大象传媒

More than 60,000 people have now signed the petition in support of Alan Johnston, our correspondent in Gaza who was abducted on 12 March. And we estimate that the Alan Johnston button has been added to at least 500 blogs, websites, intranets, MySpace pages, LiveJournal sites, Flickr profile pages etc etc.

Thank you all for your support - if you want to add your name to the petition, .

To add the code to your website, just copy and paste the code below into your blog's HTML. You could add it to an individual blog post, or, even better, to your blog's sidebar. Once again, if you do add the button to your page, you are welcome to add a comment here to let everyone know about it.

We are now reaching Alan's 50th day in captivity. Once again his colleagues have gathered to mark the moment he was seized. We released balloons to mark the event, and to signal our continued demands and hopes for his immediate release.

In this week's Newswatch, the programme about viewers' thoughts on 大象传媒 TV News, News 24's Simon Waldman discusses the showing of the Virginia Tech shooting videos, and Breakfast's David Kermode answers claims that St George's Day is not given fair coverage. You can watch the programme by clicking here.

Daily Express and others: Reports of Panorama's investigation into the death of Bob Woolmer ()
Daily Mail: Complaints over scheduling of CBeebies show In the Night Garden. (No link)
Independent: Interview with 大象传媒 business editor Robert Peston, including comments about 大象传媒 business coverage. ()
Guardian: Former 大象传媒 announcer Patrick Muirhead on the supposed 'death of the newsreader' ()

Radio 1's attitude to religion has attracted a this week. The Trust is being asked to look at how much religious programming Radio 1 offers to its 10 million plus young listeners - Bishops lined up to say we should do more. One soon-to-be ordained priest fired a shot at our news bulletins saying that on Easter Sunday there had been no mention of, well... God.

Two issues here: so I'll leave the bigger "How Much God for Radio 1" to one side for the network bosses and the Trust to debate, and tackle the news agenda issue. In short Arun Arora, a Newsbeat listener, said he'd heard no mention of Easter on Radio 1 bulletins while listening on Easter Sunday...

"While every other 大象传媒 news bulletin made reference to the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, there was no mention on Radio 1. You would not have known, listening to Radio 1, what Easter was about, or the fact that Easter was a Christian festival just by listening to Radio 1."

So has he got a point?

Do we mention Diwali, Ede or Passover - or Christmas Day - just for the sake of it? In my view, no. To be a news story there has got to be something happening. That something needs to be interesting, relevant and significant for the target audience. Clearly a statement from the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury may be highly relevant and interesting for some audiences - but not for others.

Like it or not, our audience research demonstrates what most of us instinctively feel - that organised Christian religion isn't exactly, well, massive for younger audiences. It currently rates near the very bottom of a list of subject areas under 30s want to hear more about, according to work commissioned by 大象传媒 News.

On the day in question there were some very interesting news stories around competing for attention: The 15 sailors and Marines held captive by Iran had been told they could sell their stories to the media, and a storm was breaking over that decision. The Mujahedeen Army had posted a message on the internet claiming responsibility for a roadside bomb that killed four British soldiers in Iraq. Nato forces were claiming success against the Taleban in Afghanistan, we carried a police appeal over the stabbing of a teenager in south London, there was a Grand Prix and Premiership action - and just a couple of minutes an hour or less to cram it all into. For my money, the Easter messages just didn't cut the mustard.

Does this make us anti-religion? No. Recently we've made documentaries about sexual abstinence linked to religious belief and are making another about forgiveness. We've tracked the growth of Islam among young Britons and its impact on aspects of modern life and will continue to cover and uncover stories with a religious or moral theme.

But God-slots by date doesn't feel right. I guess it's eternal damnation for me if He doesn't agree though.

On Thursday 3 May, much of the UK goes to the polls. In England, there鈥檚 a big set of local elections pretty much everywhere except London. In Wales, voters elect their assembly. And 鈥� perhaps the biggest contest of all - in Scotland, there are elections for the parliament and councils too (I spent last weekend on the phone to my aged mum in Dunoon trying to explain the three different votes she has, and the intricacies of the Additional Member PR system).

With all this going on, things get a bit quieter around Parliament in London. Most MPs are away campaigning. With the tumbleweed blowing through the corridors of power, political correspondents 鈥� accustomed to spending much of their working lives inside the Westminster bubble 鈥� seize the chance to emerge blinking into the sunlight, and travel Britain gauging the mood of the nation.

So in recent days Nick Robinson has been to Blackpool calling bingo numbers and talking to men with tattoos (which you can watch here); James Hardy in the Midlands has found disillusioned Labour voters cuddling up to the BNP (which you can watch here); and nurses have demonstrated a robotic body to Guto Harri, as he checked out rumours of a resurgent Tory vote in Wales (which you can watch on Friday's Ten O'Clock news).

It鈥檚 not rocket science 鈥� if you want to find out what people are really thinking, go out and talk to them. We sometimes boldly give it a go even when there aren鈥檛 elections going on. But so often we get sucked into the Westminster vortex, where - as Tony Blair said recently - a raised eyebrow from him will get variously reported and analysed as support for/ scepticism about a David Miliband leadership campaign.

Not to say this stuff isn鈥檛 important.

But all three correspondents mentioned above have reported back to me feelings of surprise at some of the views they鈥檝e encountered, and a degree of enlightenment through connection with members of the voting public.

So an election campaign 鈥� where there aren鈥檛 endless Westminster-based news conferences 鈥� can be an invigorating business, at least for correspondents who spend most of their lives in one small area of London.

When the results come in next Thursday and Friday, there鈥檒l be loads of coverage 鈥� but it鈥檚 not been so intense during the campaign. How do you think we鈥檝e judged that 鈥� too much? Too little? Have we covered the issues you think are important? Let me know 鈥� we鈥檝e still got a few days left to liberate yet more of our correspondents from the shackles of Westminster and send them out round the country.

