大象传媒

The was indeed stern. Warnings of coastal flooding, mass migration and the worst depression since World War Two if we don't act now to save the planet.

What has struck me increasingly over the past month or two is that it looks like the politicians may be way out in front of the general public on climate change. All three main political parties now appear to agree that green taxes are the way to go - indeed they vie with each other about which can be most green.

But for many of our viewers, who e-mailed, phoned and wrote in their thousands, they are much more sceptical and they were concerned that green taxes were just another way of squeezing money out of them by the treasury. They also were worried that the UK may end up doing much more than other countries and therefore pay a disproportionate amount of the cost.

So when we came to discuss how to cover this report yesterday morning, we were very concerned to try and reflect the element of scepticism that many of our viewers felt, as well as giving the information about what was in the report and what major government figures, economists and scientists were saying about it. We wanted to try and test Stern's figures and also the willingness of the public to pay green taxes.

It was a difficult balance to strike - do you think we were successful?

We鈥檝e been looking recently at a site called . Its is "to monitor corporate news organisations to uncover bias" and it does this by tracking changes to stories on this website and . It also looks for the "censoring" of comments to our .

On news stories, it automatically detects and shows where they have been amended or updated, then visually highlights the relevant lines or passages.

Having looked at various stories treated in this way, what it mostly reveals is the minute-to-minute editorial processes of 24-hour online news, where stories are written, published, then updated and added to for as long as details continue to emerge. It also shows some of the workings of the writing and sub-editing process in which stories are subbed for length as new quotes are added in, paragraphs are rephrased to accommodate new material, and pictures, links and background are added.

It also, of course, shows up corrections. Our policy is to correct anything that鈥檚 wrong - spelling mistake, factual error or anything else - as soon as we become aware of it. News Sniffer highlights even the smallest of these changes in a way we don鈥檛. Should we do something similar?

When we make a major change or revision to a story we republish it with a new timestamp, indicating it鈥檚 a new version of the story. If there鈥檚 been a change to a key point in the story we will often point this out in the later version (saying something like "earlier reports had said...").

But lesser changes - including minor factual errors, corrected spellings and reworded paragraphs - go through with no new timestamp because in substance the story has not actually progressed any further. This has led to accusations we are "" - a sinister-sounding term that implies we are actively trying to hide what we are doing. We鈥檙e not. It鈥檚 just that continually updating the timestamp risks making it meaningless, and pages of notes about when and where minor revisions are made do not make for a riveting read - as News Sniffer, I would argue, tends to prove.

We are concentrating on providing the fullest, most accurate and most timely account we can and there鈥檚 a risk that adding a lot of detail about the process will get in the way of telling the story - affecting clarity for the reader and the speed of the journalists.

But if sites like this can help show more of the journalistic process and make it more transparent that is no bad thing.

I haven鈥檛 said anything about because, at the moment, we think their tracking is not working properly and is highlighting comments as 鈥渃ensored鈥� which are, in fact, published and live on the Have your Say pages. We are in touch with the architect of News Sniffer to see whether and how this can be fixed.

UPDATE, Friday lunchtime: I've responded to some of the comments raised below here and here.

Daily Mail: "The 大象传媒 has been accused of wasting money after it was revealed that plans to give its most famous building a lavish face-lift are over-budget and behind schedule." ()

The Guardian: "大象传媒 news could be hit by a 12-hour strike next week after the broadcasting union Bectu said it expected its members to vote for industrial action." ()

Visit London鈥檚 Aldwych on an evening and you鈥檒l see loads of folk milling about in dinner jackets. Who are these people? Theatreland party guests or 大象传媒 World Service continuity announcers waiting to start their shifts?

Well, the former, of course but the image of immaculately dressed ladies and gentlemen addressing the world from London is an enduring one. Indeed, it is said that 大象传媒 studios were designed so that starched cuffs couldn鈥檛 inadvertently knock important controls.

This weekend we look to the future, however, as we search for a young continuity announcer for our forthcoming 鈥淕eneration Next鈥� week. It鈥檚 all about seeing the world through the eyes of the planet鈥檚 under-18s.

We invited UK schools who had recently run licensed radio stations to nominate students and this Saturday a bunch of them will come to Bush House for coaching from some of our professional broadcasters. They鈥檒l also record audition material for their bid to be a finalist. More than forty million listeners could hear their work so it鈥檚 a pretty big deal for them.

But we have a dilemma - some of the entrants we鈥檝e heard demonstrate maturity, authority and a vocal resonance well beyond their years. They will sit very well on air and bring youthful insight to our journalism. But if they don鈥檛 actually sound young and recognisably different to our listeners, what鈥檚 the point of all this you might argue.

Well, we鈥檙e inviting World Service listeners to influence the judges鈥� decision by commenting on their favourites by text and email. I鈥檒l let you know when it鈥檚 all up on the website in case you want to join in鈥� and of course I鈥檒l let you know if any of the hopefuls turn up in black tie.

On this week's Newswatch, the programme to discuss viewers' comments on 大象传媒 News, head of TV News Peter Horrocks answers complaints about coverage of the Kriss Donald murder trial, and director of sport Roger Mosey debates the appointment of Mihir Bose as sport editor. You can watch it here.

New York Times: "Critics inside the 大象传媒鈥檚 Web site are condemning plans to advertise on the site, saying the ads could damage the 大象传媒鈥檚 reputation." ()

The Telegraph: "One of the 大象传媒's most senior executives has defended the corporation against accusations that it is 'crammed full of soft liberals'." ()

The Observer: A diary written by Today programme presenter John Humphrys during his recent period in Iraq. ()

A has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We , thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We鈥檝e carried the and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, . But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

Daily Mail: 大象传媒 criticised for interviewing Taleban. ()

Daily Telegraph (and others): 大象传媒 radio feels the heat from commercial rivals ()

Daily Telegraph: Opinion column on 大象传媒 impartiality. ()

Daily Mail: John Humphrys writes about faith (No link available)

Independent: Pandora claims Zac Goldsmith will be guest editor of Today. [大象传媒 did not confirm this.] ()

Spectator: Fergal Keane writes about his love for America. ( [subscription required])

The Taleban are fighting to kill British soliders in Afghanistan, they burn schools and support al-Qaeda. So is it right to talk to them?

For Newsnight, spent months trying to make contact with the Taleban leadership, and on Wednesday we showed his extraordinary film in which he travelled to Helmand province to interview their official spokesman for the first time (you can see it here).

The Conservative defence spokesman called that "obscene", and the Daily Mail reported the views of the father of one British soldier who thought the 大象传媒 has acted irreponsibly, "undermining the war effort".

Should the 大象传媒 report from the other side of the lines? We believe we should as long as we act with careful thought and do nothing to put the lives of British soldiers at risk. David Loyn's report showed how the Taleban operate in southern Afghanistan, how they view the British and Americans and how they plan to take their campaign forward through suicide bombings. He challenged their spokesman on the Taleban's campaign of violence against Nato's efforts at reconstruction, their burning of schools and rejection of democracy.

Some believe it is disloyal to our armed forces to film the enemy. But if we agreed not to show them, isn't that just a small step away from censorship and pro-government propaganda?

Viewer Jamie Woolley wrote to The Editors yesterday, saying:

I was concerned by two reports on the Ten O'Clock News [on Tuesday] or, rather, how they were juxtaposed. A report about consumption of the Earth's resources was swiftly followed by a piece about the bouyant state of British 4x4 manufacturing. While over-consumption cannot be laid solely at the door of the car industry, there was a complete lack of irony in the reporting. It's the same in the press - the liberal press is hard on the aviation industry for their contributions towards climate change yet still carry travel supplements. I realise the role of a programme like the Ten O'Clock News is to report on the news, not comment but sometimes, where one issue has a direct impact on the other, I wish the dots could be a little more joined up.

Jamie's comment is well made. One thing we've been trying hard to achieve on the Ten is to pull together different strands of a story - so perhaps the irony of climate change and 4x4 stories being on the same programme is something we should have pointed out.

The Sun: Reports that the 大象传媒 has been criticised for broadcasting an interview with members of the Taliban. (no link available)

The Guardian: The paper's leader column praises Today programme presenter John Humphrys. ()

BASRA: Visiting Iraq is a sobering experience but, as we get ready to leave after two editions of Today (which you can read about here), one particularly sobering thought lingers: once UK forces pull out, as they say they will "sometime soon", will any reporting from here be possible?

All of us would prefer to be here without the help of the military but, at the moment, that鈥檚 very difficult to envisage. In a land where some policemen are also members of the death squads which terrorise this city, where patrol cars are found carrying roadside bombs, where the long arm of the law may also be the strong arm of religious extremism or a criminal gang, the risks that local journalists run are terrifying. Without the military safety blanket, the risks to outsiders would be incalculable.

