Using technology
| 11:33 UK time, Monday, 23 October 2006
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.
Comments
That sounds like a good idea in principle, but the implementation seems to be a (worse) re-invention of a podcast feed. As someone who fits your description pretty much exactly I'd be quite against anthing that generates extra email - I get quite enough already, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
Having a range of podcast feeds organised by topic rather than programme, e.g. 'The R4 Environment Podcast' or 'The R4 US Politics Podcast' would work well for me. And AFAIK, there's no problem with listing a given item in more than one feed, so an item on US environmental politics (say) could be presented to both sets of listeners.
Well one good first step would be reducing your reliance on proprietry video and audio codecs. Although I can get Real streams to work on my 32bit Linux box at work I have no chance of listening or watching ´óÏó´«Ã½ programs at home on my 64 bit system.
The use of podcasts is a step forward and I've been listening to chunks of Today and the daily News Pod (and other programs like the Now Show) that way. However the software to play mp3's on free software systems is legally dubious and often not available/configured out of the box. If comercial stations like Virgin can generate Ogg streams for their internet listeners one wonders what stops Auntie from being able to do the same.
Your idea for 'a system by which you could subscribe to an email that informed you everytime we did something on an issue that interests you' sounds like perfect fodder for a podcast (in its truest sense).
You could do this via some system of email alerting, but it would be a backward step. The overheads - on both publisher and consumer - are much greater than the equivalent podcasting solution. And it could be incredibly quick, easy and cheap to implement, too. Good luck.
I'll second Alex's comment about free formats - while there may be resistance from external suppliers (like record companies) to making things available in unencumbered formats, there's no excuse for in house produced ´óÏó´«Ã½ content not being available to everyone in a range of forms, free of restriction.
After all, it's our ´óÏó´«Ã½, and our content.
Also, on a practical note, you'll find a greater than normal fraction of people who are aware of, and care about matters like this within the pool that are likely to be early adopters of this sort of new service. People like that have a crucial role in spreading the word to other users, and if you put the early adopters off they'll put everyone else off.
Perhaps its about time people startedto live their lives - without total reliance on email, blogs, downloading videos etc etc....'scuse me...video alert on laptop and news text on mobile phone.........
What? The dinner is burning and the children need washing? Can you mail me that info please? :)
RSS is more practical, though few people use it so far and a majority have no idea what it is. Email may be a bit messy as a means to notify of each new report, but it is something that almost everyone understands and uses. For years I have received the daily Guardian Media Briefing email.
I agree on the video codecs. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has the muscle to give a huge boost to free opensource codes such as Ogg and Theora and even has its own in development (Dirac).
Glad to see that you are thinking about using the new technology for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website.
But you've forgotten all about the Deaf people... where's our access?
We can't hear the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio online.
We can't hear what the people are saying on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Videos online.
What has happened to the subtitles trial that was run on Click Online? I heard it was a very success. That was months ago. Where are they?
We, the Deaf people, want our access like everyone have.
To Robert a #6 - RSS isn't impractical for ordinary users; they may not know what it is any more than they know what HTTP is, but they can use a prepacked podcast client like iTunes, and many people do.
I appreciate all the forms of media you support.
Please continue written formatalso. I have trouble hearing and perhaps others too.
Thanks for your news service,
Bruce
I think the issue here is that whatever the technology involved, the assumption is that the reporters should go where 'the people' want them to go. Worse - that they should *invite* the public to recommend that they go where they think they ought to be sent. I can only disagree. The Beeb has always gone where it is judged in global political terms where it ought to go, and returned (mostly) reliable reportage. The idea that the Beeb should be consumer driven for its news is appalling.
Of course it's ok for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to talk to the terrorists. For crying out loud people, liberals are liberals wherever in the world they happen to be. If the media wants to talk to the terrorists, what else would a liberal want to do? Gheez, get real...and for Pete's sake, start realizing whose side the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is on.