On with the music
I feel like one of those DJs who comes back from a break. "...And thanks to Simon who's been keeping my seat warm during the hols," they used to say through gritted teeth with an anxious eye on the ratings to see if they'd gone up. So thanks to Newsnight's Deputy Editor Daniel Pearl, whose entry on the editors' blog last week broke all box office records in terms of comments posted. Yeah, thanks a lot mate.
Actually, I could claim there's been a steadily upward trend of which Daniel has been the beneficiary. The fact is these days we get so many comments, suggestions and complaints that our webmasters Ian and Stuart are struggling to cope. They wade through the heaving inbox each morning - there were 300 odd for example after last night's Animal Testing debate
and thousands on our coverage of the - but is it really the best use of their creative minds to spend hours everyday cutting and pasting your comments on to the site? It doesn't feel very modern.
So we reckon it's time - overdue you might say - for your comments to take on a life of their own. Taking a leaf from the success of The Editors blog across ±«Óătv News, Newsnight will shortly allow you to send your comments direct to the correspondent, editor, possibly even the presenter responsible for the piece in question.
Many of you of course, , do that already - it doesn't take a genius to work out the ±«Óătv e-mail addresses go joe.bloggs@bbc.co.uk - but now you'll be able to direct your ire or appreciation to a particular piece or individual, share that with everyone else, and get into further protracted dispute with other viewers who may disagree. All guaranteed not to languish unread in an overflowing inbox.
This has caused a little DJ-like holiday disquiet to Paul Mason, Newsnight's cream cracker among bloggers - the original and still best. Paul's cult offering has been going for months and in his latest posting - not untypically titled Giotto, Giolitti, graft, Gramsci... - he muses about what might happen in Newsnight's blogosphere in his absence in Italy.
I don't think he should be too worried. As business correspondent and technology dilettante he'd be the first to question the utility these days of protectionism - though Gramsci might disagree - and I'd be amazed if there's anyone else on the programme who'll be as prolific.
The point is you'll be able to choose whether you want to read and discuss all the comments made about Newsnight pieces, or just about particular items, or the blogs of Paul or another correspondent, even - who knows - the thoughts of Daniel Pearl.
All that coming soon. In the meantime, this week's new arrival is the l, a video podcast featuring the best bits of the programme. This week's includes Monday's debate asking if there in an institutionalised bias in our reporting of the Middle East, David Grossman on political memoirs and excerpts from Thursday's Animal Rights debate from Oxford.
Tell us what you think of it, or indeed Martha's pink and white dress code.
PS I need at least 152 comments please.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Comments
Ah! The true "purpose" of the ±«Óătv editors' blog revealed: It's a competition to see which so-called editor gets the greatest number of comments. Thus we can see in all its glory the true motivation for Barron's puerile "Scottish experiment" in recent weeks. Pathetic.
What a frightfully well-written piece Mr. Barron! Almost at the level of the unbelievably excellent Daniel Pearl - almost...
Glad to see Newsnight finally getting a vodcast running, should be very handy for people like me who don't always manage to catch the show. Could it be that the Beeb are finally approaching the cutting edge of technology? It's a scarey thought!
MIddle East War Approaching!
Earlier this spring, my husband, Richard, and I were on our way up to northern Minnesota, when we saw the strangest thing. We were approaching a bridge and saw the outline of Howitzers against the sky. It was a beautiful site these tanks with their guns pointed up at a 45 degree angle against the sky, and there were lots of them.
We saw a train load of Howitzers, tanks used to fight a ground war. It was very confusing to us because we thought why do we need Howitzers. We are not involved in a ground war. I wondered if this country was preparing to invade Iran. Around that time, Iran was talking real tough about nuclear capabilities.
Richard said, "Who would need all of those Howitzers. We have not worn ours out, you need a really good war to wear out a Howitzer."
Well, guess where we are seeing those Howitzers? In the ground war that is going on in Lebanon. Yes.
So, if those are the tanks that we saw going down the tracks, heading east, that means that an order was placed for those Howitzers nine months to a year or however long it takes to put a "tank" together. And, from the time we saw the Howitzers to the war in Lebanon could have been the delivery time.
