大象传媒

I have received complaints this week about The World Tonight's coverage of two different stories - the changing of the guard at 10 Downing Street and our report from the Basque country that asked why ETA is still fighting on. In both cases I have to say I am puzzled as the complaints bear little relation to what we broadcast.

The complaint about our political coverage said:

"Why are there only men discussing politics on this and so many other programmes? Women are under-represented in the arena of political discussions on the 大象传媒."

Now, how do you go about replying to this - as I do reply to all complaints as long as they aren鈥檛 abusive - when the programme in question (which you can listen to here) had a panel of three discussing the relative merits of Gordon Brown and David Cameron of which two were... how can I say it... women?

This is not as uncommon as you might think - but why do people take the time to complain about things we have not broadcast, rather than what we did? Do they not pay attention or do they hear what they want to hear?

I think a clue lies in the complaint above - someone who believes the 大象传媒 in general doesn't invite enough women on the air to discuss politics decides to complain about a programme to make a general point and - here I admit I am speculating - maybe he or she didn't listen to the programme carefully and heard what he/she wanted to hear. Or actually switched off early in a fit of rage and got on the phone/computer to complain.

Our presenter, Robin Lustig, tells me there may be another explanation. He says he was asked at a party recently why he says every night 鈥淵ou're listening to The World Tonight鈥�, The person who asked this then answered her own question 鈥� 鈥淚'm not listening鈥�, she said 鈥淚've just got the radio on鈥�.

Having said that, we are accountable to the public who have to pay the licence fee, so I will respond to the complaint as I respond to all others - politely but straightforwardly.

Wall Street Journal: Former 大象传媒 journalist Robin Aitken comments on the recent report into the corporation's impartiality. (subscription only )

Press Gazette: Reports that a weekly 大象传媒 news magazine, which will be run in close co-operation with 大象传媒 News, is to be launched this autumn. ()

The Times: Reports that the 大象传媒's iPlayer will be available to dowload programmes on demand from 27 July. ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒's decision to sell off its technology arm to Siemens came in for stinging criticism from MPs today." ()

The Guardian: Reports that the 大象传媒 has apologised for cutting off the end of Tony Blair's final speech in the House of Commons. ()

Sometimes bad mistakes happen on the worst possible day. And that's exactly what happened this afternoon.

I saw it myself: I was watching coverage of the absolutely riveting final PMQs (you can watch it in full here, or download highlights ) with Tony Blair on The Daily Politics when it suddenly cut away in the middle of his valedictory statement to a couple of trails and the tennis.

As a consequence, we only learned later that we had missed Mr Blair talking about his fear of the House of Commons, and a unique moment when both sides of the House gave him a standing ovation. A lot of you were taken aback and upset by the switch - and certainly Andrew Neil and the production team were deeply disappointed not to share this with you after the care and passion they put into the programme on such a special day.

After looking into this, I can at least reassure you that this was cock up rather than conspiracy. A wrong scheduling decision was taken for which the 大象传媒 can only apologise. Believe me, no one involved would have wanted you to miss any part of this important event. Thankfully, News 24 was also covering PMQs live so we hope viewers were able to switch there.

The Times: Reports that the kidnappers of 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston have reiterated their threat to kill him if their demands for prisoners to be released are not met. ()

The Guardian: 鈥淎s the 大象传媒 World Service puts the finishing touches to its plans for a Farsi satellite TV channel, it has emerged that Iran's state broadcaster will start an English news service next week.鈥� ()

Citizen journalism is making the news again. We have been all but overwhelmed with and videos from our audiences of the widespread flooding. As well as the dramatic rescue helicopter footage (for which many thanks, as ever, to the RAF) by lunchtime on Tuesday, the 大象传媒 had received well over 3,000 still images and 200 mobile phone videos - most from stranded motorists and people whose homes and businesses had been ruined by the rising waters.

大象传媒 News has broadcast only a tiny proportion of these, so apologies if your material hasn't been on air. But the torrent of information from the public has helped shape our coverage: News 24 was able to interview several people trapped last night by floodwater in Sheffield - particularly in the Brightside Lane area, in Rotherham and elsewhere simply because they'd contacted US in the first place. Their personal stories made compelling viewing, and also guided our decisions on where to send our own journalists and camera crews.

Today, we've been able to call on presenters and correspondents broadcasting live from several locations in Sheffield, from Ulley Dam near Rotherham - where engineers are fighting to prevent the dam bursting, from Catcliffe in South Yorkshire, from Tenbury Wells and Ludlow in Worcestershire and of course from the now ubiquitous 大象传媒 helicopter, which has illustrated powerfully the spread and scale of the flooding.

And once the waters begin to recede and the clean-up begins and the insurance claims are calculated - that's when the questions really begin.

How can we avoid such widespread chaos and destruction in the future? Who - if anyone - is to blame? Is this violent weather something we should now expect as a regular occurrence?

There's a question too for us - and for you: has the blanket coverage been an over-reaction? TV News is often accused of overplaying stories with strong pictures but for the families and friends of those who died in the floods, the last 24 hours have changed their lives forever. And there are thousands of people whose homes and workplaces have been devastated.

Personally, I think the effort and the airtime has been justified - I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong.

UPDATE: I've replied to some of your comments - you can read that by clicking here.

POSTSCRIPT, FRIDAY 1200: By today, we've received more than 7,000 stills and videos from members of the publc. Thank you.

"It's tough fighting an enemy that doesn't mind dying". They could have been the words of a soldier in the German army in World War II facing the onslaught of the Red Army after Stalingrad - but these were the very modern words of a very modern young soldier fighting a very modern war.

His frustration was expressed to our reporter Tulip Mazumdar on her trip to Afghanistan for a series of reports on Radio 1 on what life is like for the British army there.

The point that he was making was that the Taleban are willing to sacrifice large numbers of their men on hopeless assaults on the British forces - yet a single bullet, or IED (Improvised Explosive Device) can claim a British soldier鈥檚 life and damage the minds and spirits of his fellow soldiers for days, weeks, lifetimes. That's not to say British soldiers aren't tough; they are. But they feel loss of comrades deeply - they've built the steely bonds of friendship in combat in a way that only soldiers can.

They also spoke to her about the difficulties over girlfriends: how relationships end because "we never see each other" or the temptations of a Saturday night out while the BF is on active service. The attitude is "it's just part of the job". No-one really at home understands what it's like fighting, and sometimes dying, out in the 50C heat of the desert - unless you've done it. Old soldiers of any era will connect with this sentiment.

Radio 1 has a strong affection and connection with UK forces - many listen to us - either in the UK or through our reports which are re-broadcast on armed forces radio. Many army friends and families posted messages on our online site after Tulip's reports - some felt they helped to bring them closer to their loved ones.

Tulip found plenty of Chris Moyles fans there - and even a few of her own through her role as Newsbeat presenter. Tulip - who her Afghan driver insisted on calling Tuna - features in some of the photos on our website.

