大象传媒

With the Burmese authorities clamping down on information getting out of the country, we - like other news organisations - have been relying more than ever on what people caught up in the events are telling us.

We鈥檝e been publishing , , from people who鈥檝e contacted the 大象传媒 News website and the 大象传媒鈥檚 Burmese service. We鈥檝e also been looking at which are tracking the events - though this has become harder .

But is this any different from the traditional role of a newsdesk 鈥� or an editor for that matter? I think there are some things which have changed. Here are a few to start with:

鈥� The newsgathering function suddenly has to broaden out to incorporate a lot more new potential sources.

鈥� Major time and effort gets channelled into following up emails we鈥檝e been sent, checking them out, contacting people back and getting their accounts published and on air.

鈥� The relationship with these new sources needs handling with special care 鈥� they鈥檝e got in touch to tell their story - we can鈥檛 put them at risk or expect them to be on permanent stand-by as interviewees.

鈥� Journalists have to learn where else online to look for new information as it surfaces, as well as what to make of it and how to use it.

Maybe the list could be longer. But on the other hand, some things don鈥檛 change much. We still want to set these accounts in context - verifying information where we can and checking it against other sources, qualifying and attributing it where we can鈥檛 - and for this we still rely on our correspondents, regional experts and basic editorial judgement.

The Sun: Reports that the 大象传媒 is to pay its celebrity presenters less. ()

"The Italians change their prime ministers more often than some British men change their socks, what's been going on?" It's 05:04 AM on 28 March 1994 and Jane Garvey is asking the first questions on 5 Live. And so she set the tone for the 大象传媒's new news and sport network, irreverent and to the point, and one, as the critics would say, having a continuous conversation with its audience.

Thirteen years on, she's off. There've been countless awards for her and co-presenter Peter Allen, they've built an audience that is almost offended when one of them is away, and formed a double act which redefined how a news programme can sound - not that they would say anything so pretentious.

They've covered all the big stories, breathed life into any number of non-stories, interviewed everyone from the PM to the woman with the world's fattest cat and, no matter how dark the day's agenda, never failed to raise a smile.

For 10 days the texts and e-mails pleading with us to keep her have kept coming. "Glue her to that chair. Offer her more money," said one. "Forget Northern Rock, what about Ms Garvey leaving, that is the big news," said another. "How will we all cope? The two of you bring sanity and humour into our lives as we wind down from a day at work..."

Well we鈥檇 like to offer a permanent audio memento, the essential Garvey collection. Tell us about your favourite Jane moments - on the form on this page, or by leaving a comment below - and we鈥檒l try to dust off the tapes and put together a compilation which you鈥檒l be able to get online (there's a couple of clips available here already).

It's not been an easy decision for Jane, as she says - "I'm very sad to be leaving 5 Live, where Peter Allen tells me I've been fortunate to spend the best years of my life. When we started in 1994 I thought of myself as hip and happening, and of Peter as a cantankerous old git. 13 years on and I'm a weary wife and mother and he's still a cantankerous old git."

There you go.

The launch of the Halo 3 video game earlier this week was one of those moments that a subject which does not normally make it on to the television news becomes a big deal. But as pointed out, we showed some footage of a Sony game when we were talking about the new Microsoft product.

Rory Cellan-Jones, our technology correspondent, explains how the mix-up occurred. He writes:

"This, I'll admit, was a bad mistake. Naturally I'm usually an enthusiast for digital technology, but this time it's really caught me out.

"In the days before we went digital tapes used to arrive in the building properly labelled and then make their way into our video library, where they would be viewed and their contents logged accurately.

"Now the pictures end up in digital form on our 'Jupiter' server. On this occasion a cameraman went out in August and shot some material about Halo 3 - but also shot footage of Sony's Killzone. He then loaded it into Jupiter.

"Spool forward a month - and after editing a story for the One O'Clock news which only featured Halo 3 material, a video editor and I were looking for some fresh shots for our Six O'Clock piece. He searched the Jupiter system and found something marked simply "lib(library) Halo 3". That was the footage uploaded in August - which also included Killzone and we ended up choosing that, not realising it was the wrong game. Result - disaster, and one replicated in the Ten O'Clock version of the story.

"What was impressive to me was the speed with which bloggers spotted the mistake. So the latest technology can lead you down the wrong path - but it can also bring any foul-ups under the spotlight of the eagle-eyed web generation.

"Sorry - we'll try to be more careful in future."

I thought I detected a bit of a new media milestone on Newsnight this week.

In an interview with Jeremy, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband took exception to a figure we had quoted in a piece about UK companies' investment in Burma. He also admitted - and this is a rarity for a politician - that he didn't know the answer to one of Jeremy's questions, and promised to clear up both points by posting something on our website.

Our webmaster Stuart was thrilled at the on-air endorsement.

The next day the FCO duly sent through a statement confirming that the figure we'd used was out of date. Then the Burma campaign group sent us a statement taking a dim view of the FCO's clarification (you can read those ). Viewers piled in too, demanding and debating the answers, while the programme producer responsible for the piece went online to direct the traffic.

Of course Newsnight items have been provoking debate on the website for years, but what I hadn't seen before was so many key participants in a story - government, pressure group, programme makers and the audience - engage in a spontaneous post-programme analysis online. I hope we can all do it again.

The Guardian: Reports that one of the kidnappers of 大象传媒 journalist Alan Johnston was killed yesterday in Gaza City. ()

The Andrew Marr Show started a new run a couple of Sundays ago: Same set, same format, same 9am start time on 大象传媒1, same energetic presenter. And there's a strong line up of guests.

