Taste & Decency (archive)
- Peter Rippon
- 9 Aug 06, 11:15 AM
One of the programmes I edit, Broadcasting House, really irritates some listeners. There is a small but vocal section of Radio Four devotees who just do not accept the fundamental proposition - that you can have fun as well as do serious news on the same programme.
Thankfully the show's healthy audience figures convince me that such views are a minority. So recently Mark Doyle has exposed child labour in the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo (listen here), but at the same time we've made a theatrical arrest (listen here).
Getting the balance and tone right is hard. In fact it is one of the hardest things we do. It regularly dominates our editorial discussions and we get it wrong sometimes. In fact, if you want to see the blood drain from any reporter's face you do not need to send them off to doorstep the relatives of the victim of some terrible tragedy. As they leave the building on a story just say "have some fun with it!" and watch them wilt.
It may be hard but I believe passionately we must continue to do it. Radio Four is often criticised for being too stuffy, too aloof and too elitist. Humour is a crucial weapon in countering such perceptions.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
- Ben Rich
- 8 Aug 06, 08:13 AM
If we're not careful, it's going to become something of a theme.
Last week the Six O'Clock News ran a piece showing a dangerous game being played by teenagers on a playground roundabout - in which a motorbike engine was used to drive it around at ever greater speeds, with two teenage girls hanging on grimly in the middle. Yesterday it was a fireman who got spun round inside an industrial tumble-dryer to the vast amusement of his friends, and the horror of fire service bosses (watch it for yourself here).
In neither case was anyone injured, but they might have been. Why did we do these stories?
Well, one discussion we've had recently concerns what we should do about things that a large number of people are clearly interested in, but which do not have some political or other wider significance. These are the kind of items that get filmed these days and end up being passed around, sometimes to literally millions of people, via e-mail, or are watched by huge numbers via internet sites.
Many are just curiosities, but sometimes a particular piece of human folly strikes a chord and has that shock factor that makes people want to see it - and we've decided that at least sometimes they should be able to even if they do not have access to the web.
What made these two more relevant is that they were cautionary tales that happily did not end in tragedy and could serve as a warning.
Now that's all very well, but what about the risk of copycats? Of course that is something we have to consider (for example 大象传媒 guidelines make it clear that we should never show in detail the way people prepare and take illegal drugs) but you could argue that we might actually stop a few people doing these things too.
It's a difficult calculation to make and a potentially troublesome one for a journalist. Should we show people driving dangerously? What about film of anti-social behaviour?
I believe that as editors we have to have a fairly high threshold for censoring something just because it might lead to imitators. So long as we point out the dangers, we then have to leave it to people's own good sense, the control exerted by parents and, in this particular case, the difficulty of finding industrial-sized tumble dryers.
Ben Rich is deputy editor, One and Six O'Clock news
- Daniel Pearl
- 7 Aug 06, 02:05 PM
Have you been emailed about ? Or maybe ? If you're like me you've probably been sent both.
There is an enormous online campaign by both sides to persuade the world that the media is biased one way or another in its reporting of the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
Yesterday the story took an unexpected turn. Reuters announced that it has dropped a freelance photographer after, Reuters claim, he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut to show more smoke (details ).
"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," , the head of public relations for Reuters.
But what are the chances of the online community believing that? On Newsnight tonight we'll be discussing the images the public sees, how they are chosen and whether they are manipulated.
Leave a comment and let me know what you want us to include in the programme.
UPDATE, TUESDAY 1015: Click here to watch the item that went out last night (including an interview with Paul Holmes from Reuters).
Daniel Pearl is deputy editor of Newsnight
- Rod McKenzie
- 25 Jul 06, 01:16 PM
Andy is a bathroom fitter. He's young - a keen Radio 1 listener with a wife and two small children. I spent some time with him recently - not because he's doing my bathroom - but because I went to talk to him while he was doing a job near Basingstoke and I wanted to get his thoughts on what we do journalistically.
You see, we editors do occasionally come down from our ivory towers.
Broadly, he's a fan, but one thing does make him very angry.
Your editorial line - he said, accusingly - is promoting sex. "You are always going on about STI's, condoms and safe sex... and giving the impression everyone's doing it with multiple partners. But you don't talk about monogamy or abstinence!"
This got me thinking: sex is one of the Radio 1's audience key concerns; with the western world's highest rates of teen pregnancies, huge rises in STI's and spiralling depression - often caused by relationship or self image issues - it's hardly surprising we get more listener interaction on these issues than any other. The appetite for these stories is huge.