By the way, our diminutive reporter has always claimed to be to be 5ft 1in - I'm not so sure unless the British Army really are ALL giants nowadays - you can be the judge of that!

The Guardian: "All the top 大象传媒 executives, including Mark Thompson, the director general, are to waive their bonuses this year." ()

Daily Mirror: Reports that Alan Johnston's family have made a fresh plea for his release following the latest video showing him wearing what appears to be an explosives belt. ()

This week we start some special coverage of Turkey in advance of the . We have sent freelance journalist Ben Hammersley on a journey through Turkey to report on the issues and debate in the country.

But as well as conventional reports on 大象传媒 News 24, 大象传媒 World, the World Service and he is also reporting unconventionally.

As an experiment, he will also be filing his impressions through a range of of other sites including his , - the photo site, - where you can already see some material, - the bookmarking site, and . The idea is to extend his reporting and possibly reach new audiences in new ways.

It's not something that every 大象传媒 reporter could or should do. Ben is particularly experienced at the use of the internet and social media sites of this kind. So it will be interesting to see what he is able to offer beyond normal news reporting in this way. He is also filing background material on how he has gone about his assignment - how he selected his interviews, what decisions lay behind his reports, and making his source material and notes available. We hope it will open a window on how international reporting is carried out. It won't be perfect, but it will be interesting and will break open the conventional mould of foreign correspondent. and let us know what you think.

The Times: Reports on a video of 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston wearing what appears to be an explosives belt, which was released by his kidnappers. ()

The Times: 鈥淭he true cost of 大象传媒 One is 拢1.4 billion, the corporation will reveal next week, nearly 拢600 million more than it was prepared to admit last year.鈥� ()

Daily Telegraph: Reports on the number of passes allocated to the 大象传媒 at Glastonbury. ()

The Guardian: 鈥淎 strict programme of savings and cutbacks has given the 大象传媒 a 拢60m surplus as it moves towards an uncertain future under its licence fee settlement.鈥� ()

The Guardian: Business editor Deborah Hargreaves on the 大象传媒鈥檚 business coverage, criticising it for concentrating efforts on reality-style programmes such as The Apprentice. ()

On Newsnight my phone rarely rings at 6.14am. But it did this morning. It was our deputy editor Robbie Gibb, who was looking after Gordon Brown: Prime Minister's Questions, a for News24 and Newsnight in which the soon-to-be-PM was to face questions from a panel of the 大象传媒's sharpest minds. Robbie was involved in a last minute flurry with Mr Brown's people over the exact seating arrangements for the programme, which - because of the EU summit - could only be recorded at eight in the morning. It was symptomatic of a process of negotiation to get Mr Brown onto the programme which was at times tortuous and always subject to change.

But when Mr Brown swept into the studio - at roughly twenty past eight - he was a vision of relaxedness. The make-up lady remarked how warm and chatty he was - more so in fact than Blair - his warm-up small talk was easy, his jokes surprisingly good.

And when the intense and wide-ranging grilling from Martha Kearney, Evan Davis, Nick Robinson, and John Simpson began, the old Brown, sticking rigidly to his sound bites, seemed to have disappeared. No prudence, no steering a steady course, not even much listening and learning.
Could it be that Mr Brown - famously uptight and brooding as Chancellor - will, like Nicolas Sarkozy, find the top job strangely relaxing?

The current editor of the Today Programme is easily the hippest Today Programme editor ever. I'm not saying that just because he's the first editor to let us broadcast from Glastonbury but for lots of other reasons too, and I'll come back to those.

Under previous Today administrations the question: "Can we do a programme from Glastonbury?" has met with a range of responses, none of them positive.

When we asked Kevin Marsh, the reply went something like: "Glastonberry? Ah yes... same family as the Loganberry? Generally thought to be derived from a cross between the Red Antwerp raspberry and the American blackberry Aughinburgh. Accidentally created in 1880 in Santa Cruz by the American lawyer and horticulturist James Harvey Logan I believe..." He then spoke at length about various berries but nobody here understood what he was talking about so we left it.

's response was more concise....his full answer cannot be reprinted in a quality blog like this but it went something like "Go completely away and stick your rude thing up something else even ruder." The problem wasn't that Rod didn't care about Glastonbury, more that he didn't want his staff turning up in the Healing Field and cramping his style. He also said that taking Today to Glastonbury would just "drive up the price of black and alert the filth" but nobody here understood what he was talking about so we left it.

Anyway, this year things were different. Ceri Thomas embraced the idea immediately and with passion. Well, his voicemail did... it said: "Leave a message and I'll get back to you soon" and as far the planning desk is concerned that's a big Yes.

By the time he'd got back from holiday, Carolyn Quinn had already bought a Cath Kidston cagoule and so it was too late to turn back.

Why Carolyn you ask? Why not John Humphrys? Well, John wanted to go, and in fact he'd been invited to camp backstage with Gordon Brown Arctic Monkeys but as you probably know he has a severe mud allergy and so as soon as the long term weather forecast came through it was clear that that wouldn't work.

Carolyn was the obvious second choice鈥�.Not a lot of people know this, but Lemmy out of Motorhead is Carolyn's godfather and she was regularly dangled on Lemmy's knee as a young girl鈥� no one knows why Lemmy was dressing as a young girl at the time but I guess that's his business.

On top of that Carolyn had seen "We Will Rock You" 37 times and she can play "Whole Lotta Rosie" on the kazoo, so she seemed the obvious choice.

The Today team is camped in the Circus Performers' Field鈥� come and see us if you can鈥� we're just past the dwarves, first left at the Bearded Lady鈥� look for the VW van with a "Never Trust Anyone Under 50" bumper sticker.

Peace and Love.

The Independent: Law Editor Robert Verkaik on how Martin Bashir's Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, changed the 大象传媒's relationship with the monarchy. ()

The Times: Article in which the 大象传媒's deputy director general Mark Byford's responds to allegations of "an innate liberal bias" at the corporation. ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 is reviewing the generous relocation package it promised to staff moving to its new base in Salford." ()

The Times: Reports that video-sharing site YouTube is enjoying huge growth, challenging the 大象传媒's position as the most popular online media destination in Britain. ()

The Telegraph: "Colleagues and friends of kidnapped 大象传媒 reporter Alan Johnston have held a series of vigils across the world to mark his 100th day in captivity." ()

Exactly 100 days ago, my colleague Alan Johnston was abducted in Gaza. Today, his family, friends and colleagues across the 大象传媒 will pause for two minutes at 1415 BST - the moment he was abducted fourteen weeks ago - to think of Alan.

Across Britain and around the world, Alan's friends will hold up a picture of Alan to show solidarity with him and to demand his immediate release. I invite you to join us - you can print off your own picture of Alan by clicking on this pdf link.

In the 100 days since he was kidnapped, more than 150,000 of you have signed our , many thousands more have added your comments to our Have Your Say . I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of you who've done so - many of the messages are incredibly moving, the show of support overwhelming.