But there is one change from the last run. The programme was always referred to - internally and externally - as The Marr Show or The Andrew Marr Show, though the formal name was "Sunday AM". The title we devised when the programme launched was perhaps a bit subtle.

Andrew Marr's profile has risen following his successful modern history series, so in the interest of clarity and distinctiveness we'll refer to our Sunday morning programme formally in future in the same way as it's always been described informally. Out with "Sunday AM". In with "The Andrew Marr Show". Big Deal? No. (Sorry )

The AM logo will remain in the titles as before and I doubt if one in a hundred viewers will notice that we鈥檝e changed anything. Now if we had scrapped the silly little car at the start, or changed the theme music, that would have caused outrage!

The Independent: "The 大象传媒 Trust has approved the corporation's plans to launch a high definition television channel, saying it would be of 'significant public value'." ()

Daily Mail: Reports that the 大象传媒 paid John Prescott and John Reid for interviews at the Labour conference. ()

Last week, the papers were full of the Queen clutching her Emmy - well Helen Mirren anyway. Today we've got one of our own.

Last night in New York, the 大象传媒 took first prize in the Oscars of the TV industry, winning the International Emmy in the news category for our coverage of last summer's war in Lebanon.

More than a year after the end of the war, the ramifications of the events last summer rumble on - today, the Lebanese Parliament held its first round of voting to elect a new president (they failed to do so). At the risk of blowing our own trumpet, last night's award makes it a double - earlier in the summer, our coverage of last summer's war won the other prestigious international news award, the Prix Monte Carlo.

In fact it's a double 'double' - "" a Guardian Films programme commissioned for 大象传媒 Two also won the other International Emmy in the current affairs category.

I confess I'm biased - the prize for Lebanon is a richly deserved tribute to the bravery of the reporters, producers, crews and engineers who spent six weeks on both sides of the Israel/Lebanon border.

Last summer's conflict was challenging and complicated for the 大象传媒. It was vital for our teams to get to the heart of the story, report events as they witnessed them and remain measured and impartial. Their courage allowed us to report all sides of the story. A specially-commissioned audience survey for 大象传媒 News reported that a majority believed the 大象传媒 had provided the best coverage of the conflict, with 64% trusting it and 11% distrustful.

Why do awards like this matter? In a sense, of course, they don't. The fact that audiences in the UK and around the world continue to turn to the 大象传媒 is the bigger prize - every week, 230 million people around the world get their news from the 大象传媒.

What is significant is that last night's award was presented in New York, alongside the awards for the US domestic television market.

On Monday, the 大象传媒 is launching a new, nightly TV programme aimed at the US market - World News America will be seen across the United States on 大象传媒 America and around the globe on 大象传媒 World. Its mission is to report the world to America and America to the world. I believe having people in places like Beirut (and 41 other places), before, during and after conflicts like that of last summer allow us to do just that.

At one point I had vision of burly blokes up and down the country sitting in their cars, vans and lorries sobbing as they listened to Victoria Derbyshire's show on Five Live yesterday.

In front of me was a screen filling up with text message after text message:

"I'm a 49 yr old man with 2 grown up kids and I'm weeping like a soppy idiot; I have just tuned in half way thru. I cant stop crying now; Hello. I'm a 6ft. Geordie rugby player - harder than a coffin nail. I'm in tears. Image destroyed in front of 2 mates; I'm a hardened 38 year old copper in absolute tears at home."

I've never seen such an immediate and overwhelming reaction to a piece of audio on a programme. The Five Live listeners were reacting to an extraordinary 999 tape. It's the story of Jacob Hickman's birth and how his dad, Leo, delivered him at home with help on the phone from a London ambulance 999 operator, Katie Vallis.

Leo's wife Jane went into labour and the midwife was stuck in traffic. So we heard Katie talking Leo through the whole thing, including some scary moments when the baby appeared still in the birth sac and had to be freed with the help of a safety pin.

We played eight minutes of it with Jane and Leo listening in the studio. Baby Leo snoozed through most of it. We all looked a bit tearful.

It was an amazing listen. Not just because it was a privilege to hear Jacob's first cry but because of the awe-inspiring professionalism of the 999 operator and dad Leo's pretty cool handling of it all.

My colleague Katie Kernan had spotted the of the call in The Guardian and saw how it could become a great radio listen. London ambulance and the Hickman family agreed to let us broadcast the tape. We decided to reunite Leo and Jane with Katie Vallis, the 999 operator they only knew as CAC1821.

Twenty years old, and cool as a cucumber, Katie told us this was her first baby delivery and how she used autocards on screen to guide them through the birth. Job done, a healthy baby, all very matter of fact. But you have to hear it to understand the impact. All of us who heard it were either in tears or just stunned!

Have a listen (here). It was scary, uncomfortable, raw. It was primeval, intimate, exhilarating, and just bloody brilliant!

I think we're all grateful to the people involved for letting us share Jacob's birth. Quite simply it was joyful - and that is something you can wait a long time to hear in life, let alone on your radio.

The Guardian: "At least one member of the 大象传媒 Trust is unhappy with the mild disciplining of Alan Yentob over "noddy shots" he performed." ()

Burma - or Myanmar as many other news organisations now call it - could be on the brink of dramatic political change or on the brink of another bout of violent repression.

Why can't I say more than that? Because no-one really knows how the Burmese military - which has run the country since a coup 45 years ago - will respond to the current wave of demonstrations led by young Buddhist monks.

The current protests were sparked off by the military junta's decision to double fuel prices just over a month ago. Although most Burmese can't afford cars - the prices of many basic necessities have increased because of the rising cost of transport.