So am I some sort of latter-day Paul Raymond - presiding over a sleazy world of promiscuity and porn, surrounded by page 3 wannabes whilst signing up kiss-and-tell stories to shame the News of the World? No, clearly not. That never has been or will be, part of the brief (no pun intended).
But what we are providing is public service information in any area where many young people feel they are seriously uninformed. The reality is that for many of our audience, sex - often risky, sometimes disastrous - is a regular part of their lives.
It's not our job, I believe, to preach, to stand in judgement or to make moral judgements. It's not a role I seek or am qualified to do - nor would my staff want to. It is our job to make the best information available to our young listeners aged in their late teens and early twenties so they can make informed choices if they wish to. We even have a specialist youth health reporter, Helen Neill, to help us to address this editorial area with real focus.
I said this to Andy - he thought for a bit and said, smiling, "but you could tell them about abstinence and being faithful to one person couldn't you? There are some young people like that, you know".
Maybe he's got a point.
(PS: Click here to find out more about Radio 1's 'Bare All' campaign.)
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Adam Curtis
- 24 Jul 06, 02:00 PM
News developments in the Middle East routinely attract the attention of vigorous lobby groups on both sides. The conflict that has erupted so suddenly in Lebanon is no exception.
We are accused of all sorts of twists and spins, such as: "Why do we say that Lebanese have 'died', but that Israelis have 'been killed'?" Or: "Why do you focus on the suffering of Israelis when the Lebanese are suffering in greater numbers?" Or: "Why do you paint the Lebanese as victims when it's their failure to disarm Hezbollah that lies at the root of the trouble?" Or: "Why don't you state openly that the Israeli bombing/Hezbollah rocket attacks are war crimes?"
Readers with strong views about the rights and wrongs of the conflict sometimes read into our coverage a bias or prejudice that is not there. The accusations come from both sides.
The truth is that, in maintaining 24-hour a day coverage of a complex, fast-moving story such as this - constantly updating and reshaping our reports - it is a huge challenge to ensure that we are maintaining absolute balance and impartiality. Undoubtedly, there are times when we don't get it quite right. But we do pay attention to feedback, and we do make adjustments when it seems right to do so.
One of the most difficult issues surrounds the pictures that we use to illustrate our news stories. We come under pressure from some quarters to publish photographs that reflect the full horror of the casualties being inflicted. Such images certainly exist and are freely available on a number of websites.
Our job, as we see it, is to make a judgement about what our audience is likely to feel is appropriate. On the one hand, we do not believe in sanitising the news. On the other, we believe we have the ability, through our reporting, to convey the horror of events without shocking and possibly outraging our readers by showing gruesome images of mutilated corpses.
On occasions we are aware that we come close to crossing the line as to what is acceptable. In such circumstances, we may, like our colleagues in television, adopt the policy of warning our readers that the images they are about to see are likely to be distressing.
But what if the available images of casualties on one side are more harrowing than those on the other? And should we publish more pictures of Lebanese casualties because there are more of them?
In practice, we look at the agency pictures available at any one time and publish a selection that we feel reflects reality. We have no agenda other than to give our readers as accurate a sense as we can of what is happening on the ground.
In doing so, we take note of the 大象传媒 guideline on impartiality, which says in part: "It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view."
Adam Curtis is world editor of the
- Pat Stevenson
- 18 Jul 06, 03:15 PM
Nipple clamps, group sex and swingers' clubs. Grist to the tabloids' mill perhaps, but the 大象传媒?
Covering was always going to be a challenge in terms of taste and decency.
The Scottish Socialist MSP is fighting a series of claims made in the newspaper about his sex life. Allegations that he denies but the paper contends are "substantially true".
The first question, given the likely content of the evidence - should we be covering the court proceedings at all? is arguably one of only a few Members of the Scottish Parliament who people in the street would recognise. His high profile stems from his career in challenging the establishment. He was jailed for his actions in fighting the poll tax and taking part in blockades at Faslane nuclear submarine base. He was the founder member of the Scottish Socialist Party, and as leader, raised its profile to such an extent in the first term of the Scottish Parliament that the party picked up five additional seats in the 2003 elections.
Eighteen months ago his resignation from the leadership topped the news. So, a major character in Scottish politics, and as an editor a case I think we should be covering. Having made that decision, how much detail should we broadcast? Radio literally has a captive audience of children. Strapped in the backseat of a car, kids are tuned into whatever their parents are listening to.