The last three months have been a dreadful time for his family and friends 鈥� but particularly for Alan. We鈥檝e always known Alan is special. But the last 14 weeks have shown us how special he is to many of you. Your support has buoyed us up through our darkest days - Alan's family particularly have drawn strength from your support.

The last few days have seen a number of reports from Gaza - as you'd expect we continue to follow developments very closely.

We made a mistake yesterday, as the . As is our regular practice, we added an e-mail on the bottom of a story about a military offensive north of Baghdad, asking for people in the area to get in touch with us.This is the sort of thing we do every day, on scores of news stories, and through this device we get many authentic first-hand accounts from all over the world. In Iraq it has been invaluable in finding out from people living there what has happened.

However, yesterday we used the phrase "have you seen any troop movements" in this request for information. The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail. We phrased it badly, and as soon as we realised what we had done - a couple of hours - we removed the form.

I want to emphasise, though, that we published no e-mails on this subject. We certainly did not intend to seek out any military detail and wouldn't have published it if we had received it. It was our mistake to use that phrase, when we were simply asking for eye witness reports. I apologise for confusion or upset caused, and thank those of you who wrote in so swiftly to point out our mistake. The 大象传媒 takes its responsibilities regarding the security and safety of the armed forces extremely seriously. We would never publish information which would endanger their safety.

Daily Telegraph: "The 大象传媒 was accused last night of risking the safety of British forces in Iraq after trawling for information on troop movements in the war-torn country." ()

The Guardian: John Lloyd writes that, in order for the 大象传媒 to lose its reputation for bias, it needs to accept more than two sides to every argument. ()

Metro: "A worldwide vigil is to be held for kidnapped Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston on the 100th day of his captivity." ()

Daily Mail: Reports that presenter Nick Ross is to leave Crimewatch, criticising the corporation of having an obsession with younger presenters. ()

Our coverage of the death of Bernard Manning provoked lively debate in the Glass Box on the PM Blog last night (the Glass Box is where listeners comment and discuss what they thought of the programme each day). We interviewed Frank Carson and some listeners felt our coverage proved we are a bunch of liberal lefties. What do you think? (listen to it here).

Ironically the item was followed by a look at the . The report demonstrates how impartiality can be a fiendishly tricky concept. For me, had we interviewed a critic of Bernard Manning asking 'how racist was he then?' that would be a lefty perspective. Had we just asked Frank Carson to eulogise his friend that would have been partial as well.

The assumption we made was that Bernard Manning was a controversial comic who many accused of being racist. It is the same line taken by all the national press today from liberal lefty ones to the Sun's 'Racist in Peace' headline.

Some listeners say that because Carolyn Quinn put the allegations of racism to Mr Carson and asked how he felt about it that must be the 大象传媒's view. I find this pretty simplistic.

If we challenge a contributor it does not mean that the position the interviewer is taking is 'the 大象传媒 view'. The fact that we gave air time to a friend of Mr Manning who gave a powerful and moving tribute does not mean we support that view either. All we are trying to do is to find the most effective way of telling a story in a way consistent with our obligation to be impartial.

It used to be so simple.

A generation ago the concept of impartiality amounted to giving "both sides of the argument". It was assumed that - give or take a little - it was enough to allow someone to state an opinion, someone else to disagree with it - and as long as you gave them roughly equal time, you'd been impartial.

The world of politics confirmed that this was the right approach - there was a clear spectrum, where people tended to fall on the left or the right.

into the concept of impartiality at the 大象传媒 called this the "see-saw" approach, easy to understand and implement - but patently unworkable in today's diverse society. ()

Britain is now home to a variety of groups with often strongly diverging opinions on how the world should be run and people should behave - the report used the analogy of a "wagon wheel", something with no fixed centre, and with spokes shooting off in all directions. The idea of a wagon wheel certainly helps remind editors that we live in complex times, and should strive to reflect that in our reporting, but it doesn't help you to remain impartial. So the report has come up with .

Those points are extremely useful - and here are the things I remind myself of when I come up against complex issues:

鈥� No one thinks they're biased, so a good editor always challenges his or her own assumptions about a story/ the world.
鈥� You can't always give the full range of views in one report. Fortunately you can return to the big issues of the day time and again.
鈥� Sometimes views that people think are offensive need to be heard
鈥� The 大象传媒 is for everyone, but if a certain group's views are not often reflected we won't fully understand the issues (and members of that group will simply switch off).

The Times: Columnist Libby Purves suggests that the 大象传媒 tries too hard to appeal to "any hip minority rather than horrid old 'Middle England'", following the publication of the 大象传媒's impartiality report. ()

Daily Telegraph: Damian Thompson on the 大象传媒's realisation that it must address accusations of bias as its critics have increasingly more alternatives to choose from. ()

Daily Mail: Reports that Hamas has issued an ultimatum to those who are holding the 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston. ()

The Guardian: Reports that the 大象传媒鈥檚 director general Mark Thompson is considering plans to make fewer but 鈥渂igger鈥� programmes in an attempt to cut costs. ()

Whatever you think of this blog (and judging by the comments to Peter Barron's entry there are some of you in both the "like" and the "dislike" camps) it has never been our intention to use it solely for the purposes of advertising. Sure, we're happy to tell you about a new development if we think it's noteworthy, but we don't just run "house" adverts.

Well there's an exception to every rule. We at 大象传媒 World have been running some thought-provoking billboard adverts in New York City. They are a bit of a departure from anything we've done before, and we hope they get the message across to our new and growing audiences in the US that we are serious about reflecting all sides in our news coverage.

They have also attracted quite a bit of attention elsewhere on the internet - , , and , for example.

So here you are - please let us know what you think.

Daily Telegraph: 鈥淭he 大象传媒 has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.鈥� ()

The Guardian: The director of the 大象传媒鈥檚 college of journalism, Vin Ray, writes about an old e-mail that he recently re-discovered from Alan Johnston on the role of the reporter. ()

Financial Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 is revamping its international output, replacing 大象传媒 Prime with new channels and increasing the amount of US-focused news on 大象传媒 America, including an . ()

The Independent: Former Panorama reporter, Tom Mangold, gives his verdict of the new series of the current affairs programme after its first six months. ()

The Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph and others: Obituaries of the former Radio 4 controller and managing director of 大象传媒 Radio, Sir David Hatch. (, , )

On the World Tonight this week we have devoted considerable airtime to the fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah and it has been our lead story most of the week. Is that overstating the importance of the story?

If you accept the argument of the American commentator, Edward Luttwak, , the answer to this question is undoubtedly, yes.

In a thought-provoking article - which I suspect involved an element of playing the devil's advocate - Mr Luttwak argued that analysts and journalists pay far too much attention to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and give it too much prominence. He says it isn't that important because 鈥渢he conflict is contained within rather narrow boundaries, and second because the Levant is just not that important any more.鈥� He says that since the end of the Cold War the conflict is contained and the geo-strategic importance of the region is declining because the world is less reliant on Middle Eastern oil than it used to be.