Young Buddhist monks emerged as the leaders of protests against the hardships that an already poor and hard-pressed population are facing, but over the last week or so the demands have become openly political - calling for an end to military rule and talks with the junta. At the weekend, they defied the military by marching past the home of the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for the most of the past 18 years.

Very few observers saw these protests coming, but they are now saying this challenge to the junta is the most serious since 1988 when economic protests also turned into pro-democracy protests throughout the country. Those protests were eventually put down by force and an estimated 3,000 people were killed.

Since then, the Burmese authorities have continued to restrict the access of journalists to the country and Burma's diplomats very rarely accept invitations to do interviews on programmes like The World Tonight.

This means that the people we interview are predominantly exiled opposition figures, foreign diplomats, UN officials, journalists and analysts - and the one thing they can't tell you is which way is the junta going jump.

All this makes it difficult for us to give a fully rounded picture of what is going on. We do our best when deciding who to interview to find people either inside the country or who talk to people inside the country regularly and have good contacts, and who can give an informed perspective on what the junta - as well as the protesters - are doing and why. In this way we hope we are helping to make sense of things for our audience.

I鈥檝e been working for the 大象传媒 for a grand total of three months. The main lesson I鈥檝e learned so far is just how much MORE I have to learn about this place, so no broad conclusions will be found here鈥� just a few observations from a 大象传媒 rookie.

I came to the 大象传媒, after 24 years as a producer for CBS News in the US, to launch a new nightly news programme (beginning 1 October) presented from Washington DC by veteran 大象传媒 reporter Matt Frei and to air on 大象传媒 World, 大象传媒 America, and in the wee hours of the morning on News 24. That鈥檚 the introduction鈥� here are the random observations:

鈥� The 大象传媒 has a different word or phrase than American networks use to describe almost every function of television production, and it may yet drive me crazy. I鈥檝e already used one: Matt鈥檚 not an anchorman, he鈥檚 a presenter. Fine. I鈥檓 good with that. But in the control room 鈥� sorry, gallery 鈥� when someone yells out OOV or DTL or cotted interview or v-point, they鈥檙e so far getting blank stares from me. I know, I don鈥檛 get to import my own lingo, and I鈥檓 learning, slowly鈥� but it makes my head hurt.

鈥� Somewhere between Peter Horrocks鈥� office and Peter Barron鈥檚, I got hopelessly lost inside TV centre on my first visit. Had to find an exterior exit (thank God it wasn鈥檛 alarmed), walk through an alley to the street and back to the main entrance, and start over. Not a great way to make a first impression.

鈥� I鈥檝e become grateful for little things, like forceful speakers. Because I鈥檓 usually in Washington, I鈥檓 on a lot of speakerphone conference calls with London. It鈥檚 often hard to hear what people are saying, but it鈥檚 never hard to hear Jon Williams. Thanks, Jon.

鈥� I don鈥檛 know if the 大象传媒 has ever put together into one book all of its personnel policies and its rules and regulations about working conditions; if it exists, I鈥檒l bet I can鈥檛 lift it.

鈥� I left the comfort of CBS and joined 大象传媒 News mainly because I was inspired by its great ambition 鈥� it really does aspire to be the best news organization in the world 鈥� and because its people from top to bottom work hard to make that aspiration real. I wanted to be part of that and part of them. Nothing in my vast three months鈥� experience has made me regret that choice. OK, maybe for a minute or two, when I was lost in that hallway.

The Guardian: Columnist Steve Hewlett says that the 大象传媒 has to cut the amount of programming that it produces by 10%. ()

The Guardian: Peter Wilby on the constant criticism of the 大象传媒 in the right-wing press. ()

The Independent: Interview with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark. ()

Daily Mail: "大象传媒 executive Alan Yentob has got away with misleading viewers on a flagship arts show while more junior staff have been sacked in the storm over deception at the corporation." ()

The Guardian: Reports that the 大象传媒 has pulled most of the journalists out of its Baghdad bureau following a "serious and credible" threat to staff. ()

Daily Mail: There are claims that the 大象传媒's new mini-bulletins must only be presented by young and pretty women. ()

The Times: "Two senior producers were forced to quit the 大象传媒 yesterday, after the corporation admitted that producers had fixed four more audience votes and competitions." ()

After a , we're not out of the woods yet but we can definitely see daylight ahead.

The back in July is complete. An independent spot-check of premium phone-lines which we will be discussing with the 大象传媒 Trust in October has been completed. This piece of work covered a number of aspects of programmes using premium rate phone-lines and found no evidence of systemic failures within the 大象传媒 or any malpractice within the programme sample. Our plans not just for training, but for a discussion about editorial standards and judgement-calls which will involve every programme-maker in the 大象传媒 are well under way 鈥� we鈥檒l launch all that in November. We also hope to begin a phased and carefully controlled re-introduction of competitions in November.

The trawl did find four more cases of serious audience deception to go with the six we disclosed in July. But, after considering more than a million hours of output, we can also confirm that, to the very best of our knowledge, the overwhelming majority of our programmes are honest. Of course we can鈥檛 rule out something else serious emerging, but we believe we鈥檝e got to the bottom of the problems 鈥� and need to concentrate now on making sure they never happen again.

There is no evidence that there is a widespread culture of deception at the 大象传媒. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the fact that 99.99% or more of our programmes are trustworthy and that almost all of our programme-makers take their duty to the public incredibly seriously.

The trawl also underlines some of the differences between our problems and those of other broadcasters. Over the summer, we鈥檝e seen high-profile premium phone-line cases in the commercial sector involving money running into tens of millions of pounds. At the 大象传媒, the trawl has not revealed a single case of fraud 鈥� or indeed anyone acting through self-interest or a desire for personal gain.