As a parent I'm aware of the kind of questions that are asked. And a ten year old probably isn't going to buy the line "Mr Sheridan was just having a sleepover". But as a broadcaster it is the 大象传媒's legal and editorial duty to report a case both fairly and accurately, both from a defamation and contempt point of view. "Enough" pled one text to the programme, but leaving out large chunks of evidence could leave us in legal difficulties.
That's not to say every detail is picked over. In practical terms, radio just hasn't got the time to go into the minutiae in the same way as newspapers. I did make the decision not to broadcast the word "b****rd" when a witness swore at an advocate during the case. Why? It wasn't part of the evidence and so I thought it could be left out. The word has however been used in the programme before (John Major's outburst of frustration over eurosceptics, for example). But every story throws up different challenges and every decision can be challenged. That's what being an editor is about.
And we did decide not to use the nipple clamps.
Pat Stevenson is editor of Radio Scotland's Newsdrive programme
- Tim Bailey
- 14 Jul 06, 11:36 AM
Many listeners are concerned about the graphic content of some our radio reports. This is an example of editing on the grounds of taste. The original report came from our correspondent in Baghdad, and dealt with a video that showed the mutilated bodies of American servicemen. The soldiers had apparently been killed in retaliation for the death of an Iraqi girl.
The first paragraph of the original report included this phrase: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated, one is headless, the head is swung in front of the camera. Now and then a foot appears to prod a lifeless corpse."
This was cut as I thought it was too strong for a teatime audience (although it is only fair to say not everyone here agreed). And this is what was broadcast: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated; one is headless."
My own view was that conveyed a sufficiently powerful image.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Vicky Taylor
- 13 Jul 06, 12:49 PM
Words, as any journalist knows, can be loaded. One which has cropped up and led to lots of conversations in some blogs is "dhimmi". It's not a very well-known word (it's not in the Oxford English Dictionary, for instance), but it is one which raises passions.
"Dhimmi" refers historically to non-Muslims living in Islamic states whose religion was tolerated as long as they accepted the supremacy of the Islamic state. It is now used, sometimes in the word "dhimmitude", to mean "situations where non-Muslims in the West are allegedly championing Islamic causes above others" ().
Recently in our Have Your Say discussions, "dhimmi" has been used in a context which breaches our , specifically that posts should not be abusive, offensive or provocative. Some users have tried to register with names using variations of "dhimmi", again sometimes in an offensive way. When we spotted this trend, we put the word "dhimmi" on our automated list of blocked words, mostly swearing and racially offensive terms. That meant that any reference to "dhimmi" would mean the posting was automatically deleted. (Having a blocked list means it's possible to filter out abuse and ensure comments do not break any laws - especially useful since our debates get several thousand messages each day.)
On reflection, though, it's clear that the word "dhimmi" can be used in the modern sense in a non-abusive way, so we've decided that it should not now be blocked. The list of blocked words is a moving object - words and meanings do change from time to time - so we'll monitor how the debate goes.
Getting the balance right between freedom of speech and removing offensive content can be difficult at times. We do have our rules, which we enforce, because we want the debates on our site to reflect intelligent, informed and legally expressed opinions. But we're not interested in stopping discussion - that, after all, is the point.
Vicky Taylor is editor of Interactivity.
- Paul Brannan
- 29 Jun 06, 12:01 PM
We've long since ceased to be amazed at the near real-time delivery of news.
And modern life has been conducted in the full gaze of the media for such a long time it's become routine. So it's difficult to imagine what it must have been like before TV and radio took hold of our collective consciousness and shaped our world.
As on the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of the Somme it set me wondering how modern media coverage might have affected the tide of events.
July 1, 1916, was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army - 54,470 casualties, 19,240 of them deaths. Whole battalions were wiped out in less than half a day. "Pals" units - men from the same town who enlisted together - suffered catastrophic losses.
Had that been fed back immediately to the British public - for all the patriotic fervour of the time - how might public opinion have been affected? Would politicians of the day have been able to sustain the offensive? Would Haig have been relieved of his command?
By the time the Somme slaughter came to an end the Allies had advanced only five miles, the British had suffered 420,000 casualties, the French 195,000 and the Germans around 650,000.
It's fanciful to speculate on whether the war might have been brought to a swift conclusion if the peoples on all sides had known the true horror of what was happening. But it does bring into sharp focus the crucial role of the media in helping to create an informed and functioning democracy.