So, if what I am saying is correct that means that war that Israel started was planned. The two kidnapped soldiers were just the reason to hit Lebanon. This whole thing has been planned.
And, there's talk of hitting Syria.
I guess the president thought that we would not go for that old head fake of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," again, so he supplies Israel's military and Howitzers, encourages them to hit Lebanon, things don't go well for them, so we have to help out and of course we have to get Syria because that's where the problem is.
I think our President is setting the stage to get us involved in the another conflict in Middle East.
Time will tell. I think we will know by the end August.
Carlo
You heard it here first. Call me paranoid but that's what I think is happening here.
Peter,
All you need to do is compose an ill informed rant branding half the blogosphere as a bunch of ignoramuses who thing it's a private medium, promise (and fail) to respond to comments on other people's blogs, and generally come across as a cocky twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
That'll bump your comment rate right up. Just follow your deputy's lead.
Rob
Very interesting as usual but why, even as a 'tongue in cheek' comment, mention Martha's clothes. You don't mention any of the other presenters dress sense. A disappointing low point in an otherwise thought provoking piece.
Here's one. ;)
Podcasts, Blogs and now Vodcasts. We've gone full circle and here we are watching you on the TV again. Ever wondered what all the fuss was about?!?
At least Jeremy will be happy.
Why not out the whole Newsnight programme five days a week on podcast and vodcast?
8 down, 144 more to go.
Carlo,
Make up your mind whether you're talking about howitzers (a piece of stand-alone, non-self--propelled artillery) or tanks.
Assuming that you're more likely to know what a tank is, I deduce that what you saw were indeed tanks. There's a problem in that case since all Israeli tanks (Merkava Mk 4) are built in Israel.
Never mind. Better luck with your freaky conspiracy theories next time.
Heidi (comment 4), Peter's reference to Martha's dress code was because someone complained that her wearing pink and white was not in keeping with the tone of the programme. She mentions it in the video podcast.
"So, if those are the tanks that we saw going down the tracks, heading east, that means that an order was placed for those Howitzers nine months to a year or however long it takes to put a "tank" together. And, from the time we saw the Howitzers to the war in Lebanon could have been the delivery time.
So, if what I am saying is correct that means that war that Israel started was planned. The two kidnapped soldiers were just the reason to hit Lebanon. This whole thing has been planned."
I hate to debunk your conspiracy theory but militaries always try and get the latest weapons so that they will increase their chances of succeeding if a war breaks out (which is likely if you are surrounded by nations/groups intent on your destruction)
Regarding the pink and white dress code, will the other presenters be following Martha's lead? I agree with Heidi on that one.
I suppose one advantage of a complaint or comment aired here or on the blogosphere is that it is public (yes Daniel Pearl, a lot of us already know that), so that you can see if anyone else agrees with you. I know that plays into a herd mentality, but the internet is becoming a connected set of networks of computers and a connected set of networks of people, and blogs and their comments help to reinforce those networks.
I think the comments and feedback available through this blog, and the rest of the ±«Óătv through things like Have Your Say and Question Time's web and text access, are important features in the ±«Óătv output that help to build up a better dialogue. I hope this message isn't an indication that this public face will be going. I realise moderation is a hard process, particularly on a site as busy as this, but I do hope you can imrpove on the "copy and paste" so that this system can remain in some form, even after you add the new communications channels.
Love the idea of the video highlights, although my moment of the Newsnight week won't be on it. Newsnight Scotland talking about US arms to Israel flying through Prestwick airport.
Nothing like blogging on blogging and then having bloggers reacting to bloggers blogging on blogging to up the ratings within the blogosphere!
I actually find the comments as facinating as the original post - a joy of the blog system - as the post sparks some quite interesting discussions, and it is much easier to start to understand what some people* think.
*people that [a] are online [b] read the whichever blog I am reading.
And another!
;-)
Why mention her clothes?
It's a blog, that's why. It's an informal outpouring of the meandering thoughts of the person writing it, intended to personalise the person/programme by creating a more personal and real relationship between reader and writer.
Which they do when the writer treads that fine line between official party line and their own personal thoughts.