So we鈥檙e with the armed forces, and grateful for the protection they offer. But, at the same time, it鈥檚 hard to ignore the limits they impose. As journalists, we spend too much of our time glimpsing Basra through razor wire fences or the bullet-proof windows of a Land Rover. We get out of the fortified bases into the city and the villages beyond as often as we can, but each trip is immensely labour-intensive 鈥� and much more dangerous for the soldiers who accompany us than it is for us.

Maybe those who believe that the presence of British troops and diplomats here exacerbates the situation are right. They鈥檙e certainly a lightning rod. I鈥檝e lost count of the number of mortars and rockets that have landed on the base where we鈥檙e staying in the past four nights 鈥� perhaps it鈥檚 40 or 50 鈥� and each one runs the risk of falling short and landing instead on an Iraqi house much less able to withstand the impact than the breeze-block bungalows where we sleep. So, certainly, some daily acts of violence happen because the British are here. But, at the same time, we鈥檝e heard stories of lives that have been saved by their presence. And however appalling the state of the Basra police, is it really possible to imagine that they鈥檇 be better without the efforts of ex-coppers from Northern Ireland, South Wales and every other corner of the UK to train and improve them?

It鈥檚 too early for any final accounting of the British mission here, but the army is certainly one very strong thread in the fabric of what little security remains in Basra. If we pull it out, will what鈥檚 left support a society where foreigners can come and go in peace?

In Baghdad, of course, 大象传媒 colleagues do manage to move around the city independently 鈥� but the level of protection they need means it鈥檚 a fiercely expensive business. And even an organisation with the resources of the 大象传媒 couldn鈥檛 afford to do that everywhere.

Let鈥檚 be optimistic for a moment. Let鈥檚 assume that when the UK withdraws from this corner of southern Iraq the situation doesn鈥檛 get worse. Let鈥檚 assume that it even gets marginally better 鈥� that there are fewer death squads roaming the streets, that the police are less well-infiltrated by members of the violent militia. Even then, it will be far too dangerous to travel here independently.

And while Baghdad 鈥� the centre of everything in this country 鈥� continues to grab the headlines and catch the eye, the risk is that this city of nearly two million people slips from view.

In one sense, no surprise: there are plenty of cities of that size around the world that we barely hear from. But, without in any sense wishing more suffering upon this place, it鈥檚 possible that some pretty awful things will happen here in the years ahead 鈥� and it would be tragic if we didn鈥檛 know about them.

Today, as every day, I got a viewer's letter pointing out that the picture on 大象传媒 Parliament, crammed illegibly into one quarter of the screen, is not good enough. They even sent me a photo, to show me. Our announcement that from the 13th November it will be a normal broadcast picture (just in time for the Queen's Speech on the 15th) has come not a moment too soon.

What was meant to be an improvement to the audio-only service offered in the days of was neither understood nor appreciated by anyone. Many viewers assumed that the 3/4 of a screen filled with (mainly) dead text was a whim on our part, a symptom of advanced mania for graphics. Others concluded that they were doing something wrong with their remote control and could we please tell them which button to push? Bandwidth constraints... nah, that didn鈥檛 wash.

After receiving thousands of angry and perplexed letters and emails, there鈥檚 one that sticks in my mind - 鈥渋t鈥檚 like looking at a postage stamp while listening to the radio鈥�. Quite.

Thanks to some brilliant work by the 大象传媒's distribution department, the bandwidth issues finally got sorted and the channel on Freeview will look just like a proper one, as it already has done for years on cable and satellite. Sitting next to 大象传媒 News 24 on the EPG at channel 81, it makes that transition from the first part of a major statement or debate - which both channels are likely to carry - to the handover to 大象传媒 Parliament, both natural and easy.

大象传媒 Parliament already reaches between three quarters of a million and a million viewers a month - this will go up with the growing success of that platform.

We鈥檝e one more hurdle to cross. A lot of Freeview boxes are not very clever, and it means that many existing Freeview viewers will have to re-tune (from the 13th) to pick up the new full-screen channel. I think there may be one or two more letters and emails...

A bit of a first yesterday for News 24: we went to jail. Our home affairs correspondent Jane Hughes was granted exclusive access to Britain's biggest prison - Wandsworth in South London. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time anyone's been allowed to broadcast live all day from behind bars.

But it wasn't easy getting to this point.

It was back in February that the first contact was made with the Prison Service press office. "How about letting me in?" said plucky Jane. "You seem like a trustworthy sort of cove," came the reply. She then had to undergo detailed questioning from the Prison Service, the Governor of Wandsworth and assorted other officials - some of whom were extremely wary. She had to send a formal written proposal to the Home Office, which eventually acquired the ministerial seal of approval. At last, Jane, her producer and the technical team went for a full day's "recce".

It was all going rather swimmingly. But then the row over foreign prisoners blew up and Charles Clarke resigned - the day before we were due to go live from Wandsworth. Frustratingly, but not surprisingly, the Home Office told us the deal was, temporarily, off.

Yet more negotiations finally got us to Tuesday's live broadcasts.

Our team had to arrive with all the technical kit you'd expect: cameras, lights, cables etc - but they also turned up armed with a ladder, a saw and lots of rope. Which caused much amusement among some of the older lags. Especially when the engineers had to saw a hole in a door and throw a rope over the perimeter wall - all to facilitate the live broadcasts, you understand. They've not had so much excitement at Wandsworth since 1965 when Ronnie Biggs jumped the wall.

The Sun: "The Queen has allowed a 大象传媒 film crew an 'unprecedented insight' into the Royal Household." ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 is fighting the Bulgarian media regulator in court for the right to broadcast in the country after threats to revoke its licence last week." ()

There has been quite a bit of debate in the 大象传媒 newsroom about why the first interview with Top Gear's Richard Hammond after his crash was with a newspaper, rather than with one of our reporters.

The 大象传媒, just like other broadcasters, could report what was said in Monday's Daily Mirror interview, but only with attributing it to the paper. Similarly, we could show the picture of Richard the paper had taken, but only if we showed the whole of the front page, including the name. Often when newspapers have big interviews which they know other media will want to report, their lawyers will send round notes to broadcasters setting out these terms, and the Mirror's lawyers did so here.

We were concerned that the 大象传媒 audience would be confused about why Richard was being interview by the Mirror. Richard is so well-known as a 大象传媒 presenter and had shortly before the crash signed a new TV presenting contract. But he is also a regular columnist on the Mirror.

We also understand that his doctors had advised him not to do any broadcast interviews at this stage. Nevertheless it's important for our viewers to see and hear Richard as soon as possible, and I hope he will agree to come in front of our cameras in the near future when he feels up to it.

I am not surprised that some readers of , and are furious with the 大象传媒. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover 鈥� 鈥� that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.

According to the Mail on Sunday, and other recent press reports, we have admitted that we are an organisation of trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who wouldn鈥檛 know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head.

The Mail on Sunday based its story on a leak from what it called a 鈥渟ecret鈥� meeting of 大象传媒 executives and governors, and claims that it was our former political editor, Andrew Marr himself, who confessed to the liberal bias of the organisation. His take was reinforced by Jeff Randall, who until recently was our business editor. 鈥淚f they say it, then it must be true鈥� was the thrust of the story.

Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it.

For a start, this wasn鈥檛 a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-大象传媒 people like and . It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the 大象传媒鈥檚 commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world鈥檚 journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.

To keep us all on our toes, a rich variety of formats was used during the day. I was on a "Hypothetical" 鈥� where a panel of people in charge is given a series of mounting 鈥渞eal life鈥� crises and asked how they would handle each of them. It was fun, occasionally illuminating, and often very challenging.

There was for example a heated debate about the whether or not a Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf. was all in favour. 大象传媒 Washington correspondent Justin Webb was vehemently against. I had deep reservations because I felt a scarf would be a distraction from the news but pointed out - in the interests of debate - that if we banned the headscarf, how would we justify that cross which I was sure I had once seen Fiona Bruce wearing. From this discussion emerged the wholly untrue newspaper story that the 大象传媒 had banned Fiona鈥檚 cross.

The point of the Hypothetical is to generate discussion, debate and ideas. The situations aren鈥檛 real; the discussions aren鈥檛 binding and they certainly don鈥檛 define 大象传媒 policy.

There was discussion of the 大象传媒鈥檚 culture and some provocative points were made.

Jeff Randall made a few good jokes about the occasional examples of political correctness he found among some 大象传媒 colleagues. I remembered an incident about 15 years ago when a freelance reporter working for me on a programme about bullying in Feltham Young Offenders鈥� Institution asked me if it was acceptable to broadcast what they had discovered: that most of the bullies in Feltham at that time were black and most of the victims were white. Not only was it acceptable, I told the reporter, if he had evidence of this he had a duty to report it. And so we did.