Paul Brannan is deputy editor of the
- Amanda Farnsworth
- 28 Jun 06, 10:48 AM
We had an exclusive from our medical correspondent yesterday - . He was one of the young men who reacted almost fatally to a drug being tested in .
It was a moving interview and one of the most moving things was how Ryan was very matter of fact about the reality that he will have to lose most of his fingers and toes because they've essentially died as part of his reaction to the drug.
Life goes on, he said. For us on the programme, we were again confronted with the issue of how much do we show of Ryan's injuries. In truth I didn't think this was a hard one - his hands were unbandaged, the tips of his fingers simply black, and it wasn't too unpleasant and of course the fact that he was going to undergo amputation was at the heart of the story.
His toes were covered and I am told looked far worse. But these issues - about showing strong images of injury or suffering - are the subject of continued and heated debate in the newsroom. Iraq and Gaza are just two of the stories recently where we've had to make difficult judgements. I think I shall be blogging on this subject frequently.
Amanda Farnsworth is editor, Daytime News
- Mark Wray
- 15 Jun 06, 12:44 PM
Five Live is The World Cup Station: 'Every game live'. But when we chew over the remains of the day, after dark, there's plenty of room for news as well as footy. In fact with action in Germany dominating most of the daytime and early evening schedule this month it's all the more important for the Anita Anand and Stephen Nolan programmes to talk about the day's main news stories and to give listeners an opportunity to share their views with us and each other.
The extent to which some listeners are prepared to bare their soul in doing this never ceases to amaze me.
Stephen Nolan, whose Friday, Saturday and Sunday night shows are now broadcast from Manchester (more of this in a future blog posting) has a special knack of getting callers to share the most intimate experiences with him… and several hundred thousand other listeners. It's one of the reasons he's amassed a record-breaking haul of Sony awards.
Last weekend the Association of Chief Police Officers warned that the World Cup could trigger an upsurge in domestic violence and Stephen asked listeners if they agreed with that assessment.
Among the callers was Paul in Luton, who confessed to having beaten his wife. He'd phoned in risking an interrogation from Stephen, the reprobation of other listeners and a confrontation with his own demons. But still he felt able to explain how financial worries had led to arguments, arguments had led to beatings, and those beatings to him leaving his wife, living rough, turning to drink and drugs and twice attempting suicide. He felt a deep sense of shame and wanted to tell other men who might be tempted to abuse their partners to seek help.
Stephen started the conversation by telling Paul: "You're exactly the kind of bloke I can't understand." Five or six minutes later, punctuated by searching questions, honest responses, and difficult silences, Stephen was telling him: "Actually, I admire you." For his part Paul offered: "Thanks for giving me this chance."
It was a remarkable interchange but by no means exceptional. People put great faith and trust in us and we do our best not to let them down. Of course, we're all caught up in World Cup fever, but sometimes it's healthy to remind ourselves it's not such a matter of life or death."
Mark Wray is editor of the Stephen Nolan programme on Five Live
- Peter Rippon
- 14 Jun 06, 01:32 PM
Following Kevin's posting about swearing on News 24, we also used the F-word on PM yesterday at about seven minutes past five in the afternoon. However, we did not do it by accident. We chose to do it.
My initial thought was there was no way we could use it, but after discussing the tone and context we decided we should, but with a "health warning".
Radio Four listeners expect adult journalism. We felt that Abdul Kahar's account of the first words the police spoke to him was a powerful punctuation point in the story he was telling. As such, it was a really important moment in the narrative and to lose it would have detracted from the impact. The word was also used a couple of other times in the news conference, but we felt that in those cases we could avoid using it because they were not so integral to the story.
So far we have had only two complaints. Very few. In the past we've had far more from listeners complaining we are being patronising when we've bleeped swear words.
We do try to avoid offensive language whenever possible. Each case is different. I recently apologised to listeners who were rightly offended that we had used the word "shag". In that case we got it wrong and the tone and context in which we used it were not justified. It was my fault. A producer asked me if it was OK to say shag and I assumed it was being used to mean exhausted or knackered. We ended up with a contributor advising the new England manager to make sure his players did not "shag prostitutes". It was completely out of context.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
- Kevin Bakhurst
- 13 Jun 06, 03:07 PM
In given by the two men arrested - and now released - after the Forest Gate raid, some strong language was used.