Press Gazette: Reports on Mark Thompson鈥檚 comments that 大象传媒 plans to develop a network of local television stations are now uncertain following the licence fee settlement. ()

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke is definitely not old school. But make no mistake - (PDF link) to the Policy Exchange think tank was a clip round the ear and a stentorian "now laddie, don't do it again" for the Whitehall news machine.

DAC Clarke's warning that a "small number of misguided individuals who betray confidences" by leaking details of anti-terror operations was stated in terms as cool and calm as they were serious. The leaks were compromising investigations, he said, revealing sources of life-saving intelligence and putting lives at risk.

He didn't exactly lay a hand on a pin-striped shoulder with a cheery "you're nicked." But his carefully measured speculation that the villains were looking "to squeeze out some short term presentational advantage" from the leaks left no-one in doubt who he meant.

Certainly Conservative leader David Cameron was in no doubt. He extracted the condemnation of 鈥渓eaks of sensitive information from whatever quarter鈥� and the non-denial denial that 鈥渁s far as he (the prime minister) was aware鈥� the leaks did not come from civil servants or ministers.

Leaks - private briefings - are a basic tool of the journalist. They satisfy one of the first conditions of news; revealing something significant that those outside a small circle of privileged people don't know.

They can be irritating and embarrassing for those in positions of power, authority and influence... and that鈥檚 sort of the point. Without leaks and whistleblowers a long list of abuses of power would have remained unknown. Even small leaks are a constant reminder to those we allow to govern us that we want to know what they鈥檙e really doing in our name... not just what they choose to tell us.

But there are leaks and there are leaks. In the 鈥榯raditional鈥� model of journalism, a leak is associated with some sort of journalistic enterprise. The good contact; the spade work to find the right person... and then asking the right question; winning the trust of the whistleblower; reporting the leak faithfully, honestly and fairly.

But that model's been turned on its head by a different kind of leak, one that's entirely unburdened by journalistic enterprise. One that has become very much more common since the mid 1990s. The staged, selective leak not from a whistleblower but from someone who legitimately holds the information and whose purpose it is in leaking to massage and manipulate a 鈥渟hort-term presentational advantage,鈥� to quote DAC Clarke once again.

DAC Clarke had in mind the investigation in Birmingham into an allegation that a British serviceman had been targeted by a terrorist network. This leak was of the second and not the first type.

鈥淎lmost before the detainees had arrived at the police stations to which they were being taken for questioning, it was clear that key details of the investigation and the evidence had been leaked,鈥� DAC Clarke said.

Now, no journalist has ever turned his or her back on a piece of information presented as a leak... especially if, as in this case, the leak is a shower and all the competition has it too.

But since the mid 1990s, the currency of the leak - particularly in the political context - has been devalued.

Journalists still exist who by their own hard work spanner out the facts citizens need in order to know what鈥檚 being done to us in our name. But two other kinds of journalist have come into being in the last decade and a half; the first who - bluntly - just makes it up under the protection of 'sources'. The second who waits patiently in line for today's or this week's handout from authority, knowing that a story that is in fact from official sources but which is misleadingly buffed to possess the patina of a 'leak' automatically attracts a validation denied the official version. Even if the story is the same.

DAC Clarke's anger - and that of the journalists trying to cover the Birmingham raids on the ground who felt undermined - was aimed at those who leaked/briefed London based journalists. There was more than a measure of disappointment, too, at the journalists who lapped it up.

There will be no inquiry nor is the oath of omerta that binds journalist to source, even in this distorted version of a 'leak', likely to be breached. But the test journalists always employ after a leak is captured in the Latin phrase 'cui bono'. Loosely - 'who benefits'.

Everyone will come to their own conclusion on that - DAC Clarke evidently has. But it's worth spending a moment pondering also whether journalism has benefited or lost.

The Independent: "The 大象传媒 has been urged to make religion part of the Radio 1 remit in a submission by Catholic and Anglican church leaders." ()

The Guardian: "The general secretary of the National Union of Journalists yesterday called for efforts to secure the release of Alan Johnston to be stepped up." ()

Several of you have posted responses to my initial blog stating that you believe the broadcast images gave the gunman the celebrity status he'd sought, and - more specifically - that showing them might trigger copycat killings.

It is important to remember the primary issue that Cho carried out an appalling act. Would the showing of his video encourage others with a similarly insane mind to copy him? Are people suggesting that the likelihood of a "suicide note" video getting shown by media outlets might motivate someone deeply disturbed to carry out violent and criminal acts?

I would not have thought that someone that deranged [and one gets a better understanding of how deranged he really was, having seen the video] would have carefully considered in a rational way what sort of extra effect the publication of the video might have on those associated with his victims or the public. The crime was the killing; the crime was not the video.

Of course this is a judgment, a delicate balancing act and not conclusive, and in our decision-making we had to weigh up those risks. We were careful to avoid speculation, and did not broadcast any coverage that could be interpreted as glorifying Cho's act. For instance, the Ten O'Clock News on 大象传媒 One looked at issues about depression, and the relationship between movie images and the images that he shot as a means of increasing the broader audience understanding.

So, the overall judgment made was that it was the carrying out of the killings - as opposed to the broadcasting of the video - that was central here.

A big part of our efforts to maintain the pressure for the release of Alan Johnston, the 大象传媒 correspondent who disappeared in Gaza six weeks ago, has been to keep the issue in the public eye. We've had massive support in this regard from the international media community - and especially from the Palestinian journalists in Gaza itself and in the West Bank, who have mounted almost daily demonstrations to call for Alan's freedom.

Today the - this time to Erez, the main crossing point between Gaza and Israel. On the other side of the crossing were assembled the massed ranks of the international media - rallied by the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem for their own major demonstration in support of Alan.

For most of them, Erez is now the furthest they feel they can safely venture since the abduction - a reminder of the unique and courageous nature of Alan Johnston's work: the only foreign correspondent permanently based in Gaza, determined to bring the story of life there to there to the outside world.

It was a strange occasion in some ways - with one group of journalists filming another group of journalists demonstrating their support for Alan and also publicly reaffirming the importance of the Gaza story and their ability to report it. All the talk was of the rumours and speculation that have swirled around Gaza and elsewhere since the first day of what is now a 45-day ordeal.