Long may they continue :-)
My most-hated word of internet jargon until yesterday was "podcast". Podcasts weren't new or exciting. People have been putting sound clips on their websites for years. You don't even need an i-Pod (or similar) to hear them.
Today my most-hated bit of jargon is "vodcast". Video clips have also been around online for years. They also don't require pods (or even vods, whatever they may be). The Newsnight vodcast doesn't even work on my system (Firefox running on Windoze ME).
I'm starting to think that these blogs aren't intended as a way of connecting with the internet-savvy audience at all, but are instead aimed at getting us going back to the perfectly functional box in the corner of the room. It's called a television, and is the reason I pay for a licence.
Please make use of more pointless technology; This cunning ploy is working well. Sacking the webdesign unit could save a few of Auntie's precious pennies too.
(I'm being ironic, but what goodies are you gonna give us next - the old Ceefax music while we read the homepage?)
Is podcast a euphemism as per the point of this discussion? Is it used as an alternative to a potentially offensive or damaging phrase?
Re Ian and Stuart the 'webmasters'. ]
Why do all posters comments have to be individually read by a human moderator? Human input is slow and moderation these days can be done much faster by software algorithm - at least to the extent that blog moderation can become more automated with less (but still some) human input.
A couple of thoughts to improve things. On some blogs, 'trusted' commentators can comment immediately un-moderated. To build trust, users could see a note of how many comments an individual has posted on ±«Óătv blogs in total. More posts = more 'trust'. The ability to 'rate' users contributions is also useful in moderation and the ±«Óătv already use these in their 'recommend this comment' facility. Could the software be tweaked to keep a record of the average rating of the comments of a poster of all time? More 'recommended' = higher 'trust' as a poster (the rating could be publically displayed to demonstrate the value of the user to the bbc blogging community. Any users who consistently contribute content that is negatively rated (e.g. spammers/trolls/abusive) through the 'complain about this post' facility would be easy to detect.
The bbc blog sites aren't very sticky (a measure of how long users typically spend on the blog in one visit) because a user can't have a 'conversation' with others like one can on other blogs where you comments are posted quickly, another poster replies to your comment, and another, then you reply to their comments and so on. That's entertainment. Looking at a screen that says "Thank you for your comment. This will be read by a moderator (sometime) and posted in the future (maybe)." is not.
Just some ideas because the '2 men in a garage' full-on moderation concept seems a very unsatisfactory solution, and can only lead to more disappointed commenters who are turned off bbc blogs by not seeing their comments posted quickly (if at all).
p.s. I'm enjoying reading the editors blog. Interesting insights into the minds of editors and producers.
"but is it really the best use of their creative minds to spend hours everyday cutting and pasting your comments on to the site?"
cutting and pasting comments?????
what a joke!
this is the year 2006 - not 1996 - please do try to catch up with the rest of us sometime.
The Jewish debate on your July 31st edition was fascinating as it represented the whole of humanity. Bella Freud did not know anything about the situation, so hers was an emotional reaction with which one could empathise, even though based in ignorance of the situation. So many people in this country are like Bella Freud, including many pundits and reporters.
Alain de Botton was playing his part as reasonable philosopher, who at least realised that Hezbollah cannot just been explained away as a small irritant. He also knows that Hezbollah has declared its intention to wipe out all 12-14 million of us and that being under one roof (i.e. in Israel) will make things easier for them to do this.
But Julie was the star, as she told us that she visits Haifa every year and therefore knows some of its great poets, playwrights, academics and thinkers. And does not think that Katyshas and bunkers are minor irritants.
Haifa is the great unsung hero of Israel, which is why I am emigrating there in two weeks. It should have been this Sunday, but the mayor's office told me that Hezbollah has destroyed some of the buildings in which immigrants carry out the immigration process and suggested I delay a week or two. Especially as I would not be allowed to venture out during the day.
So, what I do hope will come out of the dialogue between the three Jewish artistic types will be that media interest in Haifa and the north of Israel will continue after this debacle is hopefully put to rest soon. When the over 100 daily Katyusha rocket firings stop and when Haifa can get back to being the great experiment in Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze and Bahai cohabitation that it undoubtedly is, in life as well as in death.