One of the men, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, said: "He [a policeman] just kicked me in my face and kept on saying 'shut the fuck up'. I said: 'Please I cannot breathe'."
What to do when you're broadcasting it live, as we were on News 24?
Well, we try to assess the risk of swearing or legal issues before we go to a live event and minimise this if possible. Sometimes we even use a minor delay. In this case, I'm afraid it was unexpected and unforeseen - and the brothers said they were directly quoting the police.
We apologised afterwards - but I think the audience understand that sometimes these things are out of our hands, and viewers on a news channel are very understanding and tolerant when it occasionally happens.
Kevin Bakhurst is controller, News 24
- Rod McKenzie
- 9 Jun 06, 02:42 PM
about hip-hop lyrics and Radio 1 - which triggered strong rebuttals from the station's executives - also prompted our biggest audience interaction for a while, both on Radio 1 itself and sister station 1Xtra (which specialises in black music genres).
We were expecting a bit of stick from the papers. and . "In a sad bid to be trendy, the 大象传媒 coarsens countless lives". So after extensive editorial coverage of the row on both Newsbeat and TXU, what did the listeners think? Don't know about you, but I think that's far more interesting than chattering classes response:
On Radio 1 the audience was split more or less 50/50, far less supportive of the station's position than you might think, while on 1Xtra the response was much more supportive of Radio 1 and hostile to the Tory leader.
Many Radio 1 listeners pointed out that loving rap hasn't driven them to carrying blades or packing a . One wrote that he'd analysed this argument for his academic coursework and found the argument that hip hop promotes gun crime to be "absolute bollox". Others argued that not everyone who likes indie music is clinically depressed - so why should love of rap go hand in hand with criminal tendencies?
But others argued that Cameron is right - that the Westwood show sound effects of gunshots and bombs glorifies violence and makes role models for an abusive generation. Some think Radio 1 plays too much black music anyway - some of the songs and lyrical content is "appalling" and the "Big Dog Baby" stuff is just wrong.
On 1Xtra - the listeners were less supportive of Cameron's view: but some reckon if its got people talking about politics that normally wouldn't then that's good. Is it, as some think, about the way the music is presented? Aggressive on Westwood, more chilled on 1Xtra, with more emphasis on UK hip hop whose lyrical content is different?
And what about David Cameron's own choice of music? The Smiths and Radiohead? The Smiths "I Know it's Over" features the lyrics, "the knife wants to slit me / do you think you can help me". Radiohead's Knives Out, "look into my eyes / I'm not coming back / so knives out". And again, from another track by the same band, "I got bombs, I got guns, I got brains".
Last word to one of Radio 1's youngest listeners who texted Newsbeat with a blunt message: "Cameron is stupid. Luv Beth xxxxxx (aged 12)"
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Kevin Marsh
- 6 Jun 06, 04:23 PM
The Governors are funky dudes. Or their programme complaints committee is, at least.
Their rules that Radio 1's Chris Moyles wasn't being homophobic when he called a ringtone "gay". Young people - apparently - now routinely say "gay" when they mean "rubbish". And the complaints committee is "familiar with hearing this word in this context".
Coo.
That's the problem though. Keeping up with the latest street argot. Is "bollocks" now OK or not? I have to say, I thought it had been since the Sex Pistols won their case back in 1977. You'll remember it. The title of their album was "Never mind the bollocks, here's the Sex Pistols". A policewoman in Nottingham complained. M'learned friends got involved... and it was decided that "bollocks" was OK following the intervention of a linguist from the local university.
Some 30 years later, it's still not a unanimous view. When Today referred on-air to those rather popular "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirts that were doing the rounds after the hunting vote, sensitivities were aroused. We argued - successfully - that the word, while clearly abusive, wasn't necessarily offensive.
It's not always that simple. I used to receive two or three letters a month complaining that once again Brian Widlake - when he was one of the presenters of The World at One - had used the phrase "cock-up" to describe some public figure's minor oversight. I decided to settle it once and for all and started to compose a well-researched letter showing how the complainant was flat wrong and an idiot to boot - but no slang dictionary could help. In fact they made it worse, linking the phrase to a very dubious practice at a minor public school.
There is a very useful chart which, sadly, was last updated some time ago. Even so, it's re-assuring to know that you can say "peace off", "wear the fox hat" or call someone a "salad tosser" with relative impunity. In the intervening six years, it seems that "shag" has moved down a peg or two and - if Chris Moyles is now our arbiter in this - so has "slag".