It's the sort of talk that fills the vaccuum left by a lack of any hard information, of which there has been next to none. On the Palestinian side of Erez, I told the journalists that I had met members of Alan's family in the UK, and they were very aware of, and deeply grateful for, the huge efforts that they had made on Alan's behalf.

The response was immediate. "You tell them," they said, "that we regard Alan as a part of our family too. And we won't rest until he's released."

Their support, and that of the international media loudly sending the same message from their demonstration a few hundred yards away on the other side, has heartened and strengthened Alan's friends and family in these last long weeks - proof, if proof were needed, that even journalists have a heart.

NB. If you want to show your support for Alan, you can join the 52,000 people . If you have a blog or run a website, you can add this button (instructions here). Thank you.

The Times: Reports on Mark Thompson鈥檚 comments that the traditional role of the newsreader "has virtually died out鈥�. ()

The Independent: Columnist Deborah Orr writes that the Hutton report has left a 鈥渃ulture of caution鈥� at the 大象传媒, citing various issues such as the Balen report and as examples of this. ()

The Scotsman: Reports on comments made by the Palestinian deputy prime minister that the 大象传媒 Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston, who was abducted on 12 March, is 鈥渋n good health鈥�. ()

The Guardian: Article on a 大象传媒 News website story about a Sudanese man marrying his goat, written in February 2006, which has repeatedly topped the website鈥檚 list of most popular stories ever since. ()

Daily Mail: Reports that 大象传媒 newsreader Huw Edwards is to be part of the commentary for the opening ceremony at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ()

Does the audience care about the Nigerian election? Have we done too much on the French election - it was a first round after all and we won't know who the new president of France will be for another fortnight?

Two questions I have been asked over the past couple of days.

Last Friday on The World Tonight (listen here) we devoted a whole programme to the two elections. Robin Lustig was in Abuja, Jackie Hardgrave in Paris, and the programme was presented out of the two capitals with no input from London. It was technically ambitious as neither were in studios. Jackie was in a restaurant in Paris and Robin was on a hotel roof in Abuja. But did the stories merit the airtime and resources we devoted to them?

The French election is easier to answer. France is our next door neighbour and there are two quite different visions of the future on offer. It's also a campaign that was quite unpredictable up to the last minute. Added to which, whoever leads France will have a significant impact on the future of the European Union and that has an impact on people's lives at home.

The Nigerian election was more predictable because the candidate of the governing party was expected to win, so the election result itself was less interesting for being more predictable. The reason we sent Robin Lustig there was to report on the state of Africa's most populous and arguably most wealthy and powerful country, so we used the election as an opportunity to do this - it gave us, in journalists' jargon, 'a peg' to do the story.

One of the main things Robin did was to report from the northern city of Kano, which has a mixed Muslim/Christian population and is a good place to illustrate the issues facing the country in terms of potential wealth, everyday poverty and corruption.

If elections equal democracy (which not everyone accepts they do) and Nigeria held an election (however flawed according to observers) and manages to pass power from one elected president to another for the first time in the country's history (punctuated as it is by military rule), this is an important moment for the future of Nigeria and by extension Africa, which the British taxpayer via the government is committed to supporting with substantial debt relief and aid.

I hope our audience are finding it interesting and worth the time we devoted to it. If you would like to hear more, Robin has also been presenting for 大象传媒 World Service while he's there, and was also on the Today programme on Saturday (listen here).

On this week's Newswatch, the programme which discusses viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 TV News, Alison Ford, UK news editor, responds to criticisms that the 大象传媒鈥檚 coverage of Prince William and Kate Middleton鈥檚 relationship was no better than that of the paparazzi.

You can watch the programme by clicking here.

The Independent: Interview with 大象传媒 News presenter Kate Silverton on her life in the media. ()

The Guardian: Article on how video on demand has reached the mainstream, with so many services now available, including the forthcoming 大象传媒 iPlayer. ()

From Friday, you might notice that on the front page of the 大象传媒 News website we will be having a regular reminder of the number of days that our Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston has been missing. It's a message which you are more and more likely to come across as you surf around the internet, thanks to the help of an increasing number of people who want to show their support for Alan.

Earlier this week my colleague Jon Williams invited anyone who runs a blog, website or web page to use a button in support of Alan. More than 150 sites have so far pledged their support - and that's just those we know about. If you want to do the same, you can find out how here.

At the same time, more than 40,000 people have signed our petition online to call on everyone with influence to increase their efforts to ensure that Alan is freed quickly and unharmed. .

UPDATE 25 April: More than 50,000 names have now been added to the petition. Thanks to everyone who has joined in.

The Independent: "The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said yesterday he had been given confirmation that the kidnapped 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston was alive." ()

The Guardian: Reports that planning approval has been given for a major part of the 大象传媒's relocation to Salford Quays. ()

Many people have been before he went on his murderous rampage. And I have been asked whether the 大象传媒 would have transmitted a similar video if it had emerged after, say, a similar mass killing at a British university.

I think there are different questions, depending on whether one might be the first disseminator of sensitive material. If the 大象传媒 had received such a video we would have spoken to the police first to get their assessment of any investigatory, legal or public safety issues that they might want to draw to our attention. We would not be handing editorial control to the police. Its use would be our decision but we would want to take their view into account.

Secondly, we would consider the possible reaction of family and friends of the victim. There are a number of occasions where we have sensitive material which we hold back until families of victims have been informed. In this case we would have wanted to alert the relevant police family liaison officers to tell relatives of some potentially highly upsetting content

Having made those initial calls I believe the 大象传媒, in receipt of such a video, would probably have transmitted some, although not all, of it.

As to what of the NBC video should be transmitted, we decided what was editorially relevant for our audiences. For our TV audiences, where people are not choosing to watch a specific item in the way the online audience can, we bear in mind the time of day, who may be watching and the editorial purpose. Today we have tried to give context round the short clips we have used. We have interviewed experts who have been able to relate the clips to the emerging picture of the killer's state of mind and what we can learn about why such killings happen.