Read the rest of this entry

They gathered together, the great and the good from a cross-section of Scottish society.

The occasion - the official opening of 大象传媒 Scotland's gleaming new headquarters, built at a cost of 拢188m, on the banks of the River Clyde in Glasgow.

Staff lined the passageways on all five floors to listen to the speakers, Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the 大象传媒 Trust; director general Mark Thompson and the guest of honour, Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Pacific Quay represents a model of what the 大象传媒 wants to become... a "test-bed" was how Mark Thompson described it.

New digital production systems turning out more, engaging programmes for radio and television and multimedia content online. New working practices, with teams of journalists and other production staff collaborating more closely, stirring the creative spirit, sparking new ideas.

Openness is a theme of this building (you can see pictures of it ). Even the controller, Ken McQuarrie, sits in the open. In fact, one of the few places where staff can close and lock a door behind them is the unisex toilets (which remain a topic of fairly heated discussion).

Scotland can be an uncomfortable place for London-based 大象传媒 executives. The director-general referred to the first time eight years ago when he set foot on the then undeveloped wasteland that was Pacific Quay.

Then, he said, there was a "very lively" debate about broadcasting in Scotland. Today is no different and the themes remain broadly similar, with critics labelling the 大象传媒 the "EBC", or "English Broadcasting Corporation".

Devolution - and more significantly, the outcome of May's Scottish Parliament elections - has moved the goalposts. The SNP-led Scottish Government (itself a contentious title) has launched a commission to look into the state of Scottish broadcasting.

At the heart of the debate is the 3% the 大象传媒 currently spends in Scotland on producing television programmes which are seen across the entire UK network. First Minister Alex Salmond wants that figure to rise to 9%, which represents the proportion of the UK population in Scotland.

Today, Mark Thompson played the ball back into the politician's court. He told the audience that network deliveries from 大象传媒 Scotland "can and must grow to at least its proportion of the UK population".

He referred to this as a "floor, rather than a ceiling", echoing Mr Salmond's own words delivered last month when he announced the commission.

And so the debate goes on.

Whilst today was about looking forward, history was given its due place in the proceedings.

Mark Thompson remarked that the gathering was standing on Prince's Dock, the former name of Pacific Quay. George Reith, grandfather of the 大象传媒's imposing founder John Reith, had been instrumental in the excavation of the dock.

John Reith's daughter Marista was in the audience. In a book about her father, she talked about his "tall ghost" still stalking the corridors of Broadcasting House in London.

Reith's original office table from Savoy Hill has been restored and placed in the controller's area on the third floor of Pacific Quay, prompting the caution that Kenny McQuarrie shouldn't be surprised if he felt a "stooped and vigilant figure looking over his shoulder".

There were nostalgic words too from Gordon Brown. It was only a few yards away, beside the shipyards of Govan, where his father began his Church of Scotland ministry in 1937.

To be present 70 years later at the opening of Pacific Quay was to send out a message of faith in the regeneration of Glasgow, once the "workshop of the world".

So, warm words and high hopes. After the dignitaries have left and Pacific Quay finds its natural rhythm, 大象传媒 Scotland's new home will be judged by the output it produces.

It feels a wee bit like we're in a goldfish bowl with the rest of the 大象传媒 and licence-fee payers looking in. Now it's down to us to get the best out of our investment.

Question Time is back tonight after its summer break - some compensation we hope for the sudden autumn chill and the nights drawing in!

Interactivity and so-called user generated content - that's you giving us what goes in the show - are the buzz words of the moment. And you can't be much more user-generated than the classic Question Time formula of inviting 150 members of the public to tell it like it is to senior politicians and other public figures.

includes Christiane Amanpour - probably the most famous woman in TV news - who's just appeared on a list of the 100 most powerful women in the world. I'm sure Paddy Ashdown will be ready to face the third degree about Sir Ming's leadership of the Lib Dems if that's what people want to talk about. You can tell us what you'd like discussed by .

If QT is a classic formula, there's still always room for improvement. This spring, beat off fierce competition from other independent companies to continue making the show and they're introducing new elements to freshen things up. There's a new set and titles - bringing the show closer to the style of 大象传媒 One and 大象传媒 News. . Question Time now has its own audience seating, making it possible to go to .

There are also two additional shows - will run straight after Question Time on 大象传媒 News 24, giving everyone at home a chance to have a say about this week's debate. And you can see an edited highlights version of the main show, again on News 24 at 20:30 on Saturday evening.

The Guardian : A columnist asks if the 大象传媒 should simulcast TV programmes such as Newsnight on the radio. ()

The Times: "Blue Peter was accused yesterday of deceiving children for the second time in a year as the 大象传媒 removed staff blamed for a series of scandals." ()

The Guardian: Mark Lawson comments on international coverage of the Madeleine McCann story. ()

The blame game has started. Who's to blame for the run on the Northern Rock - the management for their over-reliance on the money markets to fund their business, the regulators for not reacting quickly enough to guarantee the safety of depositors' cash, or the depositors themselves for panicking and ignoring the reassurances of the authorities?

We have also seen (on this blog, amongst other places) that some people blame the 大象传媒 for its reporting of the crisis.

From the moment the story broke - a terrific scoop by our business editor Robert Peston on Thursday night - we were clear we had to handle the story carefully. We talked internally about the need to be responsible in our coverage - not to provoke panic but to tell people straight what was happening (see Peter Horrocks' blog on Thursday).

