- Craig Oliver
- 27 Jun 06, 03:01 PM
Sometimes defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.
±«Óãtv Editor Mark Easton - an interview with Charles Clarke, sacked as home secretary last month.
Even better - it was embargoed until 10pm. That meant the Ten O'Clock News would be the first programme to run with it - ahead of a longer version on Newsnight.
You may think that's of little consequence, but we editors care deeply about such things.
What we hadn't factored in was that last night's Ten would follow what was arguably : a no-score-bore that went to extra time and then penalties. That meant we ended up on air at 1040pm - well after Newsnight had started.
I wouldn't have minded - but even the penalties were boring. Switzerland didn't even score one.
Craig Oliver is editor of ±«Óãtv News at Six and ±«Óãtv News at Ten
- Kevin Marsh
- 27 Jun 06, 11:26 AM
So this is the editors' blog. But what do we mean by "editor"?
The first thing to note is that the person who edits a particular edition of a programme - what we call "the output editor" - is not necessarily "the Editor".
So what's the difference?
As with all the best questions the honest answer is - it depends. On some programmes, there's less difference than on others - often the Editor will be the output editor on any particular day. But in broad terms, the output editor is responsible for one edition of a programme; the Editor for the programme, and the team, over time.
So what does being responsible "over time" mean ?
Every programme has a programme remit - a description of the programme, its key features and in particular the features that make it original and distinctive. Some are written down, though most programme remits are less formally set out and often agreed only verbally with Department Heads. That doesn't make them any less binding on the Editor. Recently, objectives dealing with aspects such as audience size and appreciation have supplemented or even superseded formal programme remits.
In addition to these, all Editors set themselves objectives when they get the job. The selection process demands detailed pitch which can include anything from changes in programme agenda and tone, to changes of presenters or personnel - or even what shouldn't be changed.
The tools the Editor has are limited. Money is one; you have to manage the programme budget - which includes the annual argument for more (you always end up with less) as well as making it all add up at the end of the financial year, having spent a proportion of it on things intended to achieve your objectives. Staff is another; you appoint - or supervise the appointment of - staff, appraise them, decide who does what on the programme, give them feedback and advise them on their performance.
The other tools - the really powerful ones - are less easily defined. Influence... setting the programme weather... stalking the floor... hunting down inaccuracies... generating an atmosphere where originality can flourish... spotting flair and encouraging it... spotting bad habits and discouraging them... knowing whose case you need to be on, who you can cut a bit of slack. And dealing with The Talent - the presenters, the real power-mongers in the ±«Óãtv.
And Editors will have influence over programme decisions, though different Editors have different approaches. Clearly, as Editor you have to make the calls on the big, risky stories. And you have to have the means in place to make sure you know all you need to know before making those big calls; and the nous to know when someone on an even higher grade than yourself should be aware of the risks you're about to take on the ±«Óãtv's behalf.
But you can't - and shouldn't - make every decision. Though you do have to be prepared to take the rap for decisions made in your absence or ignorance, even if you'd have made a different one based on the same facts. There are two phrases no Editor should ever use outside the programme. "It wasn't my fault" is one. "I didn't know" is the other. Both might be true in fact, but never can be in spirit; and anyway, the skill of the Editor lies in making sure they never are in any sense. It is your fault and you did know. Live with it.
And output editors? In the broadest sense, output editors are responsible for everything that happens on their watch. Which may be anything from a day to a couple of hours. They don't work in a vacuum, though - indeed, it's the Editor's job to make sure they don't. If the programme Editor has done the job properly, output editors will know as clearly as possible the direction they should be taking each edition of the programme.
They'll express that direction by a number of means; they'll choose the lead story and the running order... choose the guests... and the way stories are treated. They'll also be responsible for getting the best out of the team that day; running meetings and discussions creatively... chasing progress and keeping the story in sight. They'll stamp on inaccuracies and keep a mental note of fairness and balance; they'll brief reporters and presenters and give feedback after the programme.
