- Dan Kelly
- 8 Jun 06, 04:21 PM
"Cometh the hour, cometh the scan," one of George's better lines I thought, as we prepared for last night's Six.
In screens all across the newsroom "Rooney's Scan" screamed in bold type, as Wayne's every movement - from Germany, on to his private jet, in and out of his Bupa hospital, and in to his in-laws - was captured by the cameras. We even had slow-mo pictures of Colleen leaving her house - "is she smiling?, is she smiling?," came the cry.
The coverage was great fun - like a particularly good episode of Footballers' Wives. So how much prominence should we give it on a bulletin? It's an interesting question, because - to some extent anyway - your intuition is pitted against known audience research. We know from family, friends and everyday conversations that there is significant interest in whether Rooney will play in the World Cup. However, the pulse audience survey, viewer e-mails and the duty log would suggest that many of our viewers are completely turned off by the subject. In truth it's all about balance again (boring, I know).
So what did we do? A strong Mark Simpson package (complete with "Rooney's Big Day" sketches) and a great live, in which the latest news from inside Wayne's hospital was texted to Mark by a Man Utd source. The story was in the first half, after NHS debts and an exclusive interview with a Taleban commander.
So when should a news bulletin lead with a sports story? Well, let's wait and see how Rooney and Co get on first shall we?!
PS: To those viewers who phoned in to complain that we had a picture of a Union Flag "upside down" in one of our pieces, we've checked it with a higher authority ("Flags of the World Atlas"), and though it was not technically "upside down," it was hanging at the wrong angle…so sorry about that.
Dan Kelly is assistant editor of the Six O'Clock News
- Peter Barron
- 8 Jun 06, 03:15 PM
Since our investigation into Arsenal's secret loans last week the press and blogosphere have gone into overdrive, and it's been suggested in that our motivation was linked to the fact that I'm a "devoted Spurs fan".
Certainly Spurs are my team of choice, but I think devoted is putting it a bit strongly - I hold no season tickets or bonds or club memberships and in fact have been to Highbury far more often than to White Hart Lane on account of the fact that some of my best friends are Gooners.
I know some Spurs fans hate Arsenal and vice versa, but isn't it time to get over that? We have a few devoted football fanatics on the programme - Michael Crick's devotion to Man United is well known, Peter Marshall lives for Liverpool, deputy editor Daniel Pearl is an Arsenal (yes Arsenal) season ticket holder - but I can't claim to be one of them.
Would it matter if I was? While only a small number of Newsnight employees follow football with a passion, all of them follow politics and presumably hold views and in some cases membership cards (though for the record I've never belonged to a political party either). As ±«Óãtv employees they are required to leave their personal views at the door when they come to work.
When our producer Meirion Jones brought me the story I didn't think for a second: here's a good way to get back for that lasagne incident, not least because he first raised it about two years ago. I simply thought: this is potentially a very good story about the state of modern soccer, whose salaries, payments and bungs have been an issue of huge concern.
And to those of you who say this is not the most serious thing that's ever happened in football, you may well be right. We'd be delighted to hear more stories about football's murky deals, no matter which clubs, countries or associations are involved.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Jon Williams
- 8 Jun 06, 11:16 AM
The following ±«Óãtv television's decision to appoint a Diversity Executive.
Why is it that everyone seems to think that "diversity" is just about race? Six months ago I agreed to become the diversity champion for the news division. I did it because I believe ±«Óãtv News has to reflect the UK all our audiences are part of.
For me diversity is about a whole variety of things; age, views, tone of voice, class and sexuality - as well as race. It's not about box ticking, or political correctness. It is about serving the people who pay our wages - ensuring they see themselves and their life experiences reflected in our output.
The alternative is we simply report the bit we, mainly white, middle class, university educated journalists live in. That's a recipe for certain disaster. Already younger audiences watch and listen to the ±«Óãtv less than they once did; young black audiences watch and listen even less. More than two thirds of UK homes now have multi-channel television; digital radio has transformed listening for millions across Britain.
At the point at which our audience think the ±«Óãtv is out of touch and failing to report the stories, the issues and the people that they're interested, they've got plenty of other channels to turn to - not just for News, but for soaps, entertainment and music too. So why should they tune to the ±«Óãtv? Since they pay their licence fees too, that's potentially a huge problem for us!
Back in March, Mark Thompson unveiled his vision for the ±«Óãtv's Creative Future - one in which audiences are at the centre of everything we do. So the appointment of a diversity executive to look after television is common sense. This is about so much more than political correctness. The stakes couldn't be higher; it's about a ±«Óãtv that remains relevant to all our audiences, ensuring its very survival in an increasingly competitive media world.
Jon Williams is the ±«Óãtv's world news editor
The Sun: "David Cameron has accused Radio 1 rap DJ Tim Westwood of stoking Britain’s knife culture" ()
The Times: A columnist writes about the experience of appearing on Question Time with Michael Winner ()