We have not replayed large chunks of the video endlessly on News 24 or 大象传媒 World. We are well aware of the concern that the video may lead others to copy or emulate him. Indeed we have interviewed people discussing that dilemma. However, given that the video is already widely available, we had to judge whether withholding the video from 大象传媒 audiences was the appropriate thing to do. We decided that playing short clips, responsibly contextualised, could aid understanding of the story.

However, from 24 hours after our original transmission we will not use moving images or actuality from the video. Stills from the video may be used but we will exercise restraint over excessive use of the more alarming images.

When the broke our first responsibility was to cover the breaking story accurately and as fully as possible. The events appear sensational - but for many it is a personal tragedy which we needed to reflect with care. (For those of us with teenage children at college or university it doesn't take much to imagine the horror for American parents).

Once we are through the initial phase we gather round the newsdesk and begin discussing how our coverage will develop over the next 24 to 48 hours. I look after the One O'Clock and Six O'Clock News - but our coverage doesn't begin and end with these two bulletins - we must also provide 24-hour cover on two levels for all our outlets including Breakfast, News 24 and the Ten O'Clock News.

Not only must we have reporters working in the field, we must also be able to provide live coverage across a range of output. So we sent our presenter Emily Maitlis. Some say it's a waste of money to do so, but having Emily on location ensures our reporters are free to do their job - finding new information and adding new insight to the story. Emily presented across all outlets - News 24 at noon in the UK, and then the One, Six and Ten O'Clock bulletins while our reporters have travelled around the region, interviewing people, finding new angles and explaining how and why something has happened.

The result is some remarkable reporting from correspondents like Jonathan Beale, who found a licensed Virginia gun dealer selling weapons across his kitchen table. Matt Frei has reported live for the Six and Ten O'Clock News, but has also been talking to new eye-witnesses and gathering their first had accounts. Our coverage of a major breaking story is down to team work - correspondents, presenters, producers and technicians working long hours to keep us abreast of the latest events.

Last month I wrote on this blog about claims that 大象传媒 Arabic was "anti-Western". Thank you for all the comments - perhaps it's time for for me to chip in once more. Inevitably many of the responses were from people who do not listen to 大象传媒 Arabic nor see translations of it; so inevitably the debate developed into a broader discussion about whether the 大象传媒 is biased.

Perhaps all judgments about this are bound to be relative to each person's experience and perspective. I know from personal experience that my colleagues inside this organisation put considerable effort and reflection in to trying to ensure that the output is impartial but - as some commenters point out - such assertions count for little.

Some questions might help.

Does the 大象传媒 have a proprietor defining an editorial line which journalists are expected to stick to?

No. Unlike many organisations the 大象传媒 has no such person. Instead it publishes its own guidelines so that the public can judge whether we abide by them or not.

When we say we try and be impartial - what do we mean?

We don鈥檛 mean that we never make mistakes. We are by no means perfect. Mistakes do get made and we are not always able to get access to every piece of information or every view but we strive hard to be accurate, balanced and fair - and audience research suggests that most people who use 大象传媒 services greatly appreciate those efforts.

Do you hear views you disagree with on the media you use?

I certainly hope so. Personally I hear all kinds of views on the 大象传媒 I do not agree with and hear interviews with all kinds of people I would prefer my children not to meet, including some contributions from those on published lists of "terrorists". I disagree with what some of these people say and if I hate what someone stands for that does not mean their views should not be heard; nor does it mean that I should not spend some time in trying to understand where they are coming from.

f Protestant or Catholic leaders had held to a view that "terrorists" should not be given opportunities to air their views publicly there would be no power sharing or reconciliation in Northern Ireland - and peace (which is surely what most people want) would remain elusive. Very few commenters suggested that views should be suppressed. Most are essentially discussing the concept of balance. That can be impossible to achieve within single reports, especially when one side has a more efficient press machine than another. However, it can be achieved over time. One thing that is very difficult in this is the sheer impact of a picture. If a bomb hits a civilian area and you see pictures of children dying - that is going to stay in the mind longer than a reasoned argument from a politician. Different people - depending on their own personal experience - will react very differently to the same piece of information.

An example: you see a picture of a policeman beating up a man in civilian clothes on the street of some foreign country. If you are British you might think immediately that a great offence is being committed. If you are from that country you might think the same thing. But if you are someone in that country who spends their lives constantly in fear for your safety on the streets from thugs and cronies in civilian clothes - you might well feel that someone in authority is on the street battling on your behalf. Your own experience can change or distort the meaning of something that at first appears quite straight forward.

I think what the 大象传媒 can and should continue to strive to do is report over time and in detail what is actually happening so that over time people are in a better position to make up their own minds about what is going on. It鈥檚 not our job to push a line or push a "大象传媒" point of view. It is our job to enable many others of very diverse views to air their own - as has been done here so you can make up your own minds.

When you listen to the 大象传媒 do you hear a consistent view pushed continuously?

I suggest that anyone - academic or not - would find that very hard to prove unless you quote only highly selectively - always ignoring anything that does not fit the case you are trying to prove. I do see some things on the 大象传媒 that make me wince as a piece of individual journalism. But I can quickly point to something else that counters the concern I have. And encouragingly I find my colleagues are open to criticism and indeed criticise my work - so we try and keep each other on our toes (and of course our audiences are constantly in contact!)

The point I am making is that impartiality is partly dependent on balance and it is not possible to internally balance every piece. If we waited to do that we would be very slow on stories and our credibility would diminish. That kind of balance is only achieved over time and if you are going to be as highly critical as Professor Frank Stewart was in the original attack which started this debate, you ought really to take a broader look at the output than I believe he has done.

But of course he is entitled to his view!

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the 大象传媒 is to trial a plan making its archive available to the public via Freeview. ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 is working with Apple to ensure its iPlayer video download service is compatible with Macs." ()

If you visit the message boards this week you may notice a few changes. They are all there as a result of feedback from our users who, back in November, took part in a website questionnaire and a number of focus groups to tell us how they wanted the site to develop.