And the three Jewish debaters did in my view depict what is best in Judaism: that we do care, that we do want all the killing to stop, in Israel as well as in the Lebanon, but that we know we can't do this if the result will be more deadly rockets being fired at one third of the Israeli population, equivalent to 20 million Britons. By people who have said and have meant that they want to destroy the entire Jewish people.
Just think how dull the world would be without us, even if you do find us a pain in the neck at times!
Another riveting programme last night.
Jeremy Paxman allowed the Israeli spokesman the time to complete his sentences, for once, and the feature including Michael Portillo gave a good insight into the mind of the Foreign Office. Portillo himself was far better informed about the situation than either of the other spokespeople.
And I even gave up my usual Channel 5 CSI to watch it.
If you carry on in this vein, I'll be hooked.
I have told friends in Haifa (some of whom have gone down south to look after grandchildren, as all men up to a certain age have now been called up on reserve duty) that there is some good stuff coming out of your programme at the moment.
By that, I do not mean that you are pro Israel, but I think that you are trying to be fair.
I do hope that I'm not being naive about this.
To add to the important discussion on dress code I guess there is no accounting for the taste of some viewers if they complain about what Newsnight presenters wear...
Video podcast is great btw!
Irene, you wrote yesterday (Post 21): âwe do care ⊠we do want all the killing to stop, in Israel as well as in the Lebanon, but ⊠we know we can't do this if the result will be more deadly rockets being fired at one third of the Israeli populationâ. Oh. That, I think, is questionable logic. You say you care and you want âthe killing to stop ⊠butâŠâ However, that just doesnât ring true while you are putting forward as the reason for the âbutâ nothing but repetitions of the false pretence that Israeli spokespeople have been hiding behind ever since the destruction of Lebanon began â pretending that this destruction of Lebanon and the killing of 700 Lebanese people is only being done to protect Israeli citizens from death dealt by rockets. We heard tonight on R4âs The World Tonight that a simple question had today been asked of an Israeli army spokesman: How many Hezbollah rockets had been fired on Israel before it began this war on Lebanon, since the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Thatâs in the last six years. The answer was ten. As Robin Lustig said to his Israeli inteviewee ânot much of a threatâ. Ten rockets in six years really cannot be said to be very much of a threat yet Israel embarked on the destruction of a sovereign country and on killing 700 of its people!! That means that the Israeli attack on Lebanese civilians can be judged to have been inexcusable, unjustifable terrorism. Only after Israel began this war on Lebanese civilians, has Hezbollah began firing its salvos of rockets, and 19 Israeli civilians have been killed. This is about half the number of Israeli soldiers that have been killed, and so looks a lot more more like a legitimate and proportionate reaction of self-defence than anything Israel is doing. Using only the logic you have shown in your post, these self-defending salvos should not be stopped until Israel ends its unjustifable war on Lebanon. That is not my view. However, it may well be that those firing the rockets have adopted your logic, judging by the fact that 230 rockets were fired today! I cannot see how your logic makes Israel safer than it was a month ago, can you? Until you are seeing things as they actually are and responding to them accordingly, your claim that you want the killing âto stop ... butâ sounds hollow and completely senseless where it is not just plain false. The claim that you âcareâ sounds rather more self-serving than truthful.
Oh stop picking on Martha Kearney ! With the new Armando Iannucci show hitting our screens soon, she needs all the support her friends can give her..although it will take more than a 'mini-martha' skit for her to go running to the teacher to tell tales.
The video podcast is a great idea and a good start. But two simple improvements would make it a lot more useful:
1) Enable viewers to download the previous night's programme in its entirety. This means we don't have to stay up till 11:20 each night but can rise nice and early & download it for the commute to work.
2) Make it available in different formats. A 69mb MP4 download is a bit taxing for many of us - why not offer a lower quality version with a smaller file size? If it's supposed to be newsnight 'on the go' - offer a smaller file in 3gp format for easy viewing on most mobile phones.
Attn: Peter Barron
Your referred to the name "GullY" as in Gully Burns as "improbable.
The late Irish author, Joyce Cary, wrote a darling book titled "The Horse's Mouth" which was made into a VERY sccessful and good movie starring Alex Guiness as the lead character, the talented, but excentric and anarchistic artist Gully Jimson. Check it out.