So are we right to be giving the events in Gaza such prominence?

Trying to restore peace and stability - however you define that - has been a major theme in international affairs for the past sixty years, if not longer if you include the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. And if the putative Palestinian state which is seen as one of the best hopes for peace and stability implodes - which it appears to be dong this week - that is obviously an important event with serious implications which merits coverage.

Also, if the Palestinian/Israeli conflict drags on, it will continue to add fuel to the resentment many in the Muslim world feel toward the West and the United States. Whether or not you accept the argument that the situation in the Middle East lies at the heart of the conflict between the West and Islamist groups like al-Qaeda, the issue is a cause of resentment among Muslims who believe the West is biased in favour of Israel.

The 大象传媒 is committed to covering the Middle East in depth - which is why we had a correspondent in Gaza and why our colleague Alan Johnston was prepared to risk his personal safety by being there.
I accept that it is one thing to have correspondents on the ground to report events, and another for editors back in London to give the prominence we give to the story, and of course decisions on which stories we lead with are made in relation to the merits of other stories on the day (and this week there have not been very many other big stories), but what do you think? Are we getting this one right?

The Editors' blog is one year old. We didn't exactly have a birthday party but the other day a few of us got together to toast it with mineral water and try to assess the success or otherwise of the venture. The verdict was that despite the fears of some that a new openness would lead to embarrassing disclosures and uncomfortable headlines, by and large these haven't been realised and the experiment has been judged at least worthwhile.

A few of the memorable moments for us: the discussion over claims that the 大象传媒 had banned Fiona Bruce from wearing a cross on air (actually it hadn't); ongoing debates about conspiracy theories, bias, balance, hype, 'dumbing down', covering difficult news for children, and, yes, even when things haven't gone right.

It's also given us a chance to show some of the drama behind the scenes, (such as when we were hit by an injunction); and of course the massive support readers have shown for our colleague Alan Johnston.

Just this week we've had a fascinating debate in the blog between Kevin Marsh and the Guardian's (which you can read here).

But you won't be surprised to hear that not everyone at the 大象传媒 is impressed. I noticed - on a blog as it happens - that reportedly . "Their weblogs, she maintains, are proof they have nothing better to do." Nothing better to do than talk to and listen to their audience?

On the other hand, some external observers think that much of the 大象传媒's contribution to blogging is still far too gentle and uptight. This week I met , the American political guru who's credited with reinventing political campaigning through use of the internet. He thinks we editors should be blogging after every show, discussing with viewers the successes and shortcomings. At least in Newsnight's case this wouldn't be on company time.

It would be good to know if you're with Kate or Joe, what you'd like more or less of, and how the editors' blog might develop in its second year.

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 has said it does not plan to launch a formal inquiry into its Panorama special in which it alleged that Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer had been murdered." ()

Press Gazette: Reports that the kidnapping of 大象传媒 correspondent Alan Johnston has forced news organisations to rethink how they report from Gaza. ()

Manchester Evening News: Reports on 大象传媒 Director General Mark Thompson's suggestion that more of the 大象传媒 may move to Salford in the next couple of years. ()

The announcement by Jamaican police that Bob Woolmer wasn't murdered as they originally said, but died of natural causes, raised a question for our online coverage.

As pointed out by Torin Douglas , there are lots of stories left in the website archive that report the earlier version of events - so anyone who types in a search will find the conflicting accounts.

Is this a problem? I'd say anyone using an online search to get information should, and in most cases would, in any case be looking at where and when the information originated, and judging it accordingly. The datestamp on any story is a crucial bit of information.

In this case the stories all have a datestamp and they give the fullest account, based on what the police were saying, that was available at the time they were written. Going back to change them would confuse, not clarify the sequence of events - when did the police view changes, what was known when?

To try and steer readers through the potential confusion, we ran a relating how the story changed over time, with links to the key developments. This, along with the latest news story, appears alongside all the archived stories, as well as the current ones.

So we're not rewriting the archive, but there are hopefully enough signposts in there for anyone searching online to work out what happened when.

The Guardian: TV columnist Mark Lawson on news stories that don't appear to be new, referring to a recent Ten O'Clock News bulletin which reported that Bob Woolmer had died of natural causes. ()

A few weeks ago the Columbia Journalism Review published headlined "Superiority Complex - why the Brits think they're Better" which examined the growing popularity of British-based journalism in the US. It was a good piece, apart from the headline, which (I hope) was written with a fair amount of tongue-in-cheek. We have big plans for the US market, but we certainly don't think we're superior.

Yesterday the latest stage of those plans became public when we announced who would be the Executive Producer for our new newshour to be broadcast at 7pm EST (midnight in the UK). Rome Hartman joins us from CBS News, where his previous role was launching Katie Couric's ""... and prior to that he had worked for many years at the legendary .

So why do we think we can do well in one of the most crowded television markets in the world? Rome put it neatly yesterday when he said: "More and more Americans are seeking smart and sophisticated coverage of the world; coverage the 大象传媒 is uniquely capable of providing." So it's that combination of a demand (among a certain section of the audience) for a greater level of international coverage at a time of globalisation and complexity, combined with the scale of the 大象传媒 - we have more than 40 news bureaux around the world and a fantastic tradition of providing high-quality, independent journalism for global audiences.

The new programme will air on , our sister channel in the US which reaches 55 million homes, and around the globe on , where we reach more than 270 million homes.

Rome starts with us in a couple of weeks, and then the real planning will begin. The formula will be largely familiar to audiences of 大象传媒 World - we'll be taking the best of our international coverage and presenting it in a way that we hope will be closer, more relevant to American audiences. It will be a programme of real substance, but it will also have style and energy. It'll be broadcast from our Washington Bureau, from where we already do two nightly newscasts aimed at US audiences, but expect to see contributions from our correspondents in Delhi and Beijing and Nairobi and Brussels and all the other places which don't often make it on to the US news agenda.

So what do you think? What will make you watch? We'd love to hear what you think...

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the 大象传媒 is going to review the salaries of its top on-screen earners. ()

The Times: 大象传媒's head of TV news Peter Horrocks, along with other media executives, commenting on Tony Blair's speech in which he likens the media to a "feral beast". ()

We're running a really thought-provoking little on Newsround today about the state of school toilets.

A Press Packer (a member of our club for young journalists) e-mailed a few weeks ago to say that poor toilets in her school was one of her biggest concerns. We followed up this contact, got her out reporting on it, took her to other schools which are doing better - and fixed up an interview with the campaign group .

We know this is a big big big issue for children - a few years' ago, the children's commissioner for Wales ran a survey of the issues which concern children, and this came out top.

But it's strangely under-reported in the mainstream media. Junk food, unhealthy lifestyles, overcrowded curricula, exam overload, youth crime, the problems of TV, violent computer games - these are the issues about childhood that exercise adults.