Their message was we want more clarity about just how many comments each debate receives, what is done with them, and the status of their own individual comment or complaint. They also want to see their messages published, but not necessarily ones from other people which they don鈥檛 think are as good or pertinent! They also want the pages to be a good read.

So, from this week on the right hand side of any debate, we now have a box with the total number of comments received, those published, those rejected and those in the moderation queue. At times this moderation queue will seem excessively large 鈥� today the Virginia shooting debate had over 6,000 in the queue, built up since last night when the moderator left at 11pm. When the debate is closed, the queue of messages is incorporated into the total as no further comments can be added by the team.

Members can see at a glance the number of comments they have had published, and how many complaints they have made in the last week. They will also see the status of all of the comments they have sent in. The four options are; a comment was published, it was unpublished (as the debate is closed and it didn鈥檛 get on), it is waiting to be moderated, or rejected, where a moderator decided it broke the House Rules.

All of these terms plus the House Rules are explained on the right hand side. There is also a page for complaints made in the last seven days 鈥� and the status of those; upheld, or not, or awaiting a decision.

We have also decided to highlight the messages made by the 大象传媒 moderators in a different colour so they stand out and are noticed. Usually these are requests from us to keep debates on topic and avoid having a dialogue between two users to the detriment of anyone else reading or contributing!

The statistics from our Have Your Say debates continues to rise - and we hope these changes will encourage more people to take part.

In January the number of page views to the Have Your Say part of the site peaked at over 12 million and we now have just under 200,000 registered users.

We now publish 49% of messages received 鈥� up from around 25% from a couple of years ago. Of course as soon as something momentous happens that people want to tell us about, that can rise to over 30,000 e-mails for any one topic and the percentage published will not be as high.

Please let us know what you think of the changes, and if you have any more suggestions to make. We really do want you to have your say!

The Times: Reports that the Archbishop of York has begun his prayer vigil for the 大象传媒 Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston who was abducted five weeks ago. ()

The Scotsman: "Labour leaders have held a secret meeting with the 大象传媒 to warn the corporation against unfairly favouring the Scottish National Party before the Holyrood election." ()

As most readers of this website will know, the 大象传媒 is very concerned for the safety of who was abducted in Gaza on 12 March.

More than 35,000 people have signed a calling on anyone who has any influence on the situation to increase their efforts to secure Alan's immediate release.

Today we are adding this button to 大象传媒 News blogs. We are inviting anyone who runs a blog or website to do the same to show support for Alan. It's a simple but, we hope, effective way of spreading the message.

To add the button to your blog, just copy and paste the code below into your blog's HTML. You could add it to an individual blog post, or, even better, to your blog's sidebar.

Using the code above, the image will link to a page on the 大象传媒 News website which has more information about Alan's situation and gives any of your blog's readers the chance to add their names to the petition.

Thank you for your help, it's much appreciated.

If you do publish this link on your blog or website, feel free to post a comment here to let us know.

Daily Mail: Reports that Moira Stuart may resume her role presenting the news on Sunday AM, following claims that she had been dropped for being too old. ()

The Guardian: The 大象传媒鈥檚 security correspondent Frank Gardner, who became paralysed after being shot in Saudi Arabia three years ago, writes about his recovery. ()

In at 5am for Martha's first programme (which you can now listen to here), trying to make sure all would go smoothly. I should have stayed in bed.

Of all the mornings for news to slow to a trickle and interviewees to go awol, they had to pick this one. Martha appeared just before seven, ridiculously cheerful, blissfully unaware of the impending struggle.

What appeared to be the two main stories were decent enough - and the . Both, however, came with problems.

As I write this, we're still waiting for Des Browne's statement at around 3.30, so we were in one of those frustrating voids on that one. And all Iraqi stories come with main players (in this case Sadr) who won't talk and phone lines that test the patience of even the most devoted of WATO listeners.

As the morning grew older, we hit further problems. You name a reason for not coming on, our potential interviewees found it. Critical board meetings, long train journeys, fact-finding missions to India, appearances in court (representing, I should add). By 1225 we were seven minutes short of a programme, and only a late burst got us there.

Martha seemed to trust absolutely that we'd have a full programme for her to present: this may change.

And as for her presentation鈥� remarkable. From the morning meeting through to the closing headlines, she was as sharp, calm and authoritative as you'd expect and hope, whatever the setbacks and last-minute changes. Most mornings will be far easier than today's. Martha could hardly have been better.

On this week's Newswatch, the programme which discusses viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 News, Peter Horrocks, head of TV News, defends the decision to report the release of navy personnel by Iran so prominently, at a time when four British soldiers had been killed in Iraq.

You can watch the programme by clicking here.

The Independent: Interview with former Newsnight political editor Martha Kearney as she starts her new job as presenter of The World at One. ()

Daily Telegraph: 鈥淯p to a million hours of broadcasting history could be made available on the internet as part of a plan to open the 大象传媒's archive to licence fee payers鈥�. ()

I've written an entry on the Sport Editors' blog about the new sports news programme we're launching soon.

You can read and comment on it here.

There's been some discussion in the papers about the access given to broadcasters when the bodies of the four British soldiers were flown home yesterday. Not all of it is accurate.

The 大象传媒 - like Sky and ITV News - treat these sad events very seriously and we try to cover them in an appropriate tone and with the prominence and time they deserve. Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence denied the broadcasters access to film the arrival ourselves and instead provided their own recorded footage soon after the event. This seems to be an increasing trend at the Ministry to try to control what is filmed at sensitive events.

There is no dispute over the quality of the footage, which was fine and we still devoted considerable time to the ceremony. However, we would have liked to cover it more fully as it happened and we have done this in the past. The Ministry of Defence says that they wanted to do it in this way to safeguard the privacy of the families. However, in the past we have always respected the wishes of the families absolutely at this desperately difficult time.

