- Adrian Van-Klaveren
- 25 Sep 06, 03:41 PM
The reverberations of are still being felt – but not just in the world of football. They have also provoked how about how we at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ cover stories generated by our own journalists – particularly, as in this case, ahead of the programme itself appearing.
There can’t be much room for doubt that we used not to be very good at this.
Original reporting and investigative journalism which had taken many months of effort could disappear without trace after just one transmission. You either caught it or you didn’t. On one occasion, a piece which won the Royal Television Society’s home news award made no impact on the rest of our output. That just does not feel right.
Now as some commentators have noticed, things have changed. We do try to ensure that every part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s journalism is aware of the stories being generated across all of our output and we ask editors to think about whether those stories are appropriate for their audience. There are some very good reasons for this.
Original journalism is both important and expensive. Finding things out and telling people about them first is at the heart of what audiences expect from news and current affairs. Every piece of original journalism we carry has been paid for by licence fee payers and they deserve to be given every possible opportunity to see, hear and read what we’ve discovered.
In a world where the individual consumer is so much more in control, showcasing the best of our journalism becomes even more important. When we talk to audiences, we find time after time that people are unaware of something we’ve done which they would have been particularly interested in. At a time when so much more choice is available, we need to find the best ways to highlight our strongest work.
Of course there are dangers which every editor is aware of. Some long form programmes just don’t translate easily into much shorter news reports. Some stories are so complicated and layered that they can’t be told in that way. And of course there is a danger of over-promoting ourselves. No one wants to watch a news programme which seems to consist only of trails and previews of other ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes and events at the expense of the day’s other news.
Ultimately there is no definitive edict about exactly how and when we showcase our own journalism. Individual editors have to decide what is right for their own programmes and audiences. But we do this in a spirit of seeking to share the best of what we do with as many people as possible – that’s a measure we feel comfortable to be judged by.
Adrian Van-Klaveren is deputy director, ´óÏó´«Ã½ News
On this week's Newswatch - the show which voices your criticisms of ´óÏó´«Ã½ News - you can see a debate on whether or not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ broadcast views from all sides when the Pope came under fire for .
Click here to watch the show.
- David Kermode
- 25 Sep 06, 02:32 PM
Our video podcast, the is one week old today.
We launched it last week, boasting that it was "the first early morning news video podcast in the country". Not a particularly snappy boast admittedly, but it's something we're very proud of.
It's new technology and it's very exciting. It's not complicated to download, but it is quite complicted to promote.
There are all sorts of issues. Universality is one. How many people have a video ipod or MP4 player? We're trailing a product that (strictly speaking) is only available to people with that technology (I've been watching it on my home computer). Is that right?
Well, I'd argue that the same was true of digital television when I used to work at ´óÏó´«Ã½ News 24 a few years ago. Nowadays, the majority of the country gets digital TV and thanks to the fact that it launched when it did, News 24 is now well established, very polished and hugely attractive to those digital "late adopters".
Is it free? We had a few people e-mail us, on day one, to say it was wrong to say we were providing it for "free". Fair enough. We now say "free to download".
Do people actually want it? I'm not aware of anyone questioning the value of the video podcast yet, which is heartening. Unlike the , and vodcasts, which are in the 'best of' category, ours is supposed to be a bit different. To use a cliché, it's "news you can use". It's around 10 minutes of news and information with a very limited shelf life. It'll probably be out of date by mid-morning, but it might be handy for your morning commute.
Thus far, the signs of take up are encouraging. At the end of its first week it was at number three in the iTunes news and politics 'league table'.
We hope to go higher and this is likely to cause me some local difficulty with my peers at the Ten and Newsnight. You see, they're very proud of their (excellent) vodcast offerings and I suspect our arrival on the scene has been greeted with some nervousness. Because of the disposable nature of our Breakfast Takeaway, I think we're catering for a different market. However, it's a sign of the power of the medium that we're all so eager to have a slice of the action.
I'd be very interested to know what people of think of it.
David Kermode is editor of
All papers: continued discussion of Panorama investigation into football bungs.
Sunday Telegraph: ´óÏó´«Ã½ plans to launch iPlayer, which will make TV and radio programmes available online, criticised by commercial media sector. ()
Sunday Telegraph: Alleges Abu Izzadeen regards appearance on Today as a "propaganda coup". ()
Daily Mirror: Abu Izzadeen interview meant "other Muslims lost their chance to voice their concerns", writes columnist Tony Parsons. ()
Daily Telegraph: ´óÏó´«Ã½ criticised for having shut the Thai language section of the World Service before the coup. ()
Guardian: ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland output treats Scottish news as local rather than national, says commentator Iain MacWhirter. ()
Guardian: Downing St communications director David Hill replies to ´óÏó´«Ã½ Head of TV News Peter Horrocks, saying Number 10 does regularly complain to 24-hour news channels about specific aspects of coverage. (No link)
Independent: Interview with Five Live's Simon Mayo. ()
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