Context is all ... as those funky dudes on the Governors' committee explained when they reviewed a deluge of complaints over the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves back in 2005. The Committee noted the words ‘bastard’, ‘bollocks’, ‘piss’, ‘bugger’ and ‘bloody’ and "after careful consideration given to the context" decided that "the language was part of the rough-and-tumble of the story, appropriate to the rough and coarse characters depicted and the age they lived in".
Maybe that's what got Moyles off the hook this time.
Kevin Marsh is editor of the 大象传媒 College of Journalism
- Rod McKenzie
- 1 Jun 06, 01:57 PM
When, if ever, is it right to tell the prime minister to FCUK off?
This is the dilemma that faced us after a tidal wave of texts hit us when we told listeners that we were interviewing the PM. Judging from the texts and other interaction we received, they're fired up about the state of the government: "Useless", "pathetic", "crap", and "incompetent" were four of the more common and most printable words associated with the recent stories over the Home Office, Education, the deputy PM's trousers and more.
So when we rolled in to do the PM off the back of the pensions story we wanted to reflect some of this dis-satisfaction. Our audience uses vernacular and slang language and it's something we feel pretty comfortable reflecting on air and in the way we talk, too.
One texter put it succinctly: "Tony Blair when are you going to FCUK off?"
Our interviewer put the very quote to him, along with context - sourced to the listener. Blair was stunned, muttered "that's unhelpful" and moved on - he sounded genuinely, we thought, wounded for the rest of the interview.
Many listeners thought we'd gone too far and clearly felt sorry for him - he's the prime minister after all, we should be more respectful. Lots were angry, while on 1Xtra (where the interview was also broadcast), there was a more supportive reaction. You can hear the interview for yourself by clicking here.
Dun-D-Man wrote to us: "I was impressed 1Xtra would have the guts to put such a graphic question forward to the PM that reflects the views shared by some listeners". Another wrote: "Fair play to her for asking dem questions."
It was clearly a section of our large audience that we'd offended, which we can analyse by age and background. It's interesting stuff and gives me food for thought in future - on how we do context, set-up and impact of the 'real listeners' questions' - but I'm convinced we need to keep robustly reflecting the audience back to those in power.
That's our job after all.
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Amanda Farnsworth
- 31 May 06, 11:54 AM
"A nation of knives" scream some tabloid newspapers this morning. So we talked a lot at our editorial meetings today about what we should do, and how to approach the spate of stabbings that have become so prominent recently.
To some extent it's true these things go in cycles. I remember the last time knife crime really ran as a story over a number of weeks was when was killed, and then inevitably other stories and events moved the issue out of the headlines.
But how do we report without just adding to the hysteria? I think the key here is context. It is a fact knife crime is on the increase - that's why the government is bringing in new laws to tackle it. But who exactly is carrying a knife? Why do they do it? And what can we do apart from bringing in new laws to combat it? It's these questions we need to answer in our coverage and not simply give a list of incidents of knife crime and essentially tell the viewers to be afraid.
Amanda Farnsworth is editor, Daytime News
- Peter Barron
- 25 May 06, 03:31 PM
The film on Newsnight last night about Colombia featured some amazing scenes in which, variously, monkeys were breast-fed by a human, shot down from trees, and even cooked and eaten. The sort of thing, one might think, that viewers would be on the phones complaining about. The fact is that no-one called - though one person did ring to object to us featuring Freddie Starr.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Miranda Holt
- 24 May 06, 12:15 PM
The highlight of this morning's programme was getting our reporter, Jon Manel, to smuggle a garden gnome into the Chelsea Flower Show, where such ornaments are banned because they're naff.
Lots of people thought it was very amusing - but the subsequent, light-hearted, discussion between Robin Lane Fox, FT Gardening columnist and Tim Rumball, from Amateur Gardener Magazine on snobbery in gardening, led the former to say: "If you banned fairies you'd have to ban half the garden designers."
Some listeners were predictably offended by such a homophobic comment, and demanded instant on-air apologies. We settled with reading out one cross e-mail and three in praise of gnomes at the end of the programme.
(You can hear the whole episode here, and see the pictures of the gnome here.)
Miranda Holt is assistant editor, Today
- Jamie Donald
- 22 May 06, 01:45 PM
I’m sure we’ll take some stick for doing this. There’ll be those who think it’s not right to give Mark Oaten a platform, or take MPs away from their legislation and constituents. There will be others who think it's unseemly or a waste of the licence fee. Some of the bloggers out there already given us some feedback. Here’s a sample:
• "That's just conjured images of green lycra that I just didn't need." ()
• " [Mark Oaten] should be aware though that all this exercise will not get him his hair back."