Independent: Dominic Lawson takes issue with Professor Jeffrey Sachs' Reith Lecture ()
Daily Mail: Broadcasters were not allowed to film coffins arriving at RAF Lyneham but instead were supplied footage filmed by the MoD. ()
Guardian: Polly Toynbee says the 大象传媒's reporting of the sale of sailors' stories "follows the tabloid frenzy without investigating tabloid behaviour". ()

We on "Today" are not so arrogant that we expect Government ministers to step to the wicket and defend every contentious policy decision they鈥檙e involved in. They鈥檙e busy people, conferring with civil servants, attending cabinet meetings, and meeting constituents and voters: even, no doubt, making policies. And - to be absolutely frank - if they said yes to every one of our requests for an interview, we鈥檇 be a little dismayed: politics, both the issues and the personalities, is a key part of our programme, but you can get too much of a good thing.

But... there are occasions when there is an overwhelming need to hear an in-depth, forensically-constructed interview with the relevant minister at the heart of the main story of the day. And we on "Today" feel - without being arrogant, of course - that we鈥檙e as well-equipped as anyone to carry it out.

Never mind the briefings by No 10, or the relevant department, or even a written statement by the minister concerned, or even (on Day 12 of the "crisis") a sit-down pooled interview done by a correspondent for all outlets. None of this is satisfactory for us. Our listeners demand it, we鈥檝e posed all the questions we think need answering in innumerable morning meetings, and we鈥檙e champing at the bit to get the answers.

The "" is a last resort. It鈥檚 not a weapon - if that鈥檚 what it is - that we use lightly. But when we believe there鈥檚 a clear case for a minister to come out and address a matter of policy for which he has been - contentiously - responsible, then we鈥檒l do it. It鈥檚 a statement of frustration, but less of a wish to embarrass, and more of a last-ditch attempt to lure the minister on to the programme.

When I started out on Today 15 years ago, my memory is that ministers would reluctantly troop into studio 4A in Broadcasting House to face the music far more often than their successors do in 2007. An exception was Europe: John Major鈥檚 cabinet confined themselves to fighting amongst themselves in private, rather than commit political suicide on the airwaves.

But way back then 鈥� apart from Newsnight 鈥� we were the only credible news and current affairs programme. In today鈥檚 24/7 media climate, it is easier to slip a doorstep interview, or a statement, into the political ether, and it鈥檒l swiftly make headlines on multiple TV, radio and online outlets, and the minister will appear TO HAVE ANSWERED the questions.

But he hasn鈥檛. Not really, not properly. So the chair in S1 still awaits him...

Today marks a very sober moment for all of us in 大象传媒 News: exactly a month ago, our friend and colleague, Alan Johnston, disappeared in Gaza. We believe he was kidnapped and we feel growing concern for his well being.

Since that time, there have been tenacious and determined efforts by members of 大象传媒 News both in London and in the Middle East to try to achieve his release. Our colleagues in 大象传媒 Scotland have offered Alan鈥檚 family their practical support. There have been diligent and sustained efforts behind the scenes by representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we have pressed our own contacts for all they are worth. It is a slow, difficult and frustrating process where rumour and speculation abound but there is almost no hard evidence about what has happened to Alan. However, we remain optimistic that he is safe.

We are extremely grateful for the support offered to Alan and his family and friends by journalists and News organisations around the world. There have been marches and rallies in support of Alan demanding his freedom. Every Monday at Television Centre and at Bush House, Alan鈥檚 colleagues come together to hold a short silence to demonstrate our solidarity with him. And in Gaza itself, Palestinian journalists have gone on strike to show their revulsion with what has happened and to demand action from the Palestinian Authority. They are also holding a round the clock vigil.

It is a measure of the man and his work that so many members of the public who have no direct connection with him, have also rallied to his cause. Prayers were said for Alan in many churches over the Easter weekend and over eight thousand people have signed asking for his immediate release.

Today, he will be in our thoughts as the hard work continues to secure his safe release.

Metro: "The parents of 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston, who was abducted in the Middle East a month ago, will step up calls for his release today." ()

The Guardian: Columnist Jonathan Freedland discusses the practice of 'empty chairing' (drawing attention to politicians' refusal to show up) by broadcasters. ()

Blogs are supposed to be a conversation, but sometimes the robust exchange of opinions they trigger develop into something far more unpleasant, even frightening.

That was the case for computer programmer who was targeted with death threats in anonymous posts to a number of websites.

And that, in turn, led web guru to try to draft for bloggers in which civility of debate would be an enforced standard.

It could never work, of course. You might just as well try to regulate discourse around the globe, though if you were intent on making headway you could usefully start with school playgrounds or the top decks of buses.

The world is full of snarling, angry, aggressive people and the web is no different. Happily they're outnumbered by reasonable, decent, fair-minded folk who hold to standards of tolerant behaviour that aren't codified by rulebooks, however well-meaning the boundary-setters might be.

Where the web does differ is the cloak of anonymity it affords people who mount attacks on others, who use a tone and language they would never adopt in a face-to-face discussion (well, all but the most aggressive).

Another web guru, Jeff Jarvis, deals with anonymous posts to his : "I will not give full respect and credence to things said by people who do not have the balls to stand behind their words.

"When people complain that I鈥檓 trying to get rid of the anonymous nature of the web, I say no, I wouldn鈥檛 do that. I鈥檓 simply telling you the way I judge your words when you鈥檙e too chicken to put your name on them."

And he goes on to say that he reserves the right to kill comments that are abusive, off-topic or irritating.

In this way he is setting the tone around the conversations he strikes up. And in this way the best blogs are self-regulating; the people involved in the conversation set the boundaries.

Shane Richmond, the Telegraph's online news editor: "Communities filled with abusive, insensitive boors who won't listen to reason tend to become very small communities in short order as everybody heads elsewhere."

In a world of political correctness there are few places where people can vent their true feelings and codes of conduct to try to limit them are mistaken.

We need a place where people can sound off - and an opportunity for their opinions to be examined, debated and explored by others.