If you ask children, though, a different agenda emerges, normally headed by bullying, but with interesting other problems like school toilets.

Do you think we are right to lead on this story? Are school toilets due the "Jamie Oliver treatment"? And as well as school toilets, what other un-reported subjects about childhood should Newsround flush out (ha ha, sorry I resisted all puns till then)....?

I asked in this blog a while ago whether you thought our correspondents were better off writing regular online columns or migrating into the blog format.

The question was prompted by Mark Mardell, our Europe editor, who had asked readers of his weekly Europe Diary for their views. On the whole they thought he could stick with a considered, longish piece once a week, with some feedback comments attached. Readers of this blog, meanwhile, advised blog format, pointing out (as Richard did here, for example) that this would allow the best of both worlds, and make 鈥�...the articles/diaries/weekly supplements easy to update with effective content management, allow comments with a blog-like engine, and provide an RSS feed of them鈥�.

In the end Mark has gone for the latter option ()

Mark鈥檚 writing is one of the best sources of insight anywhere into EU-related news, not to mention one of the most enjoyable to read, so I鈥檓 delighted to say we鈥檒l be relaunching his Europe Diary in blog form this week.

Financial Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 has hired former CBS executive producer Rome Hartman to develop a new one-hour evening news bulletin for US audiences. ()

Here's an interesting thought: "大象传媒 news is not free to pursue its own agenda". It's from Emily Bell .

She takes a tricky route to this conclusion, involving several hand-brake turns. Her starting point: John Humphrys' grilling of C4 chief executive Andy Duncan on Today.

Somehow, it's not on for the 大象传媒 to ask whether C4 is fulfilling its public service remit. Or as Emily Bell puts it: "If the question on the C4 story is really 'are you still a public service broadcaster?' then it surely can't be asked in this way by the only other public service broadcaster in Britain."

Well, it would be nuts to argue that C4's public service remit wasn't on everyone's agenda at the time; its own deputy chairman Lord Puttnam . And his - and John Humphrys' - was a reasonable question to ask after the rows over and Big Brother competitor ; she was the one who used the 'n' word.

Emily Bell's reasoning is complicated, but seems to come down to this: "Where your remit and funding comes directly from the ability to deliver impartial information this is particularly important. So it is surprising how the 大象传媒's coverage of its own stories, or indeed the woes of its competitors, is not always being handled with impeccable impartiality."

One of her examples is the 大象传媒's alleged failure to examine the row over the Panorama . There was, she claims "no inquest". It's a tough claim to uphold.

大象传媒's Newswatch - broadcast on News 24 and 大象传媒 One - carried out Emily Bell seems to have had in mind. The 大象传媒 News website carried and 'Have Your Say' gave .

Here at the 大象传媒 College of Journalism, we commissioned Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust to give journalists an outside view of the issues raised; .

But the most difficult of Emily Bell's arguments either to follow or to endorse is the idea that the 大象传媒 should be different from other news organisations in that it shouldn't do original journalism ... because if it does, it can't be impartial about news from all other sources or about other broadcasting organisations: "When stories which lead news bulletins start 'the 大象传媒 has uncovered...', how can we trust the news values attributed to it if we think the agenda is not strictly impartial?"

This argument can only hold if you assume that out there is an objective thing called "The Agenda" that can, should a news organisation choose, be purely pursued - and if any news organisation should so choose, it's the 大象传媒. But of course, uncovering new information - one of the most fundamental tasks of journalism - implies "an agenda" rather than "The Agenda" ... and therefore the 大象传媒 shouldn't do it. It should instead suck on its pipe while deciding whether Trevor McDonald's programme or the Reuters news wire has the better story with which to lead the Ten O'Clock TV bulletin.

But there is, of course, no such thing as "The Agenda". There's the impartial examination of the many agendas we confront daily - and in the end, that impartial and fair and balanced examination is, of course, an agenda in itself. It's also probably the closest thing to something the 大象传媒 can call its own.

Which brings us back to where we started - and the question Emily Bell ducks. If "the 大象传媒 is not free to pursue its own agenda", whose must it pursue?

The Guardian: Emily Bell argues that the 大象传媒 is no longer impartial. ()

The Independent: Raymond Snoddy writes that 大象传媒 News needs to engage with a young audience at a time when budgets are being cut and hundreds of jobs are likely to be lost at the corporation. ()

I've known Megan (who produces the Sara Cox show on Radio 1) for a long time. She popped her head round my door on Thursday night... "Can I just ask the thinking behind your decision to use the N-word on air?"

Given its ability to shock it's a fair question and I should let you in on the answer I gave Megan.

Firstly when the Big Brother row broke we gave it careful thought. We ruled out mentioning "nigger" itself on our two-minute news summaries, online and in entertainment news... choosing instead to refer to "the N-word". But in our longer programmes - the 15 minute Newsbeat editions on Radio 1, and TXU on 1Xtra - we wanted to open up a debate, and we felt that the full context of what Emily said and the reaction to it was worth running on air.

We preceded the word's use with what we call "a health warning" - telling listeners that we were about to use it and giving them an opportunity to switch off. Overall, we believe that putting in facts of audiences in full - then allowing them to judge the rights and wrongs - is what our job is all about.

The N-word is frequently heard on both Radio 1 programmes such as Tim Westwood's and across the specialist music strands of 1Xtra - because the word is commonly - though not universally - used in hip hop and street slang. For example Jay-Z and 50 Cent use it, though Eminem and the UK rapper Ty don't.

I'm glad we did, because it triggered a fascinating debate among our audience with no clear consensus, beyond a feeling that Emily's use of the word was ill-judged. Some felt Channel 4 over-reacted because of the previous furore over Shilpa Shetty and Jade; others said it was all good publicity for the show. Some thought that Emily was being scapegoated, while others said that she was a racist.

But there was much debate over the word itself: has it now been re-invented in a non-racist setting because of its common lyrical usage? Is it OK for black people to use - but always a no-no for white people? Some of our listeners felt there is a strong double standard operating: if it's fine for the stars of black music to use and for young black people on the streets then why shouldn't it be acceptable for others, given its "new" context and meaning? 1Xtra produced a documentary on this subject - it's worth a listen (click here). Incidentally, 1Xtra news presenter G-Money shed light on the row and appeared on PM on Radio 4, the Six O'Clock News and News 24.

Kaiko from Weymouth texted us to say that if black people don't want it used then they shouldn't say it to each other. After seeing the show on TV, we rang him back to see if he'd changed his view - he felt that it had been used in a joking way and that Charley made "a big deal" of it, perhaps more than she should have done.

The arguments continue... and in case you were wondering, on day two of the story we have dropped using the word itself. We feel it's now in the public domain and audiences are well aware which word is at the centre of the controversy. To use it again, to me, now feels gratuitous.

PS: My colleague Simon Waldman from News 24 also blogged about this - you can read his piece here.

