- Peter Horrocks
- 19 Apr 07, 10:53 PM
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.
Peter Horrocks is head of 大象传媒 Newsroom
- Mark Popescu
- 19 Apr 07, 09:35 AM
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.
Mark Popescu is editor of daytime news
- Jerry Timmins
- 19 Apr 07, 09:13 AM
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!
Jerry Timmins is head of Africa and Middle East, World Service
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." ()
