´óÏó´«Ã½

I was the editor in charge of the output on News 24 - and then ´óÏó´«Ã½ One - on the morning of 7 July last year.

From the moment the first wire copy broke - referring to a "power surge" on the Underground, the News 24 team went into overdrive. Inside and outside the newsroom, everyone was focused on getting live pictures and accurate information on air as fast as possible. Several ´óÏó´«Ã½ producers, as well as correspondents, provided compelling eye-witness reports from Kings Cross and elsewhere.

Clearly, we were dealing with a huge story. To begin with, information was sketchy and often conflicting. As soon as we had reports of a second explosion, it was plain that a terrorist attack was a likely cause. The presenters and correspondents talked on air in those terms - but we did not say categorically that London had been targeted by terrorists until the police said so.

At the time our coverage of the breaking news was criticised by some for being too cautious. We were even accused of deliberately withholding information from the public - and of being little more than a government mouthpiece. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's fair to say we were over-cautious to some extent, particularly when talking about the casualty figures. But we emphatically did not deliberately suppress information.

Those were the ground rules a year ago. News 24 was not a channel that would cheerfully boast of being "never wrong for long" - on such an important news event, we knew we had to be 100% sure of our facts before we transmitted them as facts. And we were broadcasting to a huge audience on ´óÏó´«Ã½ One, which added to the sense of needing to deliver sober, responsible coverage.

Since then, much audience feedback has flowed. Many people felt we were slower than we should have been in updating information. That criticism hurt - but the overall effect has been beneficial. We are now less reliant on "official" sources; we won't wait always for copper-bottomed confirmation of every element of a story. The audience has a different expectation of a continuous news channel covering a breaking story than it does of a "built" bulletin which is broadcasting after the event. Viewers expect and want us to share with them the developments as they unfold - without, of course, abandoning our commitment to accuracy. One example: Sir Ian Blair talked late in the morning of "seven" explosions - that's what HE believed at the time and so did we, along with all other news organisations.

One important source of information not properly exploited by us on July 7 was "the public". Much has been made of the fact that citizen journalism came of age a year ago. News 24 made very good use of eye-witness accounts live on air but we were unprepared for the volume of material from viewers and listeners on that day. From blogs to mobile phone photos, we simply couldn't cope quickly enough with the vast amount of information and the number of pictures flooding into the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

That first, iconic, image of the bus in Tavistock Square was on air very fast, but many more viewers' photos and stories went unbroadcast until hours after the event. But since then, new and robust systems have been put in place. So, when the Buncefield oil depot went up in flames, a fantastic flow of audience stills and video was on air before you could say "breaking news".