PPS: UPDATE 11 June My original version of this entry used the spelling "nigga", though a colleague changed it to "nigger" for consistency reasons before publication. Actually I meant what I wrote. No-one (even those who use the term) would dispute that the word when spelt with "er" at the end is a racist term, offensive to most black (and other) people. The people who use it in hip hop lyrics spell it a different way, with an "a" and with a "z" as the plural, because they argue this gives it a different meaning. It's in this context that Big Brother's Emily used the word.

When Emily Parr was ejected from the Big Brother house for using a "racially offensive" term, we had to decide - quickly - whether or not to broadcast the word itself. The 大象传媒's editorial guidelines include advice for our terrestrial TV channels, radio stations and online pages on such matters:

Offensive language is one of the most frequent causes of complaint... Judgements about its use are difficult because they depend on tone and context. There is no consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom. Different words cause different degrees of offence in different parts of the world鈥� We must not include offensive language before the Watershed (that's 2100 - ed) or on radio when children are particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of children, unless it is justified by the context and then its frequent use must be avoided.

On News 24, the offending word "nigger" WAS used - sparingly. By which I mean that it was included in our full report on the story, and in interviews on the subject. It wasn't used in headlines or in the introduction to items on the row. The One O'Clock News followed suit, but the Six O'Clock News - mindful of the number of younger viewers watching at teatime - plumped for "the 'n'-word".

So, why did some parts of the 大象传媒 transmit the word, while others did not? Did we change our minds as the story developed? And what did our audiences make of it all? The term is clearly highly offensive to many people from all ethnic backgrounds, but it is also commonly used by many young black people. As we pointed out, it's a word heard regularly in more and more styles of pop music - and not only by black singers.

To explain the story and to try to put it in context, we decided initially neither to disguise the word, nor to keep repeating it. Not to have used it at all would have left many viewers wondering what all the fuss was about; to have kept saying it would have smacked of sensationalism.

So, by broadcasting the racist term in some - but not all - of our output, you might think the 大象传媒 is having its cake and eating it.Or perhaps we're simply indecisive? Other media organisations wrestled with the same issue - one national newspaper managed to print both both the word in full and "n" on the same page.

Audiences were quick to let us know what they felt by text, e-mail and phone. And they seemed unable to agree. Opinion was divided on whether the 大象传媒's use of the word was offensive in itself, or whether it helped illustrate the issue. Many thought there were double standards involved: what do you think?

PS: My colleague Rod McKenzie from Radio 1 has also blogged about this - you can read his piece here.

Let me quote Fran Yeoman, in the home news pages of the Times:

Labour's six deputy leadership candidates went "speed dating" on radio yesterday. Each was given 6 minutes on Radio 5 Live to chat up two listeners: Vicci Goulding, Miss Wigan 2007, and Ged Sweeney, a former Labour Party member who left over tuition fees. Mindful of the forthcoming final of Miss England, Ms Goulding asked Harriet Harman what her special talent would be. "I think my talent would be encouraging people," the nonplussed Justice Minister managed.

The listeners had been tracked down by our audience editor Lou Birt and the item was brought to air by the team led by Simon Mayo's editor, John Cary. It was engaging, informative, and it challenged the politicians. I rather think they enjoyed it and I am certain that William Hague - who appeared on the Mayo programme just after the speed daters - enjoyed it even more. (Listen here to the programme.)

But in the week or so following the that Five Live will be among the services transferring to Salford, a question arose in my mind: is this the sort of item that Five Live simply will not be able to do so well in the future?

Every Wednesday, the Mayo programme decamps to Millbank, to frame Prime Minister's Questions and to talk, face to face, to a panel of MPs. The panel conversation, and the speed-dating type of treatment, tend to work well because Simon can engage his guests with glances, body language and gestures - as well as words.

This is the sort of problem we've now got to grapple with as the countdown to Salford begins in earnest. Five Live will remain the home of continuous news on 大象传媒 domestic radio - so we have to ensure that the right systems are in place to guarantee that its news coverage is as authoritative, stylish and engaging as ever.

We've had a lot of complaints about Kirsty's interview last night with the Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.

Some questioned the premise of the interview - that the new SNP government appeared to be picking a fight with London - others thought that Kirsty's line of questioning was too aggressive and therefore discourteous. But all agreed that the way the interview ended was, to say the very least, unfortunate.

The encounter was indeed intense and at times tetchy - Mr Salmond is always a robust and challenging interviewee - but for most of the interview I don't think we strayed outside the boundaries of what viewers expect or find acceptable in a Newsnight interview.

In the last minute, however, that changed. As the programme producer tried to wind up the interview because of time pressure we cut off Mr Salmond in a way that came across as rude and dismissive. We have apologised to Mr Salmond for that.

The Scotsman: Reports that an SNP MSP has written to Mark Thompson, calling for a "Scottish Six" news bulletin. ()

Daily Telegraph: Business editor Jeff Randall on the type of comments he received from audiences when he was the 大象传媒's business editor. ()

In our desire to adhere to the 大象传媒's commitment to impartiality, editors here wrestle with language and the meaning of words all the time. This is not out of some misguided desire to be politically correct and not offend anyone, it's driven out of a concern to speak a language that will be properly understood.

The current anniversary of the 6 Day War is a good example. Many in the UK may feel that it is a reasonably objective description of the war between Israel and Egypt in 1967 that lasted about 6 days. In the Arab world though many feel the description of 6 Days War was adopted quickly by Israel to emphasise the sweeping nature of their victory. In contrast, the event was and is described by many Arabs as "The Setback".

To some - both phrases are politically loaded. So in many of our broadcasts we try and avoid both descriptions and often talk of the '67 Arab Israeli War - a phrase that is less loaded and enables us to get in to the detail of what actually happened - and what the causes and consequences of the war are without getting blocked by a label which can act as a stumbling block which prevents them from even engaging with the topic.

It's not a rule. It's an example of the kind of thought that goes on about descriptors here...

The Sun called it , but on Matthew Bannister's phone-in today on Five Live (listen here), most of our listeners thought the German journalist who asked Madeleine McCann's parents if they had anything to do with her abduction was right to do so.

In fact, many of them wished the 大象传媒 would be more probing. "Statistically, child abductions and murders are nearly always done by the family. Therefore it is fair and valid to ask questions of the McCanns," said one man.

Hostility towards the family is not new and our audience has been largely critical of Madeleine's parents decision to leave her alone in the first place. Now it's their use of the media that is getting to people and I think a desire to fill in the gaps that have been left by the failure of the investigation to date.

Journalists too are under pressure to fill in the gaps, but I think it would be wrong of the 大象传媒 to turn detective and put the McCann's under suspicion when the police are not. Better to not cover the story at all for a while.

Daily Express: Reports on teething problems at the 大象传媒's new Scottish HQ in Glasgow (no link available).