We set out to be restrained and factual. We have given plenty of air time to Northern Rock, to the Chancellor and the to reassure depositors and we have repeated those assurances throughout our coverage over several days. But despite this, obviously we had a run on the bank - I think this is down principally to two things:

1. The power of the images of long queues forming and...
2. The fact that for many people this was indeed a 'rational' thing to do, if you were exercising the precautionary principle. Until the Chancellor's announcement on Monday evening unequivocally guaranteeing that no depositor would lose money there was just a chance - a remote chance - that things might unravel in such a way that people would lose money (in part because the current compensation scheme does not pay back the full amount after the first 拢2000). So as one customer in a queue told us, "I'm not panicking, I'm being completely rational".

Should we have carried images of the queues? Of course we should and everybody did. The public needs to know what's going on - but we had a responsibility to do it in a balanced way. So the fears of those interviewed in the queues were set against the reassurances of experts from the financial services industry and the politicians and the regulators. It is not the fault of the 大象传媒 or the media in general that these assurances were not believed until the chancellor removed all doubt.

The Independent: Ofcom gives 大象传媒 go-ahead for an HD channel ()
Daily Mirror: Former 大象传媒 reporter Clarence Mitchell leaves civil service to become spokesman for Gerry and Kate McCann ()
Daily Telegraph: Jane Garvey joins Woman's Hour
Marketing: Freeview launches 拢5m advertising campaign

The Guardian: Reports that a former 大象传媒 journalist has been hired to act as a spokesman for the McCann family. ()

Financial Times: A blog on the newspaper's website comments on coverage of the Northern Rock story. ()

If you were able to travel back in time to the seventies for a random inspection of 大象传媒 editors' fridges, a glance inside might have given you some interesting clues to the owner's programme. At the Today programme and the World at One, they'd be well stocked with malt whisky, gin and suitably chilled mixers... while Newsbeat would make do with cans of the late and unlamented Kestrel lager.

Don't worry, we editors don't have fridges, drinks cabinets or guest hospitality anymore - we're much more careful with money now. And journalists - and their political guests - are much more sober. Well, mostly.

The anecdote helps to illustrate how different Newsbeat was from its peers at the time of its inception in the early seventies. Radio 1 had already been on air since 1967 - we're celebrating our fortieth birthday on 30 September. But the arrival of commercial radio stations in 1973 was a rude wake up call for the 大象传媒.

Our rivals brought Australian and American influences in writing and presentation styles as well as their use of interviews and "clips" rather than lengthy dispatches voiced by 大象传媒 correspondents. Many in Ted Heath's Conservative government at the time were critical of Radios 1 and 2 - there was pressure on them to be sold off or closed down.

大象传媒 bosses at the time believed a current affairs show on Radio 1 with a populist approach might help prove the network's public service credentials.

Newsbeat was designed to fight fire with fire. Its first editor was Mike Chaney, who had a background in Fleet Street as well as broadcasting - on the day of his appointment the Sun's front page carried the story with the headline "Sun staffer gets top Beeb job". Mike's no-nonsense approach - "I want an audible nipple every day" - and production instructions to be "faster and slicker than Radio 4" nurtured a service than brought the major news of the day to young Britons in more accessible style than the norm, as well as quirky stories and "pop" interviews with the stars of the day. All on a "pitifully small" budget of five producers, two secretaries and 拢100 a day for on-air reporting and presenting talent. Mike told me that when he saw the budget, he thought to himself, "this is going to be hard work"!

His team of young reporters and producers, recruited mainly from local radio, quickly established a unique style and vigour. Richard Skinner, Peter Mayne, Bill Rogers and Laurie Mayer were among those early pioneers. In the days before Five Live and continuous TV news, laptops and wifi, Newsbeat at 1230 was the rest of the media's first chance to hear the 大象传媒's take on the day's news after the end of the Today programme.

By the early 80s, Newsbeat's bulletins were pioneering a style of breaking news later developed by Five Live. During the miners' strike labour correspondent Nick Jones would frequently reveal dramatic new developments in this bitter long running story on Newsbeat bulletins.

Through the nineties and into the present day the programme continued to innovate with sound, production and now visual and online content produced by some of the 大象传媒's best young journalists - who then, as now, often go on to have distinguished careers across the organisation.

Newsbeat's experimental use of jingles and music background proved popular with listeners and later, the PM programme also adopted signature music. But just occasionally that can lead to some unfortunate juxtapositions: after a heated debate on Scottish and Welsh independence and devolution in general in the 80s, we rounded off the item with a jingle with the lyric - "Uniting the Nation, Won-der-ful Radio 1".

The Guardian: A columnist writes about how the demands of 24-hour news have added to the woes of the McCann family. ()

The Guardian: The 大象传媒's former business editor Jeff Randall comments on his time at the corporation. ()

The 大象传媒 News exclusive on Northern Rock receiving emergency funding from the Bank of England threw up some interesting broadcasting dilemmas.

Our business editor Robert Peston had the information well ahead of newspapers (although you'd never know that by reading the papers today, all of whom followed up on his scoop but didn't say so).

Announcing to an unsuspecting public that a major high street name appeared to be in trouble obviously ran the risk of causing depositors to panic and withdraw their funds. So we needed to ensure we broke this dramatic news in a responsible fashion. And, as part of that responsibility, we needed to explain the causes of the crisis in a way that audiences unfamiliar with financial markets would understand. (I won't try to do that myself. Far better to read Robert's account (or watch this piece from the Ten o鈥檆lock News)).

But is it the 大象传媒's job to tell people to be calm and advise them what to do? We are not financial advisers and there are legal limits on what our correspondents can do in terms of offering individual financial advice. We judge it is right for us to report the reassurance being offered by the and the and our correspondents have offered the judgement that those reassurances are legitimate.