They'll also know when to involve the Editor. Some output editors prefer to avoid discussing anything with the Editor until after transmission; others like to feel they've thrashed out their ideas - and their problems - beforehand. In all cases, though, having antennae for the possible consequences of decisions - consequences that may go way beyond a single edition of the programme - is a key requirement of both output editor and Editor. The first has to know when to consult, the second has to learn how to spot the signs that an apparently straightforward decision might turn out to be anything but.
Which leads to the final responsibility of the Editor; accountability. While the output editor will deal with the small rows around a particular programme - and some are inevitable - it is the Editor who has to explain why decisions were made or how - in spite of evidence to the contrary - the programme did uphold the highest standards and values.
Or if it didn't, apologise.
Kevin Marsh is editor of the ±«Óãtv College of Journalism
A round-up of what's being said about the ±«Óãtv in other blogs. Today, the launch of this site.
CBS Public Eye: "It appears ±«Óãtv News is hopping on the transparency bandwagon." ()
BuzzMachine: "The ±«Óãtv's new editors' blog is another move toward transparency by another big news organization and I’m glad to see it." ()
jamesAntenne: "We’ll have to see what sort of comments make it on to the blog." ()
Quite Random: "Comments on The Editors are peppered with spelling mistakes... everywhere you look, glaringly poor English." ()
The Gorse Fox: "I wonder if the blog will include dilemmas and issues regarding truth and bias." ()
I'm Simon Dickson: "There’s a risk of the editors blog becoming a bit too Points Of View, but another positive step." ()
- Liliane Landor
- 27 Jun 06, 10:33 AM
A regular entry that highlights strong ±«Óãtv journalism.
How do you cover Iraq day in day out? How do you get people interested in one explosion after another, in random, nonsensical attacks, in countless hijackings and executions? As I write I'm listening to the World Service in the background and I hear the ominous "we're just getting news..."
"...of an explosion in a crowded market in the Iraqi town of Hilla, south of the capital, Baghdad. Preliminary reports say at least fifteen people have been killed, and more than thirty others injured. Few details are available. Hilla is a mainly Shi'ite town which has witnessed a number of bombings in the last two years."
How in that context do you communicate to your listeners across the world that Iraq is not all about about deaths, and women screaming their grief at funerals - but can also be about the small random pleasures of the day today? The Iraqis are as excited as the English or the Uruguayans about the one event that's managed to bring the world together for the past 2 weeks, the World Cup.
The difference is that with a supply of 4 or 5 hours of electricity a day, you hope and pray that you can catch a football game - any game, you can’t afford to be picky - when the current comes back on or the diesel generator splutters back into life.
How do I know this? Hugh Sykes, to my mind one of Radio News' most engaging, humane reporters, has been in Baghdad for a few weeks to give one of our correspondents there a short break. Hugh knows Baghdad well; which is why he never takes risks but still manages to go out with a translator, a body guard and a tape recorder attempting to capture the human dimension of the conflict, the everyday...
Yesterday he filed an extraordinary package from a sports café in Baghdad - Café Arabia - where he sat chatting to a group of young people about the usual stuff - who they support, who they want to see win the cup etc etc. And in between shouts of "Brazil!" or "England!", you learn that not so long ago boys and girls used to play football on the streets but that it's far far too dangerous to venture out now.
He talks to a young man who idolises Beckham and carries his picture around; someone else who can recite the names of the Arsenal team past and present - and we realise that people are always anxious, tense, and very rarely venture out their neighbourhoods. Too many unpredictable dangers.
Anyway, fabulous report. You can listen to it by clicking here. A lesson in how you can humanise a conflict without even trying.
Liliane Landor is editor of World Service news and current affairs
The Telegraph: "The ±«Óãtv apologised yesterday for a hoax that provoked 70 complaints during the Queen's party for children at Buckingham Palace.." (, and more here)
The Guardian: Mark Lawson considers why David Beckham vomiting during was considered taboo by some TV executives. ()