The Times: "Despite the lack of a large-scale graduate scheme and stiff selection procedures, students aspire to work for the 大象传媒" ()

Daily Mail: Columnist Richard Kay on the number of 大象传媒 News staff who have gone to cover the G8 summit. ()

The Guardian: Reports that a 大象传媒 executive has warned that some parts of the UK will never get DAB radio because of the cost. ()

CAPE TOWN: of the discussions here at the had the surprising headline that the 大象传媒's director of global news got his news from the social networking site rather than the 大象传媒's own news services.

Well, not quite. But sites like Facebook, My Space and Twitter are presenting the editors of the world's newspapers and broadcasting stations with a real challenge. I was invited here to talk about the 大象传媒's approach to what's awkwardly called User Generated Content or citizen journalism.

In some ways it's simple. News organisations have always interviewed eye witnesses to events and used their pictures if available. Technology now means people can e-mail their experiences and pictures in their thousands to us, and they do. Equally, for decades the phone-in has been a staple format for many radio stations, allowing the opinions of the public to be given a platform. Today, the same thing can be achieved by running blog comments alongside news coverage online.

It's in the area of what's called networked journalism that the biggest opportunities may lie. Whatever subject we choose to report, someone in our audience - let alone the collective wisdom of the audience - will know more about it than we do. If we can use the new technologies to embrace their expertise it can only strengthen our journalism, and hopefully our relationship with the public.

But doing so is more complicated. Editors at this forum are worried about how to verify what they are offered, and how to pay for it, let alone how to make enough revenue to support their organisations. Looking ahead there's wide agreement that where today they are talking about blogs, tomorrow it will be the networking sites like Facebook which is currently enjoying huge growth. And yes, last weekend I did join it.

And in 48 hours I had connected with the editor-in-chief of Reuters, two internet entrepreneurs in the US, a couple of newspaper columnists and a number of the 大象传媒's own staff. My colleague Rory Cellan-Jones, the 大象传媒's technology correspondent, has also joined in the hope of understanding this new phenomenon although, as , with mixed results. For news, however, I will still rely on the 大象传媒.

Some of you who spend a lot of time online will have spotted a minor slip-up on the site yesterday when we ran a for alternative designs to the new London Olympics logo. Turned out that one of them was a thinly disguised parody of a internet shock website.

No offence intended 鈥� we simply didn鈥檛 spot it and as soon as we did we took it down.

The Guardian: Reports that the expected cuts, including jobs, at the 大象传媒 are inflated because of long-term contracts that the corporation has already committed to. ()

I鈥檓 catching up with the first series of Life on Mars 鈥� that鈥檚 what media on demand is all about.

It is, of course, brilliant. Our 21st Century hero Sam Tyler takes PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) and post-Scarman, post-McPherson, post-Bichard, post-Morris attitudes and procedures back into the policing Wild West of 70s Manchester.

His 鈥榞uv鈥�, Gene Hunt, is unencumbered by the niceties of collecting evidence and thinks 鈥榪uestioning鈥� is another word for 鈥榖loody good hiding鈥�.

Sam Tyler calls Hunt: 鈥�An overweight, over-the-hill, nicotine-stained, borderline-alcoholic homophobe with a superiority complex and an unhealthy obsession with male bonding?

Hunt鈥檚 reply: You make that sound like a bad thing.鈥�

To make this series about the police, you have to time-travel 鈥� albeit only cognitively and coma-based.

You could make a similar series about the British press (call it 鈥楲ife on The Sun鈥� maybe??) without leaving 2007.

The former News of the World royal reporter, Clive Goodman, is ; the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, says more than 300 other journalists do the same kind of thing; a few years ago, the it was ok to pay policemen for confidential information; entrapment and intrusion are routine.

Where the British press doesn鈥檛 fuse fact and fiction, re-shape evidence to support obsessions with house prices, mobile phones, cancer or the death of Diana, it relies on sources it could name but doesn鈥檛 for fear of its stories failing any test of verification.

Oh鈥� and anyone trying to correct even the most blatant falsehood faces either a lengthy, costly, unpredictable struggle in Her Majesty's courts or what usually amounts to a from the newspapers鈥� own court, the Press Complaints Commission.

And yet, the British press remains unembarrassed.

In the US, newspapers have responded to scandals with a thorough examination of standards and practices. Almost every paper in America 鈥� no matter how small or local 鈥� now has a written code of conduct, many have a readers鈥� editor or ombudsman; corrections are increasingly prominent and swift.

The debate over the press is much more developed there, too, led by the universities, schools of journalism and organizations such as the or the , assisted by an army of bloggers.

A new(ish) entrant to the (emerging) UK debate (joining other newcomers such as the , and, of course, the 大象传媒 College of Journalism 鈥� no public link, yet) is the 鈥� actually, it鈥檚 been going a while but its website is very new. So is its approach.

The MST鈥檚 director, hopes the site will be:
鈥�a properly independent public space where people can have an informed discussion about news coverage鈥�

鈥� especially standards; accuracy, fairness, context, sourcing and ethics. This week鈥檚 topic, for instance, is: 鈥� Panorama does not escape unscathed.

He also wants it to be a place where people (readers, viewers and listeners as well as journalists) can confront the press with and .

It鈥檚 impossible to know whether this venture will be part of bringing newspapers鈥� ethics and practices up to the journalistic equivalent of Sam Tyler standards. It may well be that pressure from formerly passive, newly active audiences has a greater effect 鈥� lippy bill-payers can be persuasive.

But it would be good to think that if the British press is to change its ways, it does so following something approaching intelligent critique and the kind of open debate the Media Standards Trust is offering.

(Update 5 June: The Guardian did appoint as its readers' editor in 1997, a move which was followed by a handful of other papers.)

When you try and organise for a hundred angry villagers comprising Morris dancers, undercover Women's Institute members, disappointed schoolchildren and a dozen restless cows and sheep to invade a prominent part of London, you'd better be on first name terms with the Editorial Policy department.

When we set about making the three part 大象传媒2 series Power to the People we knew we were in for a rocky ride. The premise was simple enough: take a group of angry people who feel they've been pushed too far and no-one is listening to them, and follow them as they stage a symbolic act that helps them to finally be heard.

Taking a village to London to for the day, following a recently formed platoon of abandoned soldiers as and getting 40 isolated old people together to in an attempt to storm the pop charts is not the most traditional way of covering current affairs topics. But we wanted to make films where there was a real sense of closure for the people involved rather than leaving them as poor victims as so many films involving 'victims' tend to do.

The results were incredible. The comments about all three programmes showed that the idea of people taking a stand and fighting back really struck a chord with the public and never more so than the stunning response to the Zimmers (our band with a combined age of 3,000) who entered the charts at number 26 last week and has been watched by over two million people on YouTube.

We trod a fine line making the series. The 大象传媒 quite rightly cannot be seen to campaign and we made sure we chose people who had been pushed to their limits and were prepared to fight back. We also clearly reflected both sides to every argument. These films were not polemics but they were incredibly empowering and show that all of us, if pushed hard enough, have a point where we're prepared to say 'enough is enough'.

