Restructuring the ±«Óătv
| 16:29 UK time, Thursday, 20 July 2006
So we at the ±«Óătv have had one of those “organisational moments”, making substantial changes to how we run ourselves.
included an emphasis on ±«Óătv Journalism as one of the main planks of what the ±«Óătv does – alongside Audio & Music and ±«Óătv Vision. The idea at the heart of ±«Óătv Journalism builds on what we’ve been doing over the last few years. We’ve worked hard to create stronger links between the ±«Óătv’s journalistic output, locally, nationally and internationally. Sport now joins the mix as well.
Our aim is to ensure we fully achieve our mission of delivering the world’s best journalism and that what we do is available to as many people as possible across all appropriate platforms.
Of course this only really matters if it makes a difference to audiences. I think it will. It should help us be more ambitious in what we do across the big themes of our time – climate change, energy supply, China, global security and many more.
When all of the ±«Óătv’s journalists work together we can give audiences an unrivalled insight into major issues. The expertise of the World Service, the innovation of our interactive teams, the grass roots understanding from our teams across the UK can all combine to strengthen our coverage of subjects ranging from immigration to the environment.
Of course it’s happened in the past but we know we can and should do more.
Secondly it’s vital that all areas of the ±«Óătv’s journalism work together as we adapt to the changing technological world. Finding the right ways of offering content and the best technology to support that content needs to be thought about across the ±«Óătv – not just in individual areas.
What we provide in terms of news services to mobiles for example is likely to cuts across boundaries of local, national and international.
In a world where greater personalisation will be one of the key themes, audiences will be in control rather than our traditional boundaries and demarcations. There will be people who regularly want a diet of news which ranges from the local to the global and we need to make sure our way of doing things supports, rather than gets in the way of, providing this.
Journalism is at the heart of why the ±«Óătv exists. The changes to the organisation reflect this and I think can only encourage anyone who wants the ±«Óătv to continue to offer the best in on-the-spot reporting, analysis and explanation, robust interviewing and original story finding.
Adrian Van-Klaveren is deputy director of ±«Óătv News
Comments
You can shake up a trash bin 'till hell freezes over but when you lift the lid, the smell will be no less offputting. The only way to restore the credibility of the once proud ±«Óătv to its former deserved reputation for objectivity and impartiality in journalism is to empty the bin altogether and start all over again. It's time for a new broom to sweep clean at Bush House.
The ±«Óătv is better than most media outlets at recognising that there is a difference between Britain and England but all too often news programmes report England only stories as if they applied to all parts of the UK
Eg tonight's ten o clock news. "The Chief medical officer says that..." Of course he is ENGLANDS CMO. We have one in Wales too - but you would never understand that from the report.
Try using "in England" in voice overs and appropriate captions "Chief Medical Officer - England "
We’ve worked hard to create stronger links between the ±«Óătv’s journalistic output, locally, nationally and internationally. Sport now joins the mix as well.
Sport will now be part of News? Will the fees paid for sports access now come out of the news budget? Will other parts of news now pay for access to events, as sports are used to doing? Will the necessary division between sport and news now entirely disappear? Will the importance of news further "lad up" all the news output, as staff need to show interest in sport as a qualification for every job, as was slipped into the recruitment policy when Radio Five was launched, neatly finding a way to disciminate against most women? Indeed, as sport is added to news, I see no sign of any awareness of the glaring need to address deficiencies in most ±«Óătv news that leave most women license-payers alienated.
The numbers of women executives, of over-dressed women presenters, and highly competent women reporters make little difference when the required approach to stories, and the news agenda is unchanged, and sports is served with almost everything.
...across all appropriate platforms
I do wonder if some of the ±«Óătv's leaders are in a fantasy on using material across platforms. Have they checked out the end-user experience? Some problems simply never get sorted out, which bodes very badly as things get yet more ambitious.
Take the very obvious, and simple example, of how 4x3 footage on some ±«Óătv digital channels is always reduced to a minature size with black either side within a letterbox because no one bothers to allow it to expand to fill the screen of viewers using 4x3 sets, which must still be the vast majority. Other broadcasters' channels have no problem doing that.
Seeing anything from the ±«Óătv's vast heritage, or new footage coming in from broadcasters who do not use 16x9, diminished like that (it of course throws away a high proportion of the pixels) is a major minus of that cross-platform usage. A very visible, and oft complained about one too, but it doesn't get sorted.
I have always been an admirer of ±«Óătv journalism both on Radio and Television - and now on the net. Errors have been made- the ±«Óătv is made of human beings-but generally corrected - an important point.
Material that has put the ±«Óătv head and shoulders above other world broadcasters and which it now outputs less and less are Drama - critical and modern as well as classical and Documentary. I hope these will not suffer further at the cost of Instant News.
Sport? There is too much of it when the proportion of viewers/listeners is analysed and compared with those interested in other things and the persistent embarrassing interviews with sports people who may be great at their game but awful at talking demand the chop for the sake of both sides.
So journalism is a key plank of the ±«Óătv ? Why are you firing journalists then ? People are smarter than to fall for PR newspeak when the facts speak for themselves.
I'm afraid that the exercise in shuffling the options is, as Jenny has suggested, a sterile one. It's like the umpteeth reshuffle by Tony, leading to nothing but upheaval. In Mr Van-Klaveren's piece there is nothing concrete about the content and quality of the news, just a headmaster's speech day report on how everything will be new and improved in future. Mr Thompson's announcement contains the same technology driven platitudes.
If the ±«Óătv cannot even get the simple technological fix of fitting the picture onto the screen right, this bodes ill for the rest of their vague and optimistic innovations.
Most people, surely, want to keep up with the national and international news at home and at work by watching a normal-sized TV, not peer into their mobile phones. There is an obsession here concerning expanding to all media. What is far more important is that the news teams are given a chance to digest some of the previous changes, instead of indulging in the permanent revolution.
As for sport, Tanith is right. I too am sick of every late evening for several weeks being dominated by snooker, then it's the football season. Not every British citizen is an avid football fan.
There is also a new trend: unfunny comedy. As far as I'm concerned, Steve Coogan, Ricky Gervais and Rob Bryson are all facets of the same comedian indulging in endless "comedy of embarrasment". If you need to Alan Sugar a few employees, you could start here.
The ±«Óătv should be Britain-centred, with strong news coverage, especially on TV (as opposed to mobiles, blogs, and all the other technological stuff). Secondly, it should keep the impartial international news coverage that the ±«Óătv has gained a reputation for worldwide. It should stop pandering the the lowest common denominator and stop chasing ratings. Let the privayte channels do that.
One of the best news programmes on the ±«Óătv is Newsnight. But even that is threatened by the "innovators" (read: wreckers) who have of late been trying to introduce a surfeit of