- Peter Horrocks
- 23 Feb 07, 04:40 PM
Former 大象传媒 correspondent Robin Aitken has written a stimulating book on his experiences of working in the 大象传媒 - "Can we trust the 大象传媒?" Last night I appeared in debate with him in London.
Robin's case, to simplify massively, is that the 大象传媒 is full of left-leaning journalists who produce left-leaning news that is anti-European, anti-monarchist, anti-prison, pro-immigrant, anti-market, pro-public spending etc etc.
Robin delivered his polemic with brio. He is clearly enjoying the role as a controversialist, freed from the constraints of 大象传媒 impartiality. But I argued that his book wouldn't pass muster as a piece of 大象传媒 journalism, as it was strongly anecdotal and not based on firm evidence.
If the question is "Can we trust the 大象传媒?", the evidence shows most people do trust the 大象传媒. Survey after survey indicates the 大象传媒 is significantly more trusted than other broadcasters and more trusted than any national newspaper. The public which trusts the 大象传媒 includes many readers of right-of-centre newspapers. Those people clearly distinguish between a newspaper that might reinforce their views and the 大象传媒's role in providing an impartial perspective.
However I acknowledged in the debate that there are subjects where the 大象传媒 has been too slow in reflecting the full range of public perspectives - in particular over immigration and Europe. I argued that that shortfall derives not from the personal perspectives of 大象传媒 journalists, whatever that may be, but from the particular institutional position of the 大象传媒. Its relationship with parliamentary politics, while fully independent, has always been a close one and the 大象传媒 has tended historically to operate within the parameters of formal politics.
However the range of opinions in an increasingly fragmented population and the technologies, such as texting and e-mail, which allow these diverse opinions to be more easily expressed have obliged us to shift the balance between formal politics and public politics. This disparity has been one of the factors behind our coverage over the years on Europe and immigration. Opinion surveys show there has been a gap between the range of views within Parliament and the range of public opinion.
The 大象传媒's commitment to interactivity - for instance through this site's section, through texts to Five Live, Radio 1 Newsbeat and News 24 - is providing an important new element that is feeding directly into our journalism. Although that can only ever be one influence on our editorial decision-making and in the end, we are paid to apply our judgment.
But listening to audiences more and being open to public criticism through debates and blogs (such as this) are ways in which we are able to demonstrate openness. We hope that greater openness will mean that the trust we already receive from audiences can be maintained and strengthened.
Peter Horrocks is head of 大象传媒 Newsroom
- Matt Morris
- 23 Feb 07, 04:23 PM
To one of its former assistant editors, Five Live sounds too much like neutered populism. Tim Luckhurst 鈥 鈥 says his qualm is that Five Live is pursuing a strategy that will render it indistinguishable from commercial chat radio. Tim is billed in the Sindie as one of the Five Live launch team 鈥 and maybe that鈥檚 the issue. It鈥檚 inevitable and right that Five Live should have changed since its launch. Let it go Tim. We鈥檝e moved on - and so should you. Some things remain the same though. Five Live still has at its heart a wish to reach an audience that much of the 大象传媒 finds it hard to reach 鈥 a non-metropolitan, diverse, working-class audience; not so much middle England as ordinary Britain.
How do we try to do that? It鈥檚 always been about accessible journalism, and about tone and style. In more recent years it鈥檚 also been about interactivity. Radio has always been good at interactivity, and Five Live has always been good at phone-ins 鈥 seeking expertise and compelling testimony rather than shouted opinions. But in the several years since Tim left us Five Live developed other links with the audience 鈥 email and even more importantly text messaging. Peter Allen called texters 鈥渙ur army of reporters鈥 years before someone clever came up with the phrase 鈥渦ser-generated content鈥.
We鈥檙e now trying to deepen and further enrich our relationship with the audience. Tim Luckhurst鈥檚 piece was based on an interview with the controller of Five Live, Bob Shennan, who told him we鈥檙e doing more news that evolves from our close relationship with our listeners. That鈥檚 dead right. But it doesn鈥檛 mean, as Tim seems to think, that we won鈥檛 cover breaking news or use 大象传媒 Newsgathering correspondents. He quotes the inevitable 鈥渙ne 大象传媒 producer鈥 as saying 鈥淚 can list correspondents who have not appeared on Five Live for over a year. It is not on their radar. Many programmes have abandoned serious news.鈥
Well, I can list correspondents who are on Five Live all the time. People like the home editor, Mark Easton, who joined the panel for our recent live immigration debate in Blackburn; the security correspondent, Frank Gardner, whose two-ways with Peter Allen are a particular joy; the defence correspondent, Paul Wood, who helped us tie down a recent audience-led story about the cost of posting parcels to troops abroad; the business editor, Robert Peston, who was discussing the OFT report on drug pricing on Breakfast only this week; Mihir Bose, the sports editor who kept us in close touch with whether Sheikh Mohammed was going to buy Liverpool Football Club. I could go on and on. What about Jeremy Bowen keeping Simon Mayo鈥檚 audience up to speed on the Middle East? Where are these programmes that have abandoned serious news? Not on Five Live.
Tim Luckhurst says an insider told him 鈥淢anagers define [Five Live] as sport and talk.鈥 I haven鈥檛 met those managers. But if they鈥檙e out there 鈥 or rather, if they鈥檙e in here 鈥 they鈥檙e wrong. Five Live is as committed as ever to robust journalism, to covering breaking news and to a broad agenda. Of course, every broadcast service evolves over time and Tim is right that things aren鈥檛 the same now as they were in his day. The media landscape has changed and so have we.
Matt Morris is head of news, Radio Five Live
- Peter Barron
- 23 Feb 07, 10:29 AM
When Martha Kearney told me she had landed the job of main presenter on Radio 4's World at One, my first thought was that I couldn't think of anyone better suited for that role, or of a better move for Martha. My second was a mixture of emotion and panic.
Emotion because since 1994 Martha has been such an integral part of the Newsnight experience, both on the screen and in the office. As political editor she could often be seen pacing around after 10pm, putting in last calls to ministers and anxiously waiting for her paged messages to bear fruit. Very often she would then pop up on air with an exclusive new line or ministerial quote.
Politics is her big love, but she is more of a renaissance woman than that. She reads novels like other people breathe, bakes cakes, keeps bees, can decline Latin nouns - frequently does - and has a highly satisfactory knowledge of 70s new wave music.
Panic because Martha goes at a moment you wouldn't call quiet. Blair's departure, Brown's arrival, loans for peerages, elections a-go-go, Ming in trouble, possibly even Cameron's policies. Martha, we're going to miss you, but look forward to hearing about it all on WATO.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Daily Telegraph: 鈥淢artha Kearney will succeed the late Nick Clarke as presenter of Radio 4's The World At One.鈥 ()
Financial Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 Trust has delayed its decision on whether the international website will carry adverts. ()
The Guardian: 鈥淭he 大象传媒 has been named as the UK's strongest business brand ahead of Google, Apple and British Airways, according to Superbrands' top 500 report.鈥 ()
The Guardian:Reports on leaked 大象传媒 internal e-mails following the RTS awards, with allegations of juries being biased and unfair results. ()
The Times: Dan Sabbagh comments on why the job ahead for the 大象传媒 Trust and chairman should not be that of a regulator but to listen to the audience. ()