Daily Telegraph: Reports that 大象传媒 News will have to cut hundreds of jobs in order to save money. ()

The Guardian: Article on the revamped 大象传媒4 and 大象传媒 World programme World News Today. ()

Independent: Interview with Jeremy Vineon his life in the media. ()

Next month, two 38 year old men are taking over communications for the two main political leaders - but their age is about all they have in common.

Gordon Brown has chosen , a career civil servant, to be his main spokesman; David Cameron has gone for , a former News of the World editor. Ellam has spent years behind the scenes at the Treasury; Coulson spent years winning newspaper awards through sex scandal scoops 鈥� in one busy year, his paper exposed David Beckham, Sven Goran Eriksson and David Blunkett 鈥� until he resigned over the royal phone-tapping affair.

Political journalists at Westminster will have plenty of contact with Ellam who鈥檒l conduct the daily Downing Street briefings, making him the official voice of Gordon Brown. They鈥檒l probably have less to do with Coulson though, who might well prefer to use his links to Fleet Street editors to get the Tory message across at a higher level.

The fact that Coulson worked for Rupert Murdoch will not have been a hindrance in his getting the job: it鈥檚 seen as important for the Tories to win over the likes of The Sun and the Times. The appointment of an ex-Murdoch man may however go down less well in the newsrooms and boardrooms of the Telegraph and the Mail.

Political leaders taking on top journalists is not a new idea. Most famously, on the Labour side, Alastair Campbell became Tony Blair鈥檚 press chief after being political editor of the Daily Mirror. Before him, another newspaperman, Joe Haines, did the same job for Harold Wilson, and went on to be political editor of the Mirror after he left Downing Street.

Over the years, the Tories have scoured Fleet Street to recruit their spin doctors too. Margaret Thatcher鈥檚 chief press secretary, Bernard Ingham - who was at her side throughout her premiership - had a past as a Labour Relations correspondent on the Guardian. And William Hague was looked after by Amanda Platell, who鈥檇 been sacked as editor of the Sunday Express for running a story on Peter Mandelson鈥檚 relationship with a Brazilian man.

This time the word around Westminster was that David Cameron was looking for a top TV journalist, because he was particularly keen to try to get his message right on the TV bulletins. So the announcement that Coulson had got the job came as a bit of a surprise. Insiders say he鈥檚 very pleasant, charming and dynamic, but to date few have detected in him a profound interest in party politics.

So when the two men take over next month 鈥� Coulson the tabloid editor versus Ellam the Treasury boffin鈥� we鈥檒l be entering a new spin-cycle in British politics. Whose style will get the message across best? We should of course remember that both party leaders have hinted that the age of spin is past, so maybe the biggest change will actually be a new era of straight talking.

Boy Racers get a bad press. We know because they told us; they're fed up with being sneered at by the middle and chattering classes just because they're passionate about their motors - in the same way others are passionate about, say, horses, gardening or rugby.

And yes, it's the media's fault, too. Many of our listeners love their customised cars and the impressive sales figures of the car mags proves this is no "underground" phenomenon.

So we spent a day with a group of lads who love their pimped up wheels at Shipley Gate in Derbyshire. Our reporter Debbie Randle sidled up to the burger van where they were hanging out... the Radio 1 microphone logo proved an attraction to most and a suspicion to some. Had we come to take the mick out of them? To blame them for irresponsible street racing or pedestrian deaths?

Actually, we'd come to reflect their hobby and their passion.

Debbie was struck by the loving care and attention - one guy explained to her he'd taken his pride and joy - an old Corsa - to show his mates and a few strangers: he'd gone for a striking glittery paint job that turned heads while she was there.

The girls were on hand too - a few racers but also some glamour girls getting their photos taken draped over the motors: they love their wheels and know a good performance ride from a cheap bodge job - they're big in the chatrooms and very much part of the scene.

Debbie browsed the boom boxes in the back (pictures here) - the HDTV's and the gas cylinder exhausts that make a visible flames when the car speeds off burning rubber. But it's not, they insisted, about speed or winning illegal street races - it's about looking cool, great gadgets, impressing mates and maybe pulling birds.

As one said while munching his food at the burger van: "it's the only place where I can look at nice cars, look at women with hardly any clothes on and eat a nice burger".

For anyone whose programme offers 'interactivity' - and that is almost everyone blogging on this site, I suspect - a clip of a Mitchell and Webb sketch that is doing the rounds has caused much interest and amusement.

The sketch is very funny. It is also a bit painful. Here are a couple of examples.

"Are you personally affected by this issue? Then e-mail us. Or if you鈥檙e not affected by this issue can you imagine what it would be like if you were? Or if you are affected by it but don鈥檛 want to talk about it can you imagine what it would be like not being affected by it? Why not e-mail us?"

鈥淵ou may not know anything about the issue, but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon. Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed ad hoc reckon, by going to bbc.co.uk鈥� clicking on 鈥榳hat I reckon鈥� and then simply beating on the keyboard with your fists or head.鈥�

Interactivity offers viewers, or in this case listeners, the chance to participate and it offers us the opportunity to engage with those consuming our product. If that sounds like claptrap, then you are probably someone who does not wish to 'participate' or have us 'engage' with you.

Come to think of it, if that is you, then you are very unlikely to be reading an editor's blog.

At its best interactivity connects us with viewers, or listeners, sometimes directly influencing our editorial agenda. There are numerous stories that have been told (across TV and radio or online) that would simply not have made it to the surface were it not for interactivity.

That said, I am not pretending it is always so.
E-mails or texts being read out can be very tedious indeed. Sid in Stevenage probably doesn't give a stuff what Maureen in Manchester thinks about something.

That's why, at Breakfast, we've tried to steer our interactivity away from mere 'opinion' and more towards 'experience' or 'anecdote'. It's just more interesting that way.

Opinion does still get read out when it's especially interesting or insightful, but experience generally wins the day. The other thing that works well is questions from viewers. On a number of occasions, it has led us towards a line of questioning we might not otherwise have pursued.

What does not work is using interactive responses to fill holes in a programme in a "鈥ow then, err, let's turn to your e-mails and texts while we try to re-establish that link" sort of way. We have been guilty of this. Viewers and listeners are not stupid - they generally know if we are filling.

The other thing that doesn't work is looking, or sounding, desperate. This is what Mitchell and Webb so deliciously capture - a sense of "please tell us, please e-mail, please call.. About anything".

I'd recommend a listen to the clip. I shall certainly be sharing it with my team...

The Guardian: Reports that an internet video of the 大象传媒 journalist Alan Johnston, who was abducted in Gaza almost 12 weeks ago, has been released. ()

Daily Mail: Reports that the 大象传媒 has been given the go-ahead for its relocation, which will include 大象传媒 Children's and 大象传媒 Sport, to Salford. ()