- David Kermode
- 24 Nov 06, 04:58 PM
How times change. There now follows a sort of apology. An apology for NOT using a swear word.
This morning the leader of the Conservative Party joined us on the Breakfast sofa, ostensibly to talk about poverty. After about four minutes talking about how to define, and how potentially to help, those "less fortunate" the conversation turned to other matters (you can see for yourself by clicking here).
When we're joined by a political leader, we often move the conversation on to talk about other pertinent issues and this morning was no exception. But this morning felt a bit different. This morning we wanted to talk about tossers.
David Cameron had been invited on to talk about poverty, so were we being fair asking him about the Tories' latest stab at "viral marketing". Of course we were. Mr Cameron made no complaint about it and my boss - the head of TV news, Peter Horrocks, was positively delighted.
However, there was some soul searching afterwards about whether we'd tackled it the right way. You see we didn't actually use the word "tosser". We skirted around it, fearing that it was too rude for a breakfast audience. We're a family programme and we're closer to the end of the watershed than to the start of it. We had a swearing episode a year ago; admittedly involving a word that begins with F and is much worse than tosser. That caused a huge stink, led to one of my more embarrassing Newswatch performances and went all the way to Ofcom, who fortunately didn't uphold the complaint.
So we're probably a bit nervy about bad words. But should we be? The boss's point is that if the naughty word is Mr Cameron's then it is he, not us, who are open to the charge of coarsening the debate. Who are we to censor that debate?
This approach surprised some of the production team, who feel that talking about tossers at ten to eight might be a step too far for the Breakfast audience, regardless of who is choosing to use the word. I suspect the very fact that the Conservative Party thinks it's acceptable to engage in a debate about whether someone is being a tosser means the opposition party may have moved on a little faster than we have.
Next time, we won't be so careful...
David Kermode is editor of
- Helen Boaden
- 24 Nov 06, 03:11 PM
Some of our radio listeners yesterday contacted us to say they thought we had given the death of Nick Clarke too much prominence. Of course it鈥檚 easy to lose perspective when a close colleague and friend dies but I really don鈥檛 think we misjudged our response to Nick鈥檚 death yesterday.
Nick was an outstanding journalist and broadcaster who touched the lives of the Radio Four audience through a range of programmes including The World At One. This was already very clear from the evidence of vast audience interest in and sympathy for Nick鈥檚 condition when he was diagnosed with cancer.
We knew therefore that there would be very, very many people who would want to know the news of his death and who would be saddened by it. In this context it was appropriate to lead the programme which he had presented since the late 1980s with the first news of his death and to carry a special, extended edition so that we could carry other news in full within the hour as well as a proper tribute. Later programmes on the network did not lead with the news about Nick.
We understand that for a minority of the audience the coverage was excessive - but not for the majority, as is clear from the massive feedback we have received via e-mails and phone calls. For example, were posted on the Have Your Say site. Moreover, the story was one of the most read pages on the 大象传媒 News website yesterday in the UK - in the top four.
This wasn't a case of grieving colleagues having their news judgements distorted by a sense of their own loss; we took a considered view about the most appropriate way to handle the news of his death.
Helen Boaden is director, 大象传媒 News
- Peter Barron
- 24 Nov 06, 10:32 AM
A few weeks back we launched Oh My Newsnight, an invitation to make a short film for the programme to run early next year. Of course we're not alone in asking viewers to provide User Generated Content - these days everybody .
At least, lots of programmes, but I'm not so sure lots of users are.
We asked you to send us a film of around two minutes duration on any subject of your choice. And yes, we've had a few offerings so far, but very much of the YouTube "me and my cat" variety.
What's surprising is that while many viewers are prepared to sit down and create lengthy and thoughtful blogs about what we're doing on Newsnight - or what we should be doing - which will be read by about 50,000 hardened blog watchers, almost noone seems to want to commit those thoughts to video, with a potential audience of a million viewers.
So, this is last orders ladies and gentlemen. If you want to get your message across there is a short time left to get cracking with camera, webcam or mobile phone. If your message is you'd rather leave it to us, that's also fine.
Or maybe your view coincides with that of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart in of CNN's efforts in the field of User Generated Content.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
A round-up of what's being said about the 大象传媒 in other blogs. Today, the death of Nick Clarke.
Trevor Dann's blog: "To those of us who didn't know how far Nick's health had deteriorated since his surgery it was a big shock." ()
Clive Davis: "He was a fantastic broadcaster and the antithesis of the "look-at-me-I鈥檓-famous" breed of interviewer." ()
Iain Dale's Diary: "He treated his interviewees as people who should be listened to and given an opportunity to speak." ()
Paul Linford: "I rated him alongside PM's Eddie Mair as the best 大象传媒 radio journalist of his generation and there is no doubt he will be sorely missed." ()
Channel 4 News blog: "To his colleagues and friends he was loyal, supportive and a very, very good journalist." ()
The Telegraph, amongst others: Reports on the death of Radio 4's Nick Clarke. ()
The Guardian: "The 大象传媒's decision to screen a new drama based around the events of the 2004 Asian tsunami has provoked a mixed reaction from survivors and relatives of its victims." ()