Let's cherish the reasoned, passionate debaters and leave the boors to their echo chamber.

Faye Turney reportedly received more than 拢100,000 from ITV and for the story of her capture and detention in Iran. The response to this, and the (temporary) permission given to her fellow crew members to sell their stories, has been vociferous.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the MoD's decision, the 大象传媒 was just as anxious as every other news organisation to hear first hand what had happened during the crew's thirteen days in captivity. The problem for us is that we don't pay for stories.

We'd been very careful during their time in captivity not to bombard the sailors' families with requests for interviews and to try to respect their privacy - a request which had come from them through the Ministry of Defence. We wrote to all of them asking if they would consider speaking to the 大象传媒 once their ordeal was over. And, as soon as news of the crew's imminent release was announced on Wednesday last week, many of them did.

As for the crew themselves - of course we were disappointed that a couple of them decided to sell their stories rather than speak to us. Lieutenant Felix Carman, who said 'he wasn't in it for the money' spoke to the 大象传媒 (watch the interview here) at the weekend. Now that the MoD has changed its mind and banned the others from selling their stories maybe a few more of them will talk to us too.

This week we are starting a new feature on PM - and we need your help.

The Glass Box will give listeners a regular opportunity to comment, praise and criticise what you hear on the programme, and engage with programme makers and with each other in a public forum. We've already tried it and listeners, producers and editors say they've found it useful. It will be on the PM blog, and is called the Glass Box because every night after the programme we sit in the Glass Box just outside the studio and discuss the programme.

The Glass Box is a place to discuss what worked and what didn't. It's never rude or personal. We use it as a tool to try to make the programme better.

Daily Mirror: Have I Got News For You podcasts launched. (No link)
The Times: 大象传媒 rejects complaints about Waking the Dead. ()
The Daily Telegraph: Columnist Jan Moir on Moira Stuart. ()
The Times: Controller for 大象传媒 Three named. ()

"Get Nicky in a hair-net". That was the, admittedly, rather vague proposal put to the Breakfast programme producer tasked with arranging an outside broadcast (OB) from Scotland which would aim to focus on .

Why? Well, we wanted to be inside a factory, talking to people who work on a production line. Making politics relevant to people's lives can be a challenge at the best of times. Making the issues of the Scottish elections of interest to a UK-wide audience can be even tougher.

So we decided to try to base our OB away from the traditional political haunts. We didn't want to be in Edinburgh in the shadow of the Holyrood Parliament itself. So we approached to ask if we could broadcast from alongside their production line.

They are famous for making, amongst other things, Wham bars, Highland toffee, bon-bons and mints. Many people around the UK know their products and there was a story too - the company in the last two years.

And, most importantly of all, the workers have to wear hair-nets inside the factory in Stenhousemuir.

So Nicky Campbell paraded in all his blue-netted glory this morning (listen to the programme here). It made - I hope - for a different sort of political OB. It meant the politicians had to try to address what their policies would mean to people like those on the production line.

It also gave Nicky plenty of room for sweet-related puns. He said to the wannabee First Minister Jack McConnell, "we're surrounded by pinky goo-ey stuff - sounds like your campaign", and there were plenty of references to the political "fudge" which is expected once the votes are counted and the parties have to consider forming coalitions.

We still discussed Scottish independence, the Barnett formula, health spending, oil revenues, taxation - and other political issues. And Stenhousemuir football club too.

But hopefully the location - and the discussion of sweet manufacturing and of listeners all-time favourite confections - made for a good listen. As one person noted - we were trying to sweeten the bitter political pill.

And did it work? Well, as Nicky checked in for his flight from Glasgow Airport, he was greeted by the woman at check-in, "good morning, Mr Campbell - taken the hair-net off then?"

There are other elections coming up too... council elections throughout much of England and Scotland, and the Welsh Assembly election too. The 大象传媒's political coverage does get criticised for being too Westminster based - and this is a good opportunity to reflect a broader agenda. But to what extent do we succeed? Hair-nets aside, how else should we be trying to make connections with these elections?

The Telegraph: "A complaint by Opus Dei that its members were unfairly portrayed in a TV drama has been rejected by the 大象传媒." ()

The Times: Columnist David Aaronovitch criticises the 大象传媒's coverage of the controversy over the decision to allow the 15 Royal Navy personnel held in Iran to sell their stories to the media. ()

Newsweek: "How a budget crunch and the Internet are forcing big changes at the 大象传媒." ()

The Times has run a Newsnight's report on Romanian immigrants in Britain was "a set-up". The acting Romanian ambassador complained about pictures which showed one immigrant at a makeshift camp in London's Hyde Park. "It's clear they stage-managed the whole thing... we feel they have resumed the stereotyped coverage of Romanians," she said.

Did we?

Here is some evidence which we didn't include in the original report. When we first met Daniel, the subject of the film, at a Romanian church in London we simply asked him what it was like to live in London. He volunteered that he, and others, had been camping in Hyde Park. Here's the clip.

Daniel offered to show us where he had been living. These are the rushes of what we found when we got to the park. It's pretty clear there is quite a large encampment where a number of people have been living.

When other media checked out the story after our original report they discovered other campers.

, who said he had been camping in the park for weeks: "It is a great place to sleep. You can come here at night and there are no police or wardens to stop you."

Did we pay Daniel to make his claims and pitch his tent? No. We gave him a small facility fee, which is what we offer anyone who contributes to Newsnight. Did we mislead our audience by suggesting that Daniel is still living rough? No. The report made it clear that Daniel had subsequently found accommodation and is looking for a job.

Our report was not a set-up or a fabrication. It showed the truth of how some Romanian immigrants have been living since arriving in Britain.