But it's not the 大象传媒's job to tell the audience what to do with its money. Whenever we have commentary from financial experts on the 大象传媒 News website we always include this disclaimer: "The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice." Quite right.

The Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 will not be hosting any parties at this year's political party conferences. ()

The Jewish Chronicle: Interview with the 大象传媒 Political Editor Nick Robinson. ()

Financial Times: Reports on the culture secretary's speech to the broadcasting industry on their public service responsibilities. ()

There's been of Newsround on the internet this week, at least in America, after linked to an old story of ours about 9/11. The piece, entitled 'Why did they do it', prompted a flurry of complaints accusing us of anti-American bias.

It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site - we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a 大象传媒 site, Newsround's core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.

It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find ) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this. That is not the case. Both pieces had the same title and the newer story still contains a section that attempts to explain why the attack on America happened - and herein lies the problem.

It seems that several websites see it as an attempt by us to 'justify' the events of that day. This is obviously not the case. We feel it is entirely legitimate to question the motives of the people who carried out the attacks. It's worth remembering that Newsround is aimed at six to 12 year olds and our contact with our audience has shown that their understanding is helped by events being put into some kind of context. We often have to translate complex and emotive issues into language appropriate for children. It's a responsibility we take very seriously. The old version of the guide won't be making a return to our site - but we stand by the more recent version.

UPDATE: Thanks for your comments - I've replied here and here.

The Guardian: Reports on a speech given by the Culture Secretary James Purnell on broadcasting. ()

Daily Telegraph: Leader column on the row between John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman. ()

The Telegraph: "The 大象传媒 has denied claims that is biased in favour of the McCanns as the hunt for their daughter continues." ()

The Independent: A column takes a look at the output of the 大象传媒's digital channels. ()

The Times: A columnist criticises 大象传媒 reporting on Iraq. ()

Daily Mail: "Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys have turned on each other over where the 大象传媒 should aim its budget cuts." ()

have given a slightly false impression of the approach adopted by the Victoria Derbyshire programme to the McCann story yesterday morning.

As Peter Horrocks points out in an earlier contribution to this blog, there has been enormous interest in the McCann story. The presenter of a different phone-in programme, Vanessa Feltz, acknowledged as much - a caller to her show was indignant that she wasn't discussing the McCann case because it was "all anyone wants to talk about".

We certainly wanted to talk about the case yesterday morning, but we knew there were huge sensitivities. Just like Vanessa, we don't deal in the exchange of conjecture, idle tittle-tattle or slander.

So we started with two ideas. Did our listeners support the McCanns? I think that's a fair question. Newspaper columnists throughout the prints are expressing sympathy for the McCanns. It seems odd to me that Victoria Derbyshire's listeners should not have the opportunity to express their sympathy - or otherwise.

But secondly we wanted to be sure that the case was "all everyone wants to talk about" - and that's where the inaccuracies have crept in. From the beginning, we planned to offer Victoria's listeners the opportunity to pass judgement on yesterday's phone in topic. As the debate intensified, with some listeners berating us for the way we had framed the discussion, we put it to their vote - should we continue with the discussion or should we stop it? By a margin of about two thirds to one third, they said we should stop it - so we did.

Since we had always planned this vote, as a way of trying to get some sense of public reaction to media coverage of the McCann story, it's slightly over the top to suggest we had to "abandon" the phone in. We were prepared both to continue the discussion, and to move on to something else.

Daily Telegraph: "A Radio Five Live phone-in was abandoned yesterday morning because of the unexpected degree of anti-McCann feeling voiced by callers." ()

The Times: Reports on Ofcom's current review into the future of radio. ()

The Guardian: "The 大象传媒 was yesterday censured for showing footage of the 2012 Olympic logo which could have triggered epileptic seizures." ()

There鈥檚 been a lot of criticism about the level of TV coverage that was given to the McCann鈥檚 return home. However there鈥檚 also been a large number of people who鈥檝e been turning to 大象传媒 television, online and radio, because they鈥檙e keen to get new information about the story. So we have to balance that audience interest with a part of the audience who express their view very forcefully that we shouldn鈥檛 be spending time, or significant amounts of time, on that story. We try to make that very difficult balance through the editorial judgments we make every day.

Often we鈥檙e not able to give viewers any new information and that鈥檚 one of the things I spend a lot of time talking to my journalists about, to focus on facts rather than speculation. So, for instance, over the past month an enormous amount of material such as hints or leaks from the investigation has appeared in the Portuguese press and has then been reported in British newspapers. A lot of this 大象传媒 TV News did not report at all.

Clearly on Friday we had the development where Mr and Mrs McCann were both declared suspects and where their spokesmen and family talked about what happened in the police interviews. That was genuine new information.

On Sunday we had their return to England and the first time that either of the McCanns had said anything on the record about the investigation or what the police had put to them in those interviews. That was fact. That was news. This morning we decided that this it was not the most important story of the day, and very deliberately decided to lead on the prime minister's speech to the TUC.

Questions have been raised over why we used a helicopter to cover the McCanns' journey home from East Midlands airport. When you鈥檙e covering an extended event like that, having pictures which mean that you can get a continuous picture from one source, a helicopter is much easier and more cost-effective than having a number of cameras on the ground. And there is an element of covering the media interest as well - and we are of course a part of that, which we explain regularly on air. The McCanns' return was an important emotional moment in this story, and something which we felt we needed to cover for continuous news. We used very little of that material in the bulletin reports that we ran yesterday evening because the bulletin at the end of the day has the responsibility to compress the story of the day and only show those things which are most relevant.