Andrew Marr made some comments about 大象传媒 culture being more liberal than the rest of the country 鈥� points he makes in his book on journalism.

The main thing is, however, they were both giving their personal opinions. That is entirely their right and what they had been asked to do in the interests of discussion. I disagree with them. I found their claim of liberal bias unconvincing 鈥� based on anecdote and attitude rather than evidence.

The 大象传媒 employs more than 20,000 people across the UK. It is not a chattering class club of the kind depicted by the papers. It is a hugely varied organisation with many different cultures and a huge variety of opinions on every single issue among its staff. What does unite 大象传媒 staff however, is a deep commitment to 大象传媒 values and at the heart of those values is a commitment to impartiality.

When I first joined the 大象传媒 I asked a very experienced and subtle journalist what was meant by 大象传媒 impartiality. 鈥淚t means we don鈥檛 take sides,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 take sides either explicitly or implicitly. We test all opinion toughly but fairly and we let the audience make up their own minds.鈥�

It鈥檚 a simple but absolutely correct definition which audiences see, hear and read in our output everyday. In the end, the personal views of our staff are not the point. The issue is that their views and opinions never stray on air.

And that鈥檚 where the broad audience comes in. What really counts is not what a group of 大象传媒 executives and VIPs think, or indeed what a few columnists believe. The important thing is whether or not our audiences think we are biased. And on that the evidence is robust.

Asked recently which of the four main broadcasters they would term "trustworthy", nearly two thirds - 60% - cited the 大象传媒. In contrast, 26% said ITV, 16% mentioned Channel 4, and 14% Sky. (Mori, 2006)

That research is very cheering but it never allows us to rest on our laurels. Impartiality is not so much a fixed point as a process of open mindedness which should be the basis for everything we do in journalism.

Part of that open mindedness is being tested in exercises like the Hypothetical which ran at the impartiality seminar. No one has all the answers on any subject and debate and discussion are vital if we are to ensure that impartiality remains a living reality rather than an empty claim.

It鈥檚 a shame that the newspapers have made mischief with the seminar, but we won鈥檛 let this small storm put us off trying to get impartiality right.

Financial Times: A columnist outlines why they believe the 大象传媒 is "too big, too diverse and too distant from its original purpose". (, subscription required)

The Mirror: Richard Hammond's wife talks about the crash that nearly killed her husband. ()

On this week's Newswatch, the programme which airs viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 News, News 24's Stephen Mawhinney addressed claims that Madonna's adoption of a Malawian child had been over-reported on the 大象传媒. The programme also looked at whether the 大象传媒 interviewed too many newspaper journalists in news reports. (You can watch the show here.)

We had an 'awayday' the other day - that means we all went off for a day outside our office to consider the bigger issues facing us. One of the biggest challenges - we like that word - is how do we get our output to people (maybe like you) who don't listen to radio much, but who are interested in global affairs, read and write blogs, download video and audio and use systems like RSS.

Although our programme is avaliable online so you can listen either online or up to five days after broadcast, we have yet to make World Tonight journalism available on other platforms like handheld devices, mobile phones and PDAs, or make it easy to download. At the moment, the only way you can get downloads of any of our output is on the daily Newspod which carries some items from our programme.

Anyway, back to the awayday... I invited a technology consultant to demonstrate to my team how many people are now consuming media. He illustrated how RSS and programmes like BitTorrent work. He also showed a selection of video blogs that provide news and comment. All of which got our team talking about the need for us to make the journalism we do easily available to people who wouldn't normally tune in to Radio 4.

One idea is for us to start a system by which you could subscribe to an email that informed you everytime we did something on an issue that interests you, be it the environment, China, space exploration, or whatever, and provided a link to the audio.

There will certainly be ideas we haven't thought of, but one thing we do know is that we need to make our journalism easier to find and easy to hear. In other words, make an effort to go where people who are interested in the kind of global stories we cover are rather than expect them to come to us.

The Telegraph: An extended interview with Today programme presenter John Humphrys. ()

The Mirror: An interview with Richard Hammond, the 大象传媒 presenter who survived a high-speed car crash. ()

Daily Mail: "大象传媒 executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is biased." ()

Gavin Esler used to start his with a quote of the day, but stopped this week as we're trying to make our programme summary shorter and more to the point (tell us what you think). Typically, as soon as you stop doing something, great material comes along.

I loved this quote from Lord Harris, Margaret Thatcher's free market guru, . "The market can cater for the tiniest minorities - those who like fancy waistcosts, or the collected works of Ted Heath".

I assume Lord Harris revelled in the market possibilities of the internet. Once, for example, the extent of your choice was to watch Newsnight or not watch it. Now you can watch it live, on time shift, on the website, , and from this weekend in a variety of new ways.

Our weekly of the best bits of the programme has been doing a brisk business. So next week we'll be offering a daily highlight to download. Let us know what you'd like - films, discussions or shorter clips?

And for those who don't want to download the podcast, you can now watch the collection of the best moments on News 24 over the weekend - it's called The Week on Newsnight.

It's interesting though that however you offer something, some people will always want it served up slightly differently.

One media journalist with a busy social life told me this week that from her point of view the best thing we could do is say at the end of the programme: "And exactly the same edition of Newsnight is starting now on 大象传媒 Four".

It's what Lord Harris would have wanted.

Beware of the wisdom of crowds - or the man in the pub. Some of the cautionary phrases used by 大象传媒 folk at an internal audience seminar chaired by the 大象传媒's head of news Helen Boaden. I was on the panel along with the editor of the Guardian, our political editor Nick Robinson and world news editor Jon Williams (you can read Jon's thoughts on the matter below this post, or by clicking here).

So where do we stand on the issue of how much to listen to our audiences - how much say we give them about story selection and running orders?. How much do we impose and how much do we interact?

Enter Sarah - a 21 year old listener to Radio 1 who gave me some good advice when we met up recently: "No matter how high up in the news you are, at the 大象传媒 or whatever, you've got to listen to us, we pay the licence fee... without us you'd be nothing". She's dead right and we ignore audiences today at our extreme peril.

It's not just a lip service thing though, it genuinely makes us editorially richer I believe - serving a young Radio 1 audience who love texting - the moment we stop reading their incoming texts on the stories of the day is the moment I lose touch with the people who make us tick - our 9.3 million listeners.

It's made our news agenda stronger and faster: We were alerted to stories like the dangers of "Snatch" landrovers in Iraq and Afghanistan by our listeners with military connections long before our other 大象传媒 network colleagues. And we were better able to gauge listener anger over Norwich Union's decision not to "quote happy" younger drivers on their insurance as well as current street issues on drugs, drink and sex.

It may not be right for all 大象传媒 outlets - and journalists still have an important role in checking out the facts and binning the hoaxes as well as sifting and editing the vast range of ideas, info and tips that come flooding in. But why should we be in charge in a lofty ivory tower? If you've got a better idea for a story - a lead - an investigation - just shout.

I am clear where we stand. Without our audience and our daily dialogue with them - we'd be finished.

So just how much should we listen to you - our audience? It's a question all of us involved in the media are pondering right now.

Just a few years ago, audience involvement was restricted to letters of complaint, requests for record on the radio - and of course the staple of radio, the phone-in. Now technology means feedback is instant - via text, email and . A few months ago, - our very own polling of "hits" and "misses". And my colleagues in TV have previously written about "The Pulse" - instant audience feedback about the stories we carry on the Six and Ten O'Clock News on 大象传媒 One.

So we know what some of you think about what we do - good and bad. But how big a role should that play in the decisions we make?

I was the home news editor on July 7th last year. We recieved 20,000 emails, more than 1,000 mobile phone pictures and dozens of bits of video; it was your phone-calls that alerted us to what was going on when the authorities weren't quite sure what to make of the "power-outage" on the underground. It transformed our coverage - and our view of the role you can play in our output.

Now, whenever there's a story, our readers, viewers and listeners send in pictures from the scene - whether it's the explosion at the Buncefield oil terminal, or the attacks on trains in Mumbai in India. For news - as news editor - it's a magnificent resource to draw on. It's not often we're on the scene when something is happening - our cameras usually get there after the event; we film the aftermath. Very often, you are in the thick of it.

It's been called citizen journalism - I prefer to think of it as citizen newsgathering.

It's an important distinction - and one that goes to the heart of the debate. It's vital our stories engage with the audience - but we need to be careful our running orders don't become a 'Top of the Pops' of news (look to that!).

Yesterday more than 400,000 of you read a shot of a walrus feeding on clams on the sea floor winning a photography prize. It was the second most read story of the day - but it doesn't mean we should run it in on the 10 O'Clock News. What all this information gives us are pieces of the jigsaw - whether it's The Pulse, the live stats from the News website or the stories that engage the listeners to the Radio Five Live phone-in. All should inform our decision making about the stories we do - but we must also do the stories that are significant but which may not be particularly exciting.

