely defensive measure designed to protect Israel from aggression. Not using the term could also make us appear partial, or that we believed the argument that it is nothing to do with self-defence.
So, for future instances, I鈥檝e asked the web team simply to make clear that the expression is one Israel has given to it.
Paul Brannan is deputy editor of the
Paul Brannan is editor of 大象传媒 Emerging Platforms
A guide to words and names in the news, from Catherine Sangster of the 大象传媒 Pronunciation Unit.
"Today's pronunciation is Pardubice, the Czech town where a during a chess tournament. Czech is invariably stressed on the first syllable, and the pronunciation is PAR-doo-bits-uh."
(.)
- Peter Rippon
- 28 Jul 06, 10:42 AM
As an editor, I do worry about being too politically correct in our coverage. However, I also worry about being offensive.
It was with those thoughts in mind that we approached threatened with disciplinary action for refusing to hand out leaflets at a Gay Pride event.
The story was complicated because the firemen (or do I mean firefighters?) were not willing to talk, so we had no idea why they took the action they did. It could be blatant homophobia, or there could have been other reasons. The men could argue they are not homophobic, they just felt uncomfortable. It was suggested that there is tradition of firemen being seen as sex objects by some in the gay community... just Google "gay" and "fireman". In sexual harassment cases, "harassment" is defined by the impact on the recipient and not by the intention of the person accused of the behaviour.
We discussed following this line with the Stonewall campaigner we were interviewing on the programme (hear it here). In the end Carolyn Quinn settled for suggesting that the men might have felt awkward or embarrassed. We did not develop the argument, partly because there were other interesting angles to explore, but also because we felt the guest could reasonably be expected to find such gross stereotyping offensive.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
Peter Rippon is editor of World at One, PM and Broadcasting House
The Guardian: Detectives investigate more than 60 phone calls to police hotline following 大象传媒 documentary about Stephen Lawrence. ()
The Daily Mail: Why do the 大象传媒's war reporters refuse to wear ties? Michael Cole writes. ()
The Daily Telegraph: Obituary for former 大象传媒 reporter Bob Simpson. ()