It鈥檚 clearly a dramatic story and one in which people are interested: the number of people watching our TV news bulletins is one or two million up in the past three days. The number of people reading the McCann story on the 大象传媒 News website is four or five times greater than any other story. There is unprecedented audience interest, and people do turn to continuous news networks - 大象传媒 News 24 overwhelmingly ahead of competitor networks - and they expect to have that information brought to them.

Another claim which has been made is that we have been biased in favour of the McCanns. We鈥檝e interviewed them a number of times and clearly when they give their point of view, some people ask why we are providing them with a platform. But we鈥檝e also reported as best we can, given the secrecy around the Portuguese investigation, news from the investigation which hasn't come from the McCanns.

Debates about whether they鈥檝e been treated in particular way because they鈥檙e of a certain class, for instance, is just speculation - individuals鈥� own views. People are entitled to their own views, but I don鈥檛 think that should form part of our news coverage.

I don鈥檛 think we have been biased in favour of them. In particular we鈥檝e stressed all along, but especially in the past few days, how important it is not to refer to them by their Christian names. There鈥檚 a danger in over-familiarity. I know that many other TV and radio networks have been absolutely extraordinary, always talking about it in terms of sympathy and their feelings. Of course one has to be aware of that and there are large parts of the audience who are massively sympathetic to them. It鈥檚 a highly charged story, but we have to be as even-handed as we can and stick to the facts.

I do think that people who express a clear view about the level of coverage tend to be people who are saying they don鈥檛 want to hear any more about it. But all I would say is that the audience figures, the response that one actually gets to the story, and newspapers who are making their own commercial judgements, show that there鈥檚 a very large number of people who are interested. I suspect that those people are voting with their remotes and they鈥檙e choosing to watch it. So you have to weigh a very strongly held view that coverage should be reduced against the fact that the consumption of coverage is extraordinarily high.

There鈥檚 a position in the middle that says people do want to know, they want to know if the story changes and that鈥檚 what鈥檚 happened in the past few days. They want that update and that information but they don鈥檛 want us to dwell on it all the time. They don鈥檛 want us to use highly emotive language. They want us to be responsible and even-handed but to cover it fully and properly when there is new information. That鈥檚 the position we鈥檙e trying to take.

In this week's Newswatch, the programme which discusses viewers' complaints about 大象传媒 News, Sue Nix, a senior editor at News 24, responds to the suggestion that the tenth anniversary of Princess Diana's death isn't news.

Also, College of Journalism Editor Kevin Marsh talks about the importance of reporting military terminology correctly and Business Editor Robert Peston discusses the 大象传媒's business coverage.

You can watch the programme here.

The Independent: Raymond Snoddy writes about the forthcoming budget cuts at 大象传媒 News. ()

The Independent: Head of the 大象传媒's news obituaries unit, Bob Chaundry, writes about the job of reporting the deaths of public figures. ()

The Guardian: Peter Preston argues that the 大象传媒 should tackle subjects like climate change rather than take an impartial stance. ()

I find the Daily Mail a fascinating organ, not least because they take every possible opportunity to do down the 大象传媒 and, it seems to me at least, Newsnight. First it was outrage at the sight of , now they've turned their attention to our .

"Mr Watson appeared on 大象传媒 Two's Newsnight on Wednesday filing a report about extremist Islamic literature being available in public libraries," they wrote. "He sported designer stubble, turned up jeans and brown loafers."

Brown loafers? What is the world coming to?

Rather than concentrate on his taste in clothes, we'd prefer you to concentrate on Richard's reports. of his recent investigations into the UK terror threat on our website.

And for the Mail's benefit we've included a nice picture of him in stubble, jeans and those loafers.

We often do stories based on what the United States' leaders, diplomats or military do or say, and I periodically get complaints accusing us of following an agenda set by Washington and giving too much prominence to American policy.

Here鈥檚 a recent example which came in about our coverage of US-Iranian relations:

Once again, the 大象传媒 approaches international affairs as an issue worthy of discussion only in so far as American policy is concerned. The real point at issue - Iranian support for middle-eastern extremism - is ignored.

The exchange I had with this listener raised a couple of issues in my mind and reminded me of some of the editorial discussions we had in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks and the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

One reason we give such prominence to American actions and statements is obvious. The US is the most powerful country in the world and its actions have a global impact - whether it be in invading Iraq or turmoil on the US stock exchange, for instance.

But do we - as my correspondent above says - ignore too often what the 'other side' do?

This is what took me back to our editorial discussions during the US attack on the Taleban in Afghanistan in 2001. I was working at World Service at that time and in one morning editorial meeting we were debating what the US strategy in Afghanistan was and what impact American action would have, when one of our specialists on the Middle East made the point that the Americans were in Afghanistan because al-Qaeda had attacked the US in an operation that had clearly been in the pipeline for some time - it was al-Qaeda that had set the agenda, if you like. He said we should not forget that al-Qaeda or the Taleban could be planning further attacks which could help set the news agenda again.

It was a salutary warning not to become so preoccupied with what the Americans were doing and planning that we ignored other actors in the story and how their actions could affect events.

The other question listeners have raised is whether we frame our coverage too much from an American perspective, which leads us to give a distorted picture of the world.

I have had complaints that our coverage of the US-Iranian dispute over Tehran's nuclear programme has fallen into this trap. Some listeners have accused us of forgetting the run up to the Iraq invasion when the Americans and some of their allies made allegations about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which turned out to be without foundation. They say we give undue weight to the American allegations against Iran which help reinforce the idea that Iran is a threat to the West.