Today, the 25 heads of state and government from the European Union are meeting in Finland - top of the agenda are new ways to make energy supplies more secure, relying less on climate-changing fossil fuels. The story matters - and today we'll report from Siberia and here in the UK, as well as from Finland in an attempt to tell you why. I could be wrong - but I'm not sure it'll be the hot topic of debate among Newsbeat's audience on Radio One, or the most read story on the News website (at the time of writing it was the 9th most popular in Europe and doesn't appear in the worldwide top 10). But it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We should - we must.

The challenge is to to do it in a way that means something to you. Let me know if we succeed - that's the best audience involvement.

How long should an interview be ?

Clearly a pretty stupid question, to which the only proper response can be "it depends", but it's one many of us have to answer several times a day.

We all (even those editing continuous news services) have a limited amount of time. We all want to cover more stories than we can fit. We all want to give interviews long enough to be interesting and informative. It can only end in tears... and I often wonder whether we (and here I'll start limiting it to my programmes lest I annoy some colleagues) get it right.

Take yesterday. We covered three stories in the main body of the programme (which you can listen to here) - the crime figures (two sets); the Conservatives' Tax Commission report; and the cost and disruption of court cases stalling or collapsing through mistakes, last-minute plea changes and so on. Those of you kind enough to listen to The World at One will know we tend to have at least one main interview or discussion in each story, preceded (or occasionally followed) by some shorter interviews helping to give some context or reaction. Today our three main interviews were with the Police Minister Tony McNulty, the Chairman of the Tax Commission Lord Forsyth and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith. Today I reckon I got the first two about right and the last one wrong... but as yet I'm not sure how that felt wherever the programme played out.

On most stories I reckon we need to give a decent amount of information and/or a reasonable spread of views. I think the crime sequence would have been much the poorer without our former Home Office advisor and criminologist... and the five contributors ahead of Lord Forsyth did a fine job in setting out some of the arguments around the economics and politics of tax cuts. But, left with just over six minutes for the court story, was three enough in which to ask the attorney general how he thought the failings could be tackled? I felt we had to set out the criticisms from the Public Accounts Committee... but maybe we should have just spent more time with Lord Goldsmith to try to explore his ideas. The last interview certainly felt too rushed and I'm not sure we got a huge amount from it. (I can tell by now you're desperately sad you don't have to take part in our post-programme meetings.)

Anyway, the specifics of today's programme don't matter that much... and I'm sure there will be some who disagree with our story choice to start with. But I would genuinely be interested to know whether listeners would prefer fewer contributions and longer main interviews... or whether it's the context that makes the difference between predictable and informative.

By the way, for those who missed it there was an elegant end to the Paxman/Alan Duncan interview on Wednesday's Newsnight, where both accepted that to continue for the time set aside would be pointless. If only we could transfer free time across networks.

The Guardian: The controller of 大象传媒 One comments on the future of some 大象传媒 current affairs programmes. ()

Press Gazette: "大象传媒 chiefs have been warned they will face an outcry from the North if they abandon their plans to move to Manchester." ()

Should the Ten O'Clock News be reporting the increasingly messy ?

That was the question at yesterday's editorial meetings. Some felt that the reports - including allegations of wife-beating and details of rows over bedpans and breast milk - were not a subject that should trouble the Ten. I can see that argument... Sir Paul McCartney flatly denies every single claim.

So why did we run them in the first half of our programme?

First of all, the Ten isn't a programme that should ignore stories that rightly have a prominent place on the news agenda - nor should it hold its nose and handle them with pinched fingers at arm's length.

That's not to say we will be diving into the latest shenanigans of c-list pop stars or glamour models - but this story is in an entirely different league. Paul McCartney is one of the most famous people on earth - the death of his first wife followed by his finding of love with Heather, moved a lot of people. When it all ends in acrimony, that is simply a good story.

Moreover, the printing of the document in a national newspaper raises many questions about how what could be one of the biggest divorce settlements in British history is being handled. There are also questions about how the media operates - is it being used? Gavin Hewitt's piece on our programme (which you can watch by clicking here) was a serious minded look at the issues raised, with top-level media and legal commentators explaining that the stakes are very high.

The McCartney story was not the most important thing that happened in the world yesterday - but we would have been remiss not to tell it and to explore the implications.

The 大象传媒鈥檚 College of Journalism has been organising sessions where we get to meet the audience face-to-face and hear what they think of our reporting.

I went to one two nights ago, slightly apprehensive. What would the audience say? Would they be nice about our work? About us? It felt like an exam. The organisers kept a close eye on the journalists. We were discouraged from leaping to our own defence. Arguing with the audience members would, I feel, have been frowned upon. And the journalists weren鈥檛 allowed to sit together - depriving us of safety in numbers. Instead, we were interspersed among the visitors.

With them, we watched, listened to and read examples of our coverage. Then we heard what they thought about it. I made some notes: 鈥淕ive us the roots of the story鈥�, was one comment I wrote down. 鈥淓xplain why it matters, how it started鈥� you assume too much knowledge.鈥�

Another message was about the power of images - to tell the story, but also to shock. TV footage showing dead civilian casualties of conflict caused some heartfelt objections and debate. There was enthusiasm for an online email exchange as a way of letting 鈥渞eal people鈥� (as opposed to journalists) tell the story. This sort of format actually takes a lot of behind-the-scenes editorial effort to produce, but on this evidence it looks as though it鈥檚 worth it.

I'm not sure what the audience made of the evening - or of us - but I'm grateful to them for giving up their time. They had some thoughtful feedback and lessons, and there鈥檚 nothing like hearing it in person. We should make a habit of it.

The Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 has decided that religious symbols can be worn by newsreaders, but that they must not distract viewers (based on this blog entry). ()

The Guardian: A report on the ethics of reporting on the Mills/McCartney divorce, featuring comments from the head of 大象传媒 TV News, Peter Horrocks. ()

The Telegraph: "A secret guide that has helped generations of 大象传媒 newsreaders pronounce difficult words and odd-sounding names is to be made public for the first time." ()

We鈥檝e just appointed our first sports editor. Mihir Bose will join us from the Daily Telegraph, where he鈥檚 been a sports news writer for the past 10 years, .

Why are we creating this job? Well, we know some people are passionately interested in sports news, some are completely uninterested and others have a fairly general interest in the most important and interesting things happening in the sports world.

Although people are more polarised in their level of appetite for sport than many other subjects, it is undoubtedly an important part of the news agenda 鈥� not only major events such as the Olympics and the World Cup, but also the social, cultural, business and political significance which sport carries.

Mihir鈥檚 job will be to get under the skin of sport 鈥� both to break stories and to explain what鈥檚 really happening, whether it鈥檚 a story about money and the Premiership, the build up to London 2012 or alleged cheating in cricket.

We want people to find out what鈥檚 happening in the world of sport from the 大象传媒 鈥� just as much as they do for politics or world affairs. This new job is a key building block in our commitment to sports journalism and we think it鈥檚 going to make a real difference to what people see, hear and read from the 大象传媒 about sports news.

Last week I asked how much coverage you thought we ought to give to the North Korea story. Thank you all very much indeed for all your responses - it really is useful to get at least some sort of feel for what you think.

I promised to give you the information about audience reaction on this story after a few days, so here it is.

For the Six O'Clock News, the story that stood out for over half the audience (54%) was: World leaders condemn North Korea nuclear test and this was also the story they wanted to know more about (39%).

Six thousand people wrote into the 大象传媒 News website in the first 24 hours after the story broke. The story was also the most read on the website all of Monday.

Thanks again.

The Guardian: "Authorities in Bulgaria have announced that they are revoking the 大象传媒 World Service's right to broadcast in the country." ()

The Independent: "Yoko Ono has been invited to be a guest editor of 大象传媒 Radio 4's Today programme." ()

The Guardian: Satirist Armando Iannucci on how comedians are filling the gap where serious political debate used to be. ()

Occasionally phrases enter the political lexicon that start life in small isolated stories but then rapidly come to dominate.

Until recently it was "political correctness gone mad", but I would suggest that this has now been overtaken by politicians "calling for a debate". It is a useful phrase because it does not require the proposer to say what they think about the issue they want debated (as I write I am listening to Tony Blair's monthly news conference. He's just called for one on integration again, so I rest my case).

There is an irony in this current trend because in reality, despite a great tradition of parliamentary debate in this country, we sometimes find it very difficult to get politicians to debate issues.

On the radio "a debate" involves getting two or more people with different views to argue and discuss with each other. When we try to hold one with politicians we quickly find ourselves in a labyrinth of convention and unwritten rules. Cabinet ministers rarely agree to discussions with anyone, shadow cabinet ministers often do not like doing discussions with junior ministers, junior ministers do not like discussions with backbenchers and so it goes on.