()
• "[You] can already sense the shudders from some party stalwarts who will feel that this kind of public spectacle (entertainment) on national TV won't do the party's image any good.
()
• "Get a hat and suitable condiments ready." ()
As you’d expect, I’m a big fan of both the idea and the execution. Think Jamie Oliver and School Dinners. Think too about politics and engagement; about the issues facing ordinary people. Think seeing the mighty struggle, the powerful sweat, and those remote and gilded villagers of Westminster being put through a lot of pain and anguish. It’s all there.
As for my own pain and anguish – it’s pretty much over now. The heart rate is settling, the tremors are lessening and I wish I could say I feel better for it. Well maybe a little. You can catch the series – which we’re calling The Body Politics - every Monday for the next six weeks on The Daily Politics on 大象传媒 Two at Noon. We’re also going to run little tasters on the days in between. There’s more background, and video of the Body Politics, on our .
- Jamie Donald
- 22 May 06, 10:31 AM
I am not enjoying this form of exercise. Really – I’m not. My heart is pounding, I feel sick in the stomach, the sweat is beginning to prickle on my arms and shoulders, and my hands are trembling. It’s my very first blog posting.
But that’s nothing compared to the exercise that’s facing four members of the great and the good over the next six weeks. They’re going to be prodded and poked, measured and weighted, bullied and sweated. They’re going to tone up their bodies, lose pounds of fat (but hopefully none of their dignity), and try to eat and drink properly. All in a good cause.
The Daily Politics on 大象传媒 Two is filming three MPs and a baroness as they take part in a diet and fitness regime to help themselves shape up, and lead the way in tackling the obesity crisis facing Britain. From Monday until the end of June the Daily Politics cameras will follow them as they get training instruction from the formidable Body Doctor, David Marshall at his London gym. And from what I’ve seen so far, it’s looking great.
The highlights are the agonies of the MP, Mark Oaten. You remember him - home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, family man and would-be leader of the party, whose affairs with rent boys were exposed earlier this year.
Why’s he doing it? Well, there’s a relationship between absolution, pain and humiliation: think hair shirts, pilgrimages on one’s knees, and self-flagellation. So I think it’s an act of penitence. Others think it might just be cheap publicity as part of a hopeless attempt at a comeback. But this is what Mark himself told us: "Exercise is a way of cleansing the brain – it’s a mental health thing and I want to learn how to do that."
Whatever his reasons, he is suffering. He’s trying to give up chocolate. He’s got to limit and improve his eating and drinking. And his regime is a punishing one: an hour-and-a-half three times a week for six weeks. Each visit he’ll do a 15-minute warm up, a 45-minute full body workout involving all the muscle groups, and a 30-minute cardiovascular session. At one point in his first session he – nearly – couldn’t take it. He was on his knees whimpering.
Although Mark has rather hijacked the attention surrounding the series – with a series of interviews to the media about how its all part of his comeback from hair loss – the films are actually about much more than him.
There’s Sailesh Vara, the fortysomething Tory MP from Cambridgeshire, who used to hold a black belt in a martial art in his youth, and who’s trying to recapture the glory days of his six pack and 30-inch waist. He wants his constituents, the Indian community and Conservatives everywhere to take up the health message.
With him is Meg Hillier, one of the new intake of Labour MPs, who’s 37 and from Hackney. She’s well up for it, and her plan is to get rid of her "mummy tummy", and push the health message through to kids everywhere. Though she’s quite fit, she’s also finding it very tough.
Then there’s Susan Greenfield, the svelte barnoness with the big brain, leading scientist and member of countless academies, who at fiftysomething is the oldest of the group, but the one with the fewest pounds to shift. For her it’s about getting the more-than-middle-aged to understand how diet and activity can keep you feeling younger and healthier.
They’re all as interesting as Mark Oaten in their own ways.
But perhaps the real star is the Body Doctor himself – David Marshall, trainer to sports starts, celebrities like Ant and Dec, and now MPs. His very high tech gym in Chelsea is the base of all operations. And his approach puts the toughest chief whip and most acerbic Speaker to shame.
How's this for a manifesto pledge: ‘The end product is the empowerment of the individual and their complete and utter belief and knowledge that they and not us have been the primary factor in their physical mental and emotional improvement." He’s devised the punishment, he’s a tartar, but he’s also very good.
