- Jamie Angus
- 15 Nov 06, 03:43 PM
Thanks for all the responses to my posting on Monday about the Today programme's messageboards. I am genuinely sorry some listeners seem to be so upset about the changes we're planning.
Many people posting have already made up their minds that they will not contribute to the new boards on a point of principle. I think that is a shame. Many note, quite rightly, that Today programme staff have not maintained a presence on the old boards, and that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. What we are trying to do is host messageboards that relate to the programme; this will mean our production staff will take more from them and put more back in return.
We can only fully support as many boards as programme resources will allow, and as many of you have pointed out, we appreciate that spending licence fee money on moderating these boards means that their use has to be clearly defined, well focused, and relevant to the programme itself.
Board users will still be able to suggest topics for discussion, and there is no sense in which an unreasonable veto will be exercised to screen out "inconvenient" topics, whatever they might be. I urge people who are unhappy with what is being suggested to give the new system a chance - we are making the changes because we want a closer relationship between users and programme producers within the constraints of spending licence fee money.
Radio 4's Feedback programme is also interested in the changes. Our deputy editor Gavin Allen will be appearing on Feeback on Friday at 1330 GMT on Radio 4 to answer questions from listeners.
Jamie Angus is editor of daytime news programmes, World Service
- Peter Barron
- 15 Nov 06, 03:28 PM
Many viewers have written to complain about Newsnight's film on radical Islam (which we broadcast yesterday, and you can watch here), and particularly the accusations made in the course of the film concerning the grouping Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Some believed that the film was politically motivated and that we had set out with an agenda to discredit Hizb ut-Tahrir. That was not the case.
This joint /Newsnight project set out to look into the radicalisation of British Muslim youth across a broad range - in mosques, universities and on the internet. In the course of that investigation we came across a range of evidence, including first-hand accounts from four key contributors about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and some of its adherents.
These contributors were Sheikh Musa Admani, Imam at the London Metropolitan University, Shuaib Yusaf, a trustee at Croydon mosque, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter called Jawad and an anonymous undercover researcher who we called J, who has attended Hizb ut-Tahrir meetings. I believe their allegations - which directly contradict the organisation's publicly stated position - are serious and worthy of examination.
As well as many emails of complaint, Newsnight has been contacted since the broadcast with further expressions of concern based on first-hand knowledge of Hizb ut-Tahrir's aims and methods.
Some viewers complained that the Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Dr Abdul Wahid, who appeared live on the programme to discuss the film, was unfairly interrupted by Jeremy Paxman (you can watch the interview here). I agree that following a lengthy segment detailing several accusations about the organisation Dr Wahid needed time to respond properly. Jeremy Paxman's interview was typically robust, but during the course of the four-minute interview Dr Wahid was given an ample opportunity to put across his position and address the key issues raised by the film.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Richard Porter
- 15 Nov 06, 10:16 AM
At midday today (GMT), the international television news market is joined by a new name - . A few days ago it was going to be called al-Jazeera International but for some unexplained reason it's changed at the last minute.
Either way, AJI - or AJE as we now know it - looks like it's going to be a serious competitor for the two established global channels, 大象传媒 World and CNN. They have put together an extensive network of correspondents and bureau, and have invested heavily in four broadcast centres in different parts of the world. And they are making some grand claims about how they intend to bring a new perspective to the market. They're going to be reporting the south to the north, they say. They won't follow the traditional agenda.
I welcome their arrival. Competition is good in any market, and certainly since we've known the date of their launch, we've been looking at our own programme plans for this period to make sure we'll be looking our best.
We've also been asking ourselves some tough questions about our own agenda. For example, although we're proud of our British heritage, we don't aim to cover British news - unless it has some international significance or resonance. So today, 20 minutes before the new channel goes on air, , in which she sets out the Government's proposed legislation for the coming year. Do we carry live coverage, in the knowledge that nothing could be more British than the Queen surrounded by all that pomp and ceremony? Or do we say "There's no international significance... it's not for us?" The answer is we will carry it because it's actually one of the more important set-piece events of the year, and because The Queen will be addressing significant issues such as security, migration, and climate change, all of which have a resonance to the viewers around the globe who get their news from 大象传媒 World.
Today though we'll also be carrying extensive coverage of the Nairobi summit on climate change, with reports from the conference itself supported by background reporting from our correspondents in Africa. We have a very powerful piece from Fergal Keane on the effects of climate change on the Turkana tribe in Kenya. Much as I respect al-Jazeera's ambition to shed new light on some parts of the southern hemisphere, it would be unfair to say they have a monopoly in doing so. We have correspondents throughout Africa (indeed we also have many in the Middle East, al-Jazeera's home territory). And we think it's important to reflect events and opinions in these parts of the world, as much as we do the events in Brussels or Moscow or Washington.
Where we appear to depart from al-Jazeera is in our attitudes to reporting what happens in the West. One of their London correspondents says he won't attend briefings at Downing Street because "that's typical of the Western way of doing TV News where you take something seriously simply because a big statesman is saying things."
That can't be right can it? I think it's wrong not to challenge and test what people in power have said, but you can't dismiss it simply because they've said it. It's an important part of our role to explain events in the most powerful countries in the world.
But now you have your own chance to judge. We'll be trying to show that the range and depth of journalism, and our ability to present all sides of the story will be qualities which audiences still greatly value. CNN and AJE (as well as Russia Today and the soon-to-be-launched France 24 and Press of Iran), will be promoting their strengths. And at midday today we'll all be able to make our own judgements.
Richard Porter is head of
The Guardian: "大象传媒 programmes scaled back their live reporting last night following the start of a 24-hour strike by technicians." ()
The Telegraph: "The 大象传媒 was accused of ageism yesterday after a leaked memo revealed that phone-in presenters on a local radio station have been barred from allowing callers who sound old on air." ()