I should point out there are many noble exceptions to these rules but they do regularly consume much producer effort.

When it comes to programmes like PM, politicians much prefer what we call a "one to one" where the presenter just asks questions and the politician answers. Although there does seem to be a new phenomenon in this type of interviewing too. Witness Peter Mandelson on PM this week asking himself a question and then answering it. I wonder if it will catch on.

How many English speakers are there around the world? It's a question I started researching when a newspaper journalist interviewed me last week about the launch of a French news channel, France 24. The question was relevant because it turns out that much of the French channel will be broadcast in English - and for a nation which protects its language so fiercely, this must have been a very hard decision.

But it's also a pragmatic one. The number of people who can speak English is growing, and it's becoming the international language of business and, of course, the internet in many parts of the world. Exactly how many people speak English is a matter of some disagreement.

If you look at some of the online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia or Encarta, there's a rough agreement that 350 million people - give or take 20 or 30 million - speak English as their first language. When you try to account for people who speak English as a secondary language, the estimates diverge from another 150 million to more than 500 million.

Either way it seems to lift English up from the fourth or fifth most spoken language to second, behind Chinese. French, according to Encarta, comes in at 11th, with 78 million speakers. So on that basis, you can see why producing some of its output in English is a necessary step if France 24 is going to make any impact in the international market.

It's an increasingly crowded market. CNN has been there for 25 years and 大象传媒 World Service Television - later to become 大象传媒 World - launched 15 years ago. There are four more English channels either on air or planned to launch...Russia Today () is on air and of course the much-hyped is due to launch at some point, although nobody is saying exactly when. Even the Iranians are getting in on the act, announcing this month the intention to launch a 24 hour news channel in English, to be called "Press".

So why the rush to launch so many news channels? I think it divides into two reasons. First, because the demand (and need) for international news is growing (大象传媒 World's audiences are increasing in just about every market) and so many of us these days have a direct interest in global affairs that these channels are becoming increasingly relevant... decisions taken outside national borders may affect our jobs, or the state of our environment, or indeed our security.

The second reason is politics. To quote President Chirac, France "must be at the forefront of the global battle of images, that's why I am resolved that our country should have an international news channel". An Iranian official quoted last week said Press was necessary to provide 鈥渁 different perspective on the region鈥檚 issues鈥�.

Both 大象传媒 World and CNN exist because of the first reason. We're there because we think it's important to offer a high-quality service of international news to global audiences, in the same way as the World Service does on the radio (neither, incidentally, funded out of the British licence fee).

We think the public service values of the 大象传媒's domestic journalism also have a place in the global arena and in doing so we bring benefit back to Britain. Plus we also help sustain an international network of correspondents and bureaux which benefits UK viewers and listeners.

And of course we welcome all competition... because without it, we risk becoming complacent or stale. So I will be watching eagerly when France 24 goes on air later this year, and perhaps I won't even need to brush up on my French to do so.

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 is to increase its spending on Welsh-language programmes for S4C by 拢3m in the run-up to digital switchover in Wales in 2009." ()

The Times: Reports that a 大象传媒 executive has mocked claims that website clips (such as those found on YouTube) will replace television. ()

Two weeks ago I asked contributors to this blog for your opinion on whether it is appropriate for news presenters to wear religious attire. The debate has narrowed to whether it is right for Fiona Bruce to wear a cross.

To recap and put the record straight, Fiona Bruce has not been banned from wearing a cross. The discussion about Fiona鈥檚 cross began at a governors' meeting discussing impartiality, around the hypothetical question of what we would do if a newsreader wanted to wear a headscarf or veil. The discussion broadened to include all forms of religious emblems.

I deliberately asked you, the audience, for your views. Some respondents thought any symbols had the potential to distract and could compromise impartiality. But the majority of people from all religious and non religious backgrounds believed if a presenter is wearing religious clothing as part of their identity then it is absolutely fine for them to continue to do so. I agree with this latter view, although on an individual basis we do need to consider whether symbols distract and get in the way of their primary job of communicating the news. The wearing of a full veil, for instance, would hinder communication with the audience; a large shiny cross would be too distracting.

On Newswatch, the programme which discusses viewers' criticisms of 大象传媒 News, Peter Horrocks debates the issue of Fiona Bruce's cross, and Amanda Farnsworth addresses criticisms of presenters standing and using each other's names. You can watch Newswatch by clicking here.

Sunday Telegraph: '大象传媒 is to have independent review into its business news coverage.' ()

The People: Traffic to MI5 website doubles after each episode of 大象传媒 One's Spooks. ()

Sunday Telegraph: 大象传媒 to challenge Freedom of Information ruling about a Middle East report. ()

The Guardian: Letter saying Ofcom should restrict news programmes to events in preceeding 24 hours. ()

The Independent: Columnist says '大象传媒 could afford move to Salford if it wanted.' ()

The Financial Times: 大象传媒 'ranked at or near the top of the list of ideal employers for every ethnic group surveyed this summer'. ()

It may not immediately look like it, but the which we're publishing on the website for the first time today is the fruit of hours and hours of hard work by some of the 大象传媒's most experienced Middle East specialists.

The aim is not to be prescriptive, but to give colleagues who can't reasonably be expected to follow every twist and turn of the conflict some suggestions to deal with the more contentious topics.

In many cases, it鈥檚 about being careful not to adopt, even inadvertently, the language of one side or the other, which may give an impression of bias.

So, for example, we recommend using the term "West Bank Barrier" for the system of fences, walls, ditches and barbed wire which Israel is currently building. The official Israeli term is "Security Fence", the Palestinians call it an "Apartheid Wall". Each has their point - but we believe this is the clearest generic term for our audiences. Individual reporters standing in front of a particular section can, of course, still refer to a "fence" or "wall" behind them.

Sometimes good journalism requires that we take a position on an issue - even when the facts themselves are under dispute. The civilian settlements which Israel has built on land it occupied in the 1967 Arab/Israeli war are illegal under international law. That is the position of the UN Security Council, the British government and the Geneva Convention. So it is right that we make that clear in this guide. Israel disputes this and has argued the case legally - and vociferously - on numerous occasions. That's also important and we recommend that where space allows our language should reflect the Israeli objection as well.

Palestinians and their supporters sometimes take us to task for using the term "suicide bombing" to describe what they view as a "martyrdom attack". Again, we feel it's right to take a position and that clear, simple, accurate language is best. In America, some news organisations describe them as "homicide attacks", a phrase we have discussed and rejected.

Although initially a little sceptical, the more I think about it, the happier I am that we are publishing this guide to the public. 大象传媒 journalists, whether they are in Israel, the Palestinian Territories or London, put an enormous amount of thought and effort into trying to get these things right. And if this shows just a glimpse of that to the people we are reporting to, it may prove a very useful exercise.

Here's a relatively new phenomenon, you might call it "e-mails before broadcast".

When the story broke of the Lancet it was accompanied by a rash of e-mails from anti-war groups urging us to run the story. Did that influence us?

Well, yes in the sense that I learned of the story from an anti-war campaigner who e-mails me regularly. But also no. When I took the report into our morning meeting where none of the producers had yet seen it, there was instant and unanimous agreement that - while the claim was in some people's view not credible - it was easily the most significant development of the day.

Then there was a second wave of e-mails. Not really suggesting we don't do the story, but urging that, if we do, to note that even the authors claim that it is of "limited precision". Don't be bullied by the anti-war lobby, they said. Thanks, we won't.

Then, as other news outlets started to report the story, there was a third wave of e-mails, this time saying sophisticated things like: please don't interview so and so, he doesn't know what he's talking about, if you're looking for a critic of the report please try to find an epidemiologist and not just a pundit, and even: please don't make the same schoolboy statistical error as your colleagues on xy news.

Are these unsolicited interventions helpful or unhelpful? The former, I think, as long as we read them with eyes wide open. You might argue that it would be purer to ignore the pressure from all quarters, but I think lobbying can actually improve our journalism, as long as it's not corrupt, that access to the editors of programmes is equally available to everyone (via e-mail it is) and that we question everything we're told.

Do I have any proof of this? Here's some unscientific evidence. We got fewer e-mails on this subject after broadcast than we did before.

Times, Guardian: Appointment of members of 大象传媒 Trust (, )

Daily Telegraph: Change in licence fee administration linked to decline of post offices. ()

Daily Mail: Richard Littlejohn asks why the 大象传媒 should launch an Arabic and Farsi TV service? "Those of us who live in the London area might just as well be watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation." ()

There is no debate that Iraq is a violent place. What is fiercely contested is the level of that violence.

Yesterday the respected medical journal The Lancet . The report found that more than 600,000 people have died violently since the war in 2003 - that's 500 people a day, or one in 40 of the Iraqi population.