Jamie Donald is editor, live political programmes
- Ian Prince
- 19 May 06, 12:04 PM
Looks like Newsround is setting a bad example again. We've done it before and we'll do it again, although we won't go a far as Jeremy Paxman's use of slang.
Our complaint referred to a caption during an item about school bogs (sorry, toilets) which have been equipped with CCTV to cut down on bullying and bunking off (sorry, avoiding) lessons (read the story ).
The caption read "the new loos cost 100 grand" while the voiceover said "doing up the loos has cost the school a hundred thousand pounds".
Our captions reflect the way our audience watch TV. They are not news junkies who listen to every broadcast word. They have an interest in the world around them, but are probably doing other tasks while watching TV. The straps are another way they may absorb information. This is the age group who play games which are multi-layered with music, on screen instructions, action, narrative and hand controls to operate all at the same time.
"Grand" can be found in the dictionary. It fits our style of being informal and accessible to a primary school audience and children feel that Newsround is "their programme".
If children took away from that story an understanding of how school design can be used to make pupils feel safer, that there are decisions to be made about how money is spent in a school, and that the English language is a rich resource with often more than one word for something, then that's well good.
Ian Prince is editor of
- Peter Barron
- 17 May 06, 11:50 AM
I'm sorry if any of our viewers were offended by Jeremy's use of the word "bollocks" (which, if you want, you can see here).
Jeremy was - jovially - expressing his annoyance that Newsnight had been duped by a press release from the Baltic Centre which claimed that Sam Taylor Wood's latest work showed a man playing a cello which had been digitally removed.
Many of our viewers contacted us to say they thought he was simply miming, and when we contacted the artist she admitted that that was indeed the case. I think Jeremy was attracted by the alliteration of the "Baltic talking bollocks", and in mitigation it was 11.15pm.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Paul Brannan
- 15 May 06, 04:38 PM
Should the 大象传媒 News website link to the BNP's online pages? In doing so are we driving traffic to the party's "ignorant, hateful and cowardly" content, as one complainant insists?
The disclaimer that "the 大象传媒 is not responsible for external sites" cuts little ice: "I am not asking the 大象传媒 to take responsibility for the racist content of this particular website, but you must take responsibility for linking to this vile content."
The easy thing to do would be to adopt an all-or-nothing policy. After all, if people really want to find their way to this kind of material then Google is only a click away. Why help the process? A blanket ban would relieve us of the Wisdom of Solomon judgement calls.
So, for that matter, would a policy of linking to anything and everything and that would certainly chime with web audiences who see editorialising as censorship.
In reality we make decisions on which sites to link to on a case-by-case basis and we consider them carefully, in relation to the news agenda and the context around each story. In general, we link to sites where there is sufficient editorial justification. We take into account the 大象传媒 guidelines on harm and offence and the law relating to such matters as defamation or incitement to racial hatred.
And as far as the BNP is concerned we have not in general linked to their site but, in the interests of impartiality, we have done so during election periods. Sure, we drive traffic to the site but click-throughs don't necessarily convert to support for the party. In fact, the opposite may be true.
Paul Brannan is the deputy editor of the
This blog aims to explain the editorial decisions and dilemmas faced by the teams running the 大象传媒's news service - radio, TV, and interactive. It will feature contributions from 大象传媒 editors, along with your comments and questions.
The 大象传媒 wants to be open and accountable, and so this site is a public space where you can engage with us as much as the medium allows. We're happy for you to criticise the 大象传媒 in your e-mails and comments, and to ask serious, probing questions of us - we'll do our best to respond to them.
Comments on this blog will be moderated. When you submit a comment, we will read it and decide whether to publish it. We aim to include as many comments as we can, but we won't publish any which are abusive, are inappropriate on the grounds of taste and decency, or which appear to be part of a concerted lobbying attempt. There's more on our moderation policy in these House Rules.
Comments should be based around the original post and subsequent discussion. If you want to make a general comment, then please e-mail us instead. We can't promise to respond to every e-mail, but we'll do our best to read them all.
You should also bear in mind that e-mailing us, or leaving a comment on the blog, is not the same as making a formal complaint. If you want to do that, this website will help you - and this way, you're guaranteed to receive a formal response.
For comparison purposes, here are links to some of the rules applied by our contemporaries - , , and in the USA, and and in the UK.
The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