Daily Telegraph: Criticism of Radio 4's Lent talk in which the Dean of St Albans questioned the traditional view of the Crucifixion. ()

Daily Star: Prince Harry will be branded "an embarrassment" in a Hard Talk interview with photographer Arthur Edwards ()

Daily Express, Times: 大象传媒 pays damages to Lady Falkender over the programme The Lavender List. ()

Times: Romanian embassy accuses Newsnight of "stage-managing" a report into immigrants sleeping rough in Hyde Park. ()

Financial Times: Reports that National Grid Wireless, which operates the 大象传媒's transmitter network, has been bought by an Australian group, Macquarie. ()

Daily Telegraph: Article on the changes that the 大象传媒 needs to make as a result of the licence fee settlement, which takes effect from this week. ()

The Guardian: Reports that a Five Live interview with Trinity Mirror's chief executive, Sly Bailey, failed to happen when she refused to appear with the Sun's business editor, Ian King. ()

I'm intrigued by Richard Alleyne's - "大象传媒 should dumb down, says own report".

I haven't seen the report - it's a long way from being finished. But I'd be prepared to wager a few bob that the words "大象传媒 should dumb down" do not - and will not - appear in it. And I'm not the only one who hasn't seen it - Mr Alleyne hasn't either, depending instead on a report of what an unnamed insider is said to have said.

Another un-named insider is quoted as saying: "There is a feeling we may be serving the professional classes well, but not reaching the C2s and D1s." While the same, or perhaps another, insider opines: "The corporation has lost all perspective. It is defeatist to constantly chase the populist market. Sometimes you have to give people what they need and not just what they want."

It's all fascinating stuff. Fascinating... but nothing whatever to do with the current debate/debates over audiences.

And for the 大象传媒, that starts with the licence fee. The proposition is a simple one; everyone pays, everyone - the 大象传媒 hopes, certainly intends - gets. Gets something it values. In a simpler world, the only thing that could really mean was mass audiences (大象传媒 One, Radio 1) - big numbers sitting round the TV set, all together, that evening. It hasn't meant that for a long time and won't ever again. One American communications scholar, Jay Rosen, calls listeners, readers and viewers "" - partly because the whole idea of "the audience" as a big blob of big numbers just ain't so any more.

But it's only if you do cling on to the anachronistic idea of "the audience" as a big, amorphous, internally indistinct blob that phrases like "dumbing down" or "the populist market" have any meaning - based as it is around the idea that "the audience" watches "the schedule". And, because Blue Planet is good for you and When will I be Famous isn't, that for every half-dozen WWIBFs in "the schedule", "the audience" needs one BP.

Now - increasingly so in the future - the people formerly known as the audience who watch, listen to and read 大象传媒 content do so on their own terms; when they want, where they want and how they want. They watch news reports on their PCs, Dr Who on replay and listen to 1Xtra through their TVs, and Mark Kermode through a podcast. Each individual member of the audience can build his or her own schedule - many do. On Wednesday evening you could settle down to Britten, Victoria and Tippett on R3, skip across to the Lent talk on R4, grab a bite to eat then catch the documentary on King Leopold II of Belgium over on 大象传媒 Four. Or, of course, you could go for the more upmarket stuff. You're the scheduler.

Nor is it any longer a simple equation; more quizzes = less costume drama; more reality TV = less politics (the two, of course, being mutually exclusive). Expensive dramas last longer - so do cheap ones, actually. The so-called '' means that tens of millions can watch a production and find value in it over a period of time and on a variety of outlets and platforms; it's not down to one shot on one night any more. It's both/and not either/or.

And it's against this shifting picture that the 大象传媒 has to make its calculation - is everyone who pays 拢131.50 (a bit less than the cost of taking, say, the Daily Mail every day) getting 拢131.50 worth of value?

It's possible that some audiences are less easily able than others to find 大象传媒 content that's valuable to them. It's possible, too, that some audiences feel there's not enough programming that's relevant to them - I simply don't know. If either is true, there's a strong case for putting it right - but that's nothing to do with giving people "what they want" rather than "what they need" or with "dumbing down". It is, though, a lot to do with giving licence fee-payers what they've paid for.

The Mirror: "Journalists in war-torn Gaza began a three-day strike yesterday in a bid to free kidnapped 大象传媒 man Alan Johnston." ()

Daily Mail: Reports that broadcasters and viewers are angered by the suggestion that Moira Stuart has been dropped from reading the news because of her age. ()

Will small-scale, independent online journalism like about Norwich City Football Club come to represent a threat to larger news organisations like the 大象传媒?

I met Rick at a seminar last week about the economics of online journalism organised by , a joint initiative from the London School of Economics and the London College of Communication. After years as a football reporter and commentator on the Norwich Evening News, he left to set up his own website dedicated entirely to coverage of the city's football club.

He's made a successful business out of it, with a regular readership and a stable of local advertisers gathering around what is in effect his own personal brand.

Can that economic model be replicated across a wider range of subjects - and for news as well as sport?

I'm not sure anyone knows yet, but what he and other specialist journalists and some bloggers certainly can - and do - provide is absolute focus on the subject in question and a high degree of expertise about it. If they can get readers to recognise this, people will value and maybe pay for it. So when POLIS Director as saying this model could be a threat to larger news organisations, that's why.

The 大象传媒 has to be aware of these specialist online news sources and indeed should link to them too, helping our audience find out more about the stories. And it's also going to be more important than ever for us to signpost the authoritative reporting and newsgathering of our own specialist correspondents.

On this week's Newswatch, the programme which discusses viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 TV News, Guy Pelham, live editor of 大象传媒 Newsgathering, defends outside broadcasts, in response to criticisms that they often don鈥檛 add anything to a report.

You can watch the programme by clicking here.

The Guardian: Interview with Newsnight's newly appointed political editor, Michael Crick. ()

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the 大象传媒 is to publish a petition signed by 300 leading media figures calling for the release of missing journalist Alan Johnston in Gaza. ()

The Independent: Columnist Matthew Norman speculates that the next 大象传媒 chairman is likely to be either Sir Michael Lyons or . ()

The Times: Reports that record companies have agreed a deal with UK commercial radio stations, but not the 大象传媒, to allow music clips in podcasts. ()

Sunday Telegraph: "Senior 大象传媒 bosses think that their current affairs programmes, including the award-winning Panorama, are too dull and serious." ()