The report was immediately criticised as being unscientific - not least by George W Bush. It was said that extrapolating from a survey of 12,000 people was ridiculous. The people who conducted the survey countered that the work had been peer reviewed, used standard polling techniques and had been accepted as an accurate way to reflect other atrocities, such as the genocide in Rwanda.

Clearly the story was incredibly important - and the stakes were very high. That's why we decided not only to report the figures and the controversy surrounding them, but to get our science correspondent David Shukman to show the working behind them, allowing the audience to make up their own minds about whether it was an acceptable way to reach such a high figure.

Our world affairs editor, John Simpson, reached the following conclusion: "Iraq is such a violent place that it is almost impossible to tell exactly how many people are dying."

As journalists we're naturally most comfortable when we're dealing with facts - but when it's so difficult to know what the facts are, it's vital we say that too.

Several papers: Director general Mark Thompson may halt the move of some 大象传媒 departments to Manchester if the licence fee is not increased. The switchover to digital might also be jeopardised if not properly funded, he warned.

Daily Telegraph: Panorama starts showing secret recordings to FA investigators. ()

Daily Telegraph: Sir Clement Freud discusses slang, after Today programme appearance. ()

Independent: Nick Robinson is to be interviewed by Michael Howard in a charity event. ()

Marketing Week: Freeview plans a PVR in every home.

My arse. Just don't go there. A reasonable if unnecessary request under normal circumstances you might think. But this morning we did go there, throwing caution - and perhaps wisdom - to the wind for a brief discussion on slang: from my arse and innit to sucks and yo. Incautious because Today listeners love a bare-knuckle word fight. And sure enough the e-mails soon came raining in: helpfully, if forcefully, defining what is and is not slang and whether it is or is not a good thing.

It certainly seemed a good thing to the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. He told us yesterday - albeit indirectly - to "get a life". On the same programme Salman Rushdie had backed Jack Straw with an emphatic "veils suck". In the wake of "Yo Blair!" what is it, we mused, with these influential people of power, resorting to such slang and rejecting the Queen's English?

So we put this to Sir Clement Freud, former MP, gameshow guest, professional eater and - we handily explained - an expert on these matters. But then, who isn't? We all speak, after all, and bandy slang terms around constantly. What's to be expert about? Or, as listener David Haines pointed out, "What is slang anyway if not metaphor and simile in action? Words like 'phlegmatic', 'spectacular', 'glamorous', 'nice' were all effectively slang at one time. The uses and meanings of words change over time. Get over it!"

Would that we could. But those e-mails keep pummelling in. Most lambast us as hypocrites for querying slang, and then indulging in it ourselves elsewhere in the programme - dumbing down, ditching a concept, Brits, unmarried mums.

And slowly it dawned on me. As ever, I realised, the nation should be thankful for John Humphrys. Whereas his role once was to be the unwitting spark for World War - no Today radio signal and the nukes are launched, went the myth - now his far more daunting but still unwitting lot in life is to sound the death knell of a slang term. Because if it crawls unremarked into John's script, then it can't truly be slang any more - or at least not baffling slang, and what's the point of slang unless it baffles John, Clement, Salman & co?

And so, at 8.14am today, "bangs for your buck" was - lest there be any lingering doubt - officially no longer a slang term. John used it without sarcasm in a question. Likewise, little over half an hour later he wondered "what's your problem with that?" to a guest. Chalk it up - another slang term turned and gone over to the other side. And don't let John's doubt confuse you. "Some people say 'wicked' meaning yes," he marvelled, before wondering: "or maybe that's out of date now."

Wonder no more John. Clearly 'wicked' must be toast, and well-burnt, if you even THINK it's acceptable slang. And so, as ever, I urge roving listeners to tune to the Today programme and to listen and learn from our arbiter of the acceptable. As far as slang's concerned, you heard it here last.

Incidentally, but inevitably, I was tempted to write this entire piece in slang. How witty and cleverly self-parodying that would have been, I figured. But then a reckless listener did just that, addressing "the Today Massive" and liberally employing terms such as "Big up", "groovy", "daddy'o" and "respec". With such a lead to guide me, I instantly decided not to go there. Again.

So how interested are you in North Korea apparently carrying out a nuclear test? We had a heated debate in our editorial meetings. Did we do too much?

I'm responsible for the Six O'Clock News, where we did 11-and-a-half minutes. ITN did more than that, partly because they were opening their new Bejing bureau I suspect.

But was this a really significant story you wanted to have explained in depth? Or was it interesting but frankly four or five minutes would have been better? I'd very much like your views.

We have some realtime audience reaction fugures from our website and also from a panel that says overnight what they found most interesting and want to know more about. I'll leave you all to tell me what you think and then blog again giving you that information from the website - let's see if you agree...

The Guardian: "大象传媒 director general Mark Thompson will today bow to pressure and revise downwards the corporation's above-inflation licence fee bid." ()

The Times: Reports that 大象传媒 Radio Five Live has lost its exclusive rights to broadcast live Premiership matches. ()

We have announced today that the for Iran in early 2008. It will be broadcast in Farsi (Persian) and will be distributed free by satellite.

It's the latest in a number of initiatives to develop the 大象传媒 World Service from a radio-dominated operation into a multi-media service for key international audiences. Last year we closed 10 radio language services to be able to re-invest the money in an Arabic TV channel and in improved internet services. This time the British government is paying the full cost of Farsi TV.

Television is increasingly the dominant way people in the Middle East, Iran and many other parts of the world receive their news. We have had a successful Farsi radio broadcast to Iran for more than 60 years and, more recently, on the internet as well - although recently the Iranian authorities have sought to block the internet site. However if we are to continue to maintain our audience reach in the region, it is essential we move into TV.

The service will reflect the 大象传媒's core editorial values of impartiality and fairness and crucially bring a broad range of international reporting to an audience which cannot always get access to free and independent information.

Although the service is funded by the British Government, as is the rest of the 大象传媒 World Service, the new channel will of course be editorially independent. Since the launch of the World Service in 1932, successive British governments have recognised that for the 大象传媒's international news to be credible, trusted and respected by diverse audiences around the world, it must be truly independent.

The 大象传媒's Global News services comprise the World Service in English and 32 languages, the internet news site accessible overseas and 大象传媒 World TV news. Altogether 210 million people each week get their news from the 大象传媒 - and that number continues to grow. We live in a more complex, interconnected, world than ever, wrestling with issues like international terrorism, climate change, globalised trade and economics. As a result, we are finding more people want international news than ever before.

The Independent: The paper's diary column on Jeremy Paxman speaking at the Cheltenham Book Festival. ()

The Guardian: More reaction to Graham Norton's comments on drug taking. ()

There are 193 countries in the World, not including Taiwan. The 大象传媒 is excluded from just a handful. So the news that the big story of the day is happening beyond our reach is problematic.

The North Koreans dropped a hint about their intentions last week, so the overnight news that they had tested their first nuclear device didn't exactly come as a surprise. That said, when my phone buzzed with the text alert at 0410 this morning, it wasn't the best start to the day. How do you report a story with no pictures, from a place you can't get to?

I suppose we're in a better position than many others. We've had a bureau in South Korea for a number of years. Our correspondent in Seoul, Charles Scanlon, is an acknowledged expert on the region. But for Charles - and my colleagues charged with reporting the story from London - trying to find out just what's happening can be a frustrating business.

Reporting reaction is the easy bit. From the Foreign Office, the Kremlin and the White House, there's been no shortage of comment. Most of the time, we deal with primary sources, someone involved in the story. But with a story like this, we're forced to rely on others' intelligence: information gleaned from charities and other NGOs such as the World Food Programme.

And facts are only part of the problem. Add to that, the fact of the lack of pictures, and you begin to see some of the difficulties in reporting the big story of the day.

Thank goodness for the likes of diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall and her colleagues around the world - like Jonathan Beale, State Department correspondent in Washington, Rupert Wingfield Hayes in Beijing and Laura Trevelyan, spending her first day back from maternity leave at the United Nations bashing the phones.

The story is like a giant jigsaw; each of them holds a piece - a different perspective on why it matters. By putting it all together, we hope we can begin to see the whole picture, and show how the story is playing out around the world. And a story like this is also a real test of our ability to be inventive. So tonight science correspondent David Shukman will use the studio to show how North Korea managed to make and test the bomb, and explore how far it is from having a working nuclear weapon.

So a confusing story with no pictures, and no access, and yet a story that really matters. Nobody ever said journalism was easy.

Our website technology correspondent Mark Ward hit on an unorthodox way of illustrating his latest series, about online security.

He set up a PC devoid of any sensible anti-virus software and firewall protection and left it online to see what would happen. The results were 鈥� to the uninitiated 鈥� fairly spectacular, not to say alarming. When he put the 鈥渉oneypot鈥� machine online it was, on average, hit by a potential security assault every 15 minutes.