I think there may be a danger of this and certainly on The World Tonight, we try to make sure we also reflect the Iranian view of its relations with the US and its nuclear programme. In addition, we try to report as wide a range of stories from Iran as we can so that listeners hear more about Iran than the debate about its nuclear programme (last year we were part of the Radio 4 season on Iran which aimed to give a rounded picture of the country).

This takes me back to an editorial debate we had during the invasion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda had posted a message which had threatened retaliation against the West and one of our correspondents had described the threat as 鈥渙minous鈥� in a despatch. One of my colleagues made the point that the Americans were openly talking about 鈥渟hock and awe鈥� as their tactics in Iraq and this could well seem 鈥渙minous鈥� for ordinary people in Baghdad expecting an imminent American assault, but we were not using such language to describe the American statements - a good point which stuck in my mind.

As a global broadcaster, we have to remain aware that people in different parts of the world may view events in different ways and see them from different perspectives. It is also important to reflect these different perspectives on the news agenda to our audience in the UK if we are to help them make sense of what is going on.

The Times: Reports that the 大象传媒 can't decide what to call Holyrood's new administration. ()

The Independent: Matthew Norman writes that the 大象传媒 has had "a blind fear of being attacked" ever since the Hutton Inquiry. ()

The Guardian: Reports that the 大象传媒 has admitted that the 大象传媒's creative director Alan Yentob filmed a number of "noddy" shots for interviews which he didn't personally take part in. ()

Daily Mail: Comments on the the number of informally dressed 大象传媒 newsreaders and reporters. ()

You'll have seen there's about what I and the head of TV news thought of the 大象传媒's coverage of climate change (you can read his thoughts on the matter here). The 大象传媒 has now decided with the proposed Planet Relief programme. This blog posting, How green should we be?, from February, sets out my position.

The Guardian: Reports that the 大象传媒 has cancelled plans for a day of programmes dedicated to environmental issues after senior news executives said (link here) that the corporation needs to be impartial. ()

Daily Express: Columnist Virginia Blackburn accuses the 大象传媒 of having a left-wing bias. ()

The Times: Article accusing the 大象传媒 of an anti-London bias. ()

The Independent: Terence Blacker on the recent furore about newsreaders showing their legs. ()

鈥淟east said, soonest mended鈥� is Peter Preston's on the 'trust' row that dominated the Edinburgh TV Festival and which is taking up a fair chunk of our time at the College of Journalism too - though I wouldn't describe the work in progress as searching for what Peter elegantly calls 鈥漰aradise probity lost鈥�.

Peter's pessimistic take on the human condition - that stuff happens, good intentions founder, public distrust persists in the face of attempts to turn the tide - may have an element of truth in it. But it would be wrong for educators and publicly funded broadcasters to conclude that there's no point trying or that the mission is doomed to failure. Or that they should shut up about what they can't control.

It would be wrong, too, to ignore the most striking passage in Jeremy Paxman's MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival.

"Once people start believing we鈥檙e playing fast and loose with them routinely, we鈥檝e had it." Jeremy said. And by people, he didn't mean the people at the Edinburgh TV Festival or other broadcasting worthies. He meant audiences - the people who've been significantly absent from platforms and podiums (though not from the blogs and message boards).

It may be that some broadcasting bosses are a bit fed up with the trust thing, as Peter Preston suggests they ought to be鈥� and jaundiced in their views about remedies. Audiences, though, aren't.

When Newsnight (which you can watch here) looked at Five News' opportunistic to ban some TV editing techniques (though not editing per se, you notice) its blog attracted nearly 150 thoughtful audience posts.

Many of those posts - and similar ones to the Guardian's Edinburgh Festival - illustrated a truth that lies behind Jeremy's "fast and loose鈥� comment and poses a real problem for those of us trying to construct useful, credible learning for 大象传媒 content producers.

For the most part, audiences realise that all media is artifice and contrivance. Even the hardest, straightest most factual news report is the result of choices and framings in the deployment, recording, editing, scripting and presentation.

And there's an element of audience collusion with content producers; both want strong, insightful, compelling narratives鈥� of the kind that you don't get if you present the world without taking the boring bits out.

But it only goes so far and context is everything. 鈥淧laying fast and loose鈥� in news could mean intercutting unrelated footage to produce a false relationship of events; do the same in a drama or comedy show and no-one in the audience would raise an eyebrow. The discussion, debate and learning around that judgment of context really is worth talking about. Because the audience cares - is angry, cheated - when broadcasters get it wrong... whether deliberately or in a panic.

At Edinburgh, Jeremy said this too: "The problem is not going to be addressed until senior people in this industry have the courage to come out and state quite clearly what television is for... What鈥檚 needed is a manifesto, a statement of belief."

Another reason to reject Peter Preston's call for a period of silence. The boundaries between Big Journalism's constructed content and the content web users make and post for themselves is blurring. Broadcasters can't control - shouldn't want to control - how the web develops and what trust, truth and artifice mean there. But they can decide where they stand and what - in that evolving media world - they stand for.

That's got to be worth a bit of chat, too, hasn't it?

Daily Telegraph: Reports that documents released by the National Archive have shown that George Orwell was monitored by MI5 when he worked at the 大象传媒. ()

Financial Times: Brian Groom writes in support of 大象传媒 Four, following John Humphreys' that it should be axed. ()

The Independent: Interview with Today presenter John Humphrys in which he suggests that the digital channels 大象传媒 Three and 大象传媒 Four should be axed in order to cut costs. ()

The Guardian: John Cole asks whether journalists or politicians should be blamed for the current state of the media. ()