- Adam Curtis
- 18 Sep 06, 10:51 AM
Back in February, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News website published a story about a after being discovered having what can probably best be described as improper relations with the beast.
Village elders ruled that he could keep the goat, but would have to pay a $50 dowry to the owner.
This undeniably quirky tale was confirmed for us by the editor of a local newspaper which had carried the report. The editor is a trusted ´óÏó´«Ã½ stringer.
The story attracted much interest and amusement at the time, but was soon consigned to the archive.
However, last week there were some bizarre developments. That goat report was consistently showing up in our "live stats" box as the most widely e-mailed story on the site.
The story was even picked up (as if new) by the soaraway .
It had not been re-published, re-written or revised. So how is it that upwards of 100,000 people a day were passing it on to their friends and acquaintances?
Or could it be that some crazed animal lover has been repeatedly hitting the site with fake requests?
We put our senior software engineer Gareth Owen on the case. His verdict is unequivocal. The demand was genuine.
During a single morning, the goat story was e-mailed by readers in Australia, France, Sweden, the US, Luxembourg, India, Malaysia, Tanzania, Estonia and many other countries.
Do a search on Google for "goat and marry" – and the story is everywhere. It even gets a mention in Wedding Ideas magazine.
It seems to be a fine example of the viral nature of the web. A story is picked up and passed on to an ever growing circle of readers – a sort of chain letter in cyberspace.
Only now are there signs that the interest may be abating. For the moment at least, the story is no longer registering as one of the most popular on the website.
But the experience has inevitably raised questions about whether we should do a follow up. Should we perhaps find out if the relationship is still flourishing? And what about the kids?
Adam Curtis is world editor,
Among the audience feedback received by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in the past 24 hours include calls objecting to some ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports that the Pope had "said sorry" for his comments on Islam, saying that he had "expressed regret" rather than apologised.
We also received this e-mail:
Why hasn't there been a mention of the England team's win in Portugal in fishing? Fishing is the number one sport in the UK, Team England is the best in the world, yet you don't give it a mention.
and this one:
I wish the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would develop a radio news programme (possibly aimed more at women), which does not involve attacking interviewees, and continual and repeated references to Islam, terrorism, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, etc but which provides news, weather, and general items of interest. There is nothing between 6.30am and 9am to wake up to which is seriously newsworthy and which relies on finding items which are relevant. I don't want to hear men talking for two hours, making their opinions known, I want a varied and refreshing attitude to current affairs. The One Show on ´óÏó´«Ã½ One strikes the right note, but WRONG TIME, WRONG MEDIA!
- Kevin Marsh
- 18 Sep 06, 09:56 AM
Someone, some time ago, proposed that one of the things we should make sure was on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ College of Journalism website was a module - a film, perhaps - showing the way we cover news stories ... as seen from the perspective of those in the story.
I can't remember whose idea it was - but it's such a good one I'll call it mine and we'll do it.
Alternatively, we could just make all ´óÏó´«Ã½ editors appear live - or "as live" - on their own programmes; or perhaps, someone else's. But appear live/as live, anyway.
I had the experience this week on . And it was both scary and salutary. I was invited on to talk about the CoJo's plans to help ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists with basic English. A lot of viewers, listeners and online users get upset when our journalists make daft mistakes - and they do, usually under pressure... though I'm not sure that was the explanation for the capital of Ecuador being spelled K-E-E-T-O in one example.
I couldn't fault 's team for the way they fixed the interview - all according to the Marsh rule book. They were open about the subject of the interview without giving away the actual questions; and what they said would happen did.
So far so good. Plus, I've done dozens of TV and radio interviews ... but until this, all except one had been pre-recorded at a leisurely pace for editing later; the only live one was a twenty-minuter on Radio Coventry.
What I'd never appreciated before was the immense pressure on the interviewee of a four to four-and-a-half minute live/as live interview - even though I've edited thousands of programmes made up of jigsaws of just such interviews. The short, live interview is probably the most familiar tool of my trade.
But it's very strange to be on the other end of it. It was nothing Ray did - but somehow, the time pressure conveyed itself as prepared words and ideas ran off and hid. And even though I knew the rule in theory - statement, context/explanation, next question - in fact, the strands of thought threatened to get into a complete tangle.
While Ray - as a good live interviewer should - kept up the pace of the questions, something close to panic wiped the synapses on one side of my brain.
I have a vague memory of talking about Caxton and Webster's dictionary; perhaps I did, perhaps I didn't. I certainly haven't the faintest recollection of anything I said [you can see for yourself here]. Either way, I now understand rather better than I did before the lot of the hundreds - thousands, possibly - of guests our programmes churn through in the course of a day.
Obviously - being a news man - I wouldn't go so far as saying I have sympathy with them ... even though I was one, briefly. But it does, as they say, make you think.
Kevin Marsh is editor of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ College of Journalism
The Independent: An interview with the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s political editor Nick Robinson. ()
The Guardian: An interview with the head of ´óÏó´«Ã½ TV News Peter Horrocks. ()
Sunday Mirror: that pop star Pete Doherty has been selected to guest edit the Today programme. (The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has issued a statement denying this).
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