The attacks came from all over the world. Most were just nuisances, but at least once an hour the hapless PC was hit by an attack that could have left it unusable or turned it into a platform for attacking other PCs. The experiment wasn鈥檛 exactly a scientific study, but his approach to the issue has prompted lots of interest and focused people鈥檚 attention on a common problem.

In this week's Newswatch, the programme for viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 News, Jamie Donald answers criticisms of party political conference coverage, and Africa bureau editor Milton Nkosi addresses claims that the 大象传媒 had not sufficiently covered events in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You can watch the programme here.

Daily Mail, Times: Reports on survey of PC security conducted by the 大象传媒 News website. ()

Guardian: 大象传媒 wins first round of Saturday night TV viewing battle. ()

Daily Mail: 大象传媒 History Magazine stages battlefield tests of longbows. (No link)

Guardian: Thanks to 大象传媒 America, a host of British TV shows are hits in the States. ()

Guardian: Letter about 大象传媒 cross-promotion. ()

I happened to overhear a 大象传媒 editor saying "these Muslim stories are like buses - they all come along at once". I suppose it might have been expressed more sensitively but you get the point - there were a lot of stories about Islam in the news yesterday.

The editor of the Six O'Clock News on 大象传媒 Radio Four said no fewer than ten items in his running order had a Muslim angle. The big one was ; but there was also Frank Gardner's piece about and - earlier in the day - much prominence was given to the case of at the Israeli Embassy. The headlines all said he was a Muslim; but was that really the point? An emailer has suggested that it was far more relevant that his father was Syrian and his wife Lebanese. There was no need to draw attention to his religion.

Is there force in this? Do we jump at the word Muslim too readily, in these days of relentless debate about multi-culturalism? Should we think harder about whether we need to draw attention to those Muslim angles? The team making Victoria Derbyshire's programme on Five Live usually think hard about these matters - even before the emails come in. They were very keen to test the policeman's motives and to tease out the views of his bosses and fellow Muslims.

One of the guests on Victoria's programmes was Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, who advises the Black Police Association (hear it here). And the Association of Muslim Police Officers also commented. Superintendent Dal Babu suggested (hear that here) it was a welfare issue and the Sun had been wrong when it suggested the policeman had acted on moral grounds. So - overall - the fact that the policeman is a Muslim is a factor in the story and deserves prominence. But we might never know the full details behind his request to be excused duty at the Israeli Embassy - in spite of everything that's been said since the news emerged.

The Independent: "The 大象传媒 newscaster Darren Jordon, yesterday became the latest high profile presenter to join the soon-to-be-launched Al Jazeera International." ()

The Mirror: Claims that the 300mph crash that nearly killed Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond will be shown on TV. ()

The Guardian: "Journalists could be in line for the Nobel peace prize - but not if they work for the 大象传媒." ()

The Daily Star yesterday had a memorable headline - "PC Prats cross at TV Fiona crucifix". I imagine the Star had a 大象传媒 boss like me in mind as a "PC Prat" - although I'm not angry and certainly not angry about .

Let me be clear, the 大象传媒 hasn't banned anything - whether veils, crosses, hijabs, scarves, skull caps, turbans or burkhas. What we have been discussing is what it's appropriate for newsreaders to wear, especially at a time of heightened religious tension.

The debate puts in opposition some principles the 大象传媒 stands for. The 大象传媒 is a supporter of freedom of expression. Equally we want our newsreaders to be seen as entirely impartial. Any religious clothing or insignia they wear could make some viewers question their impartiality. We were asked the hypothetical question of what we would do in the event that a Muslim newsreader wanted to wear a head scarf or veil. I suspect that some of the newspapers that have been poking fun at our consideration of wearing crosses would find a veil-wearing newsreader highly newsworthy, to put it mildly.

Anyway this is just a debate at the moment. It's a new area for us to consider and that means there is an opportunity for viewers to let us know what you think. So what would you prefer: Freedom of expression or complete impartiality in attire?

The hot debate in 大象传媒 News at the moment concerns a hypothetical question. What would we do if a newsreader of Muslim origin returned from holiday in Pakistan and said that from now on she wants to read the news wearing a headscarf?

Tricky, certainly. But I think the chances of that particular scenario happening are so unlikely it's not worth worrying about unduly. It's far more likely surely that one day soon a Muslim journalist who happens to wear a headscarf will become a reporter and then a presenter on national television. I reckon it might cause a stir for a day or two and then we'd all carry on. On Newsnight, has been presenting for more than a year wearing a turban - sometimes a shocking pink one - and as far as I'm aware the world has not ended.

Then Jeremy went to interview a group of schoolchildren on the day Tony Blair went on Blue Peter (watch the piece here), and the fact that he went to a school in Southall where the vast majority of pupils are not white caused shrieks of displeasure from some viewers. How typical, they suggested, that Newsnight should pick such a school.

But the thing is it's not typical. The vast majority of the guests we book on Newsnight are male, white and middle-aged, so are the majority of our viewers. And as Paul Mason's internal poshometer shows, Newsnight staff are hardly representative of the nation as a whole either.

You might say that's fine then. But what will happen in Britain if sizeable minorities feel that the news is not about people like them, not made by people like them, not for people like them. Problems ahead I'd suggest, but at least the headscarf conundrum might remain hypothetical.

Two Newsround young reporters interviewed Gordon Brown last week, and on our 大象传媒 One programme, we carried out a text vote, which resulted in three-quarters of those who voted deciding they didn't want him as prime minister.

We did the same thing yesterday with . And the completely unscientific, wholly-for-fun results are..

Just over 1,500 people voted. A small majority, 815, said YES, they did want him as prime minister. Slightly fewer, 671, said NO, they didn't.

Daily Mail: "Richard Hammond's 300mph crash in a jet-powered dragster will not spell the end for the 大象传媒's controversial Top Gear, it has been reported today." ()

The Guardian: "The Liberal Democrats have called on the chancellor to stop obstructing a 'fair 大象传媒 licence fee deal', after earlier reports of a cabinet split on the issue." ()

We've had nearly 200 complaints to our audience logs about our decision to switch away from live coverage of yesterday's speech by William Hague (watch it here) to the Conservative Party conference to instead interview Michael Howard. Here's a flavour of what's being said:

鈥� "Did Labour pay for this to happen?"
鈥� "Even Michael Howard in the studio said he would rather watch William Hague's speech."
鈥� "Have you lost your minds? He is such a brilliant speaker."

I'd like to tell you there was a good reason. But I haven't one. So here goes: it was a poor editorial decision, I accept the criticism and I apologise. We'll try to learn from this mistake which I believe was uncharacteristic of the coverage as a whole; and I hope that those of you who were upset can understand that - when under the pressure of doing extended live coverage in fixed time slots - we can all make the odd unintentional error.

But now that's off my chest, I don't want the error to overshadow what was some great conference coverage over the past three weeks, and I don't want the apology to suggest I'm not very pleased with the programmes overall. Why?.

Take : Three weeks ago I wrote about our recruiting them and my hopes for their impact on the attitudes of the young toward politics. Some rather rubbished the idea. Since then, they've interviewed the three men seeking to be prime minister, reported for The Daily Politics, led Newsround, been interviewed on a dozen regional news programmes, appeared on News at Ten, and featured on . Their contribution has been refreshing and insightful. And I know they've reached millions of viewers and listeners young and old.

Or take - an innovative way of allowing audiences to engage with key speeches by recording their reaction directly into their phones and downloading the information onto air. You can find out more about it on the programme website. It's the world's largest interactive focus group, and the technology deserves to be used more widely by programme makers in every genre.

And of course, we've covered and analysed quickly and well over a hundred stories and speeches from the conferences themselves. In this light, my opening 'sorry' hasn't been the hardest word.

The in rural Pennsylvania has brought the peaceful community of Nickel Mines into the world's eye for all the worst reasons. The small Amish community has been besieged by the media after a milk-truck driver shot 12 pupils in a small schoolhouse before turning the gun on himself.

The Amish are a reclusive people who advocate pacifism and shun modern life. They do not use electricity and have no television, radio, or computer at home. They prefer to live outside the mainstream, involved in their own world. So the hubbub and trappings of a big story - satellite trucks, film crews, hovering helicopters and 24-hour live shots - have been a further unwelcome jolt to a community already devastated by the horror of random death.

Filming and interviewing the victims of war and violent acts is always a daunting challenge. In this story we raised our threshold, to ensure we respected the views of a grieving community where cameras are barely welcome. Those who were interviewed were willing to do so. Despite the horror, the locals almost unbelievably spoke of forgiveness and redemption. One interviewee wanted to express his views but had qualms about the camera. In the end he agreed to be filmed from a distance that would make him hard to be identified.

But those who didn't want to speak were left alone. In the end we got the story, while respecting the wishes of the local community. I hope we gained their respect too.

The 大象传媒's editorial guidelines state we must always balance public interest against the need to be compassionate and to avoid any unjustified infringement of privacy. As we move on from Nickel Mines and leave the Amish community to grieve in peace, I'm satisfied that this time, despite the difficulties, we achieved the right balance.

Among the audience response received by the 大象传媒 in the past 24 hours were many complaints that the Daily Politics had cut short Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague's speech on Tuesday to go to a live interview with former leader Michael Howard. Some Newsnight viewers expressed scepticism at the programme's coverage of climate change. We also received this e-mail:

I would like to complain about your coverage of the school shooting at the Amish school. While I found your coverage very informative, I strongly object to your photographing adult Amish. Perhaps you are not familiar with Amish religious beliefs but they do not want to be photographed as a religious belief. To take their picture is to steal their soul.

The Express: Claims that presenter Fiona Bruce is at the centre of a "barmy 大象传媒 row" over a crucifix worn on air. (no link available)

The Guardian: A columnist criticises the amount of coverage given by the 大象传媒 to Richard Hammond's accident. ()

0630 Tuesday: The alarm on my mobile beeps. Where am I? I switch on the bedside lamp and fumble for my little lifesaver 鈥� a credit card sized bit of plastic attached to a white lanyard. There鈥檚 a picture of me 鈥� that鈥檚 promising 鈥� and the slogan 鈥淎 New Direction鈥� 鈥� accompanied by what looks like a child鈥檚 drawing of a rightward leaning oak tree.

Ah yes, I鈥檓 at the Tory conference. I鈥檓 in Bournemouth.

It鈥檚 a very odd time of year. The political broadcast media bundle all their kit on to a fleet of lorries and zig-zag round the country, this year to Brighton, Manchester and Bournemouth.

There we unpack into a series of car parks, portacabins and 鈥� I kid you not 鈥� toilets, surrounded by such tight security that it quickly seems too much trouble ever to step outside the zone.

Now some might fear there鈥檚 a danger that we 鈥� and the politicians 鈥� become a tad cut off from reality. But worry not: we counter that by sneaking out for a curry in the evening. Occasionally we even go as far as to despatch a producer to voxpop some local people in the nearest high street.

Inside the zone, we speak our own language. Here鈥檚 a brief conference glossary to aid your understanding if you鈥檙e watching, listening to or reading any of our conference coverage.

First, that word I slipped in at the beginning 鈥� LANYARDS. They dangle round our neck to hang our conference passes on. Lose this and you have to go home (tempting鈥�.) Sky cheekily bought these up as mobile advertising space at Labour, which meant all 大象传媒 journalists were the proud wearers of badges boasting 鈥淪ky 鈥� first with breaking news.鈥�

BUBBLE: A mini studio overlooking the conference hall. Home for News 24鈥檚 James Landale for three weeks.

BUSHES: The live 大象传媒 Two conference programme used to dress its set with assorted plants and flowers, possibly even the odd bush or two. They don鈥檛 do this any more, but the name has stuck. Hence the bizarre panicked shout across the newsroom of a morning 鈥� 鈥淚s Jenny in the bubble or the bushes?鈥�

POOL: Sadly, not for swimming. An agreement between the broadcasters for one crew to shoot an event and share the pictures with everyone.

INGEST: We have a baby server this year, shared with the other broadcasters. The process of copying our pictures into it is known as ingesting. Hence: 鈥淧aul, ingest that Cameron pool NOW.鈥�

FRINGE: Where senior politicians go to make gaffes. Also where much of the real debate inside a party happens.

RECEPTION: Late night booze-up for party researchers and journalists, occasionally visited briefly by a politician.

That鈥檚 enough conference talk. Just one more day in the seaside sunshine before the bubble and bushes are dismantled, our last pool fringe is ingested, and our lanyards are consigned to the dustbin of the 2006 party conference season.

Stories like the are very rare; but every time they happen, we consider incredibly carefully if and how we cover them on Newsround.

In broad terms, there are four key principles that we apply. (Please bear in mind that we aim at children aged between 7 and 11.)

1) Should we cover it at all?
Quite often, we won't. If we don't think an upsetting story has registered with most children, we don't want to bring it to their attention.

For this reason, we didn't mention at all the shooting of a student in Colorado last week.

However, we know that many children will have picked up something about this shooting. I happened to be at a Newsround event with 300 seven-to-11 year olds this morning, and I asked them specifically if they were aware of the shooting. 90% of the children raised their hands.

2) Report it simply and factually

Once we are sure the story has registered with children, we believe our job is to cover the story accurately, reliably and without sensationalism.

If you add to that the hearsay and half-heard comments that children can pick up in the playground or from friends or parents, and the story can often become far wilder or more scary in their minds than it should be.

We aim therefore to stand in the gap, and provide a simple, factual explanation of what happened. Specifically:
鈥� We don't dwell on the details (which can make it so much more real to children, and mean they start putting themselves in that place)
鈥� We use passive constructions ("Five girls have died", not "The man went in and shot five girls")
鈥� We consider carefully whether to show the most emotive or lingering shots (which could include stills of the killer)

3) Add in positive reassurance

It is incredibly rare for something like this to happen, and that is something that we say explicitly in our coverage. The media covers shootings like this precisely because they are still so unusual. There are 25 million schoolchildren in America. Before this incident, only one student had been shot in a school in America this year.

Children are still very safe in school, and that is something we take great pains to stress.

We also have a webpage entitled . This was written with the help of a child psychologist, and we refer to it on all our coverage. This gives children who are upset somewhere to go to get help.

And we are enabling children to . This provides a cathartic release, and allows children to watch our coverage and feel like they are doing something in response.

4) Don't go overboard in our coverage

Finally, it can be tempting to follow the 24-hour news networks and provide wall-to-wall coverage. For Newsround, this is fundamentally wrong. All it does is distort the significance of the event.

We will devote no more than 30% of our output today to the shooting. We will then ensure we cover other news (to show that the world is still happening), and specifically include lighter items (today, a preview of the Robin Hood series).

We hope this will mean children leave us feeling happier, brighter and more reassured about the world they live in.

I have written a longer entry than normal, but I believe it is important to set out how we approach these stories. I am happy to answer questions, if you post them as comments below.

I would also be interested to read what you think of our coverage, on air .

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, for appearing to refer to Gordon Brown as "autistic". There was a similar complaint from a viewer of a 大象传媒 TV programme over the weekend, when a presenter also used it as a term of political description.

It's a reminder that certain conditions can be wrongly characterised in the public mind - or even if they are accurately characterised, their use can be insensitive. Other examples include "Tourettes" for being foul-mouthed, "schizophrenic" for having a split personality. And it's a reminder perhaps that people who are affected by those conditions, either directly or indirectly, can be irritated when they are carelessly used as journalistic shorthand.

The Telegraph: Reports on Tony Blair's appearence on today's Blue Peter. ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 has dismissed as "banter" an incident on Chris Moyles' Radio 1 show today in which footballer Rio Ferdinand called the DJ a 'faggot'." ()

Is the 大象传媒 trying to make a political point when it uses the expression 'so-called War on Terror' or 'The Bush Administration's War on Terror' or 'the American-led War on Terror'?

bloggers certainly think so, but is it true? Well you wouldn't expect me to say it is, so I won't, because it isn't.

The 大象传媒 usually qualifies or attributes the expression 'war on terror' for several reasons. The main reason is that the concept in itself is disputed. It is not like 'World War Two' - a description which is widely accepted in the English-speaking world (the Russians and Chinese among others have different names for it).

It is not a neutral phrase because there is no consensus among politicians, commentators or even the general public - including those who blog - over:

鈥� whether it is really 'a war' in the traditional sense - the Americans declared it in the wake of the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, but the definition of who the Bush Administration see as the enemy has evolved and critics say it is too broad and amorphous to usefully convey a clear meaning

鈥� whether the Bush Administration is justified in using the expression to describe - as they do - what their forces are doing in Iraq as opposed to their counter-terrorism operations against groups like al-Qaeda

鈥� whether it is possible to have a war 'on terror' as opposed to 'terrorists' - though this is more one for the linguistic purists.

We believe we need to use the expression because it has become such a familiar part of the political and dilplomatic debate which we report on regularly, however, because the expression in itself is so hotly contested, we believe it is better to qualify it, so as not to give the impression to our global audience that we are endorsing it or opposing it.

On this week's Newswatch - the show which voices your criticisms of 大象传媒 News - David Kermode, editor of Breakfast, talks about coverage of celebrity news such as Richard Hammond's crash. Also Craig Oliver, editor of the Ten O'Clock News, addresses the issue of sport coverage on his bulletin. Click here to watch it.

The Telegraph: "The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is to make a formal complaint to the 大象传媒 over a controversial documentary". ()

The Guardian: An analysis of 大象传媒 One's controversial new idents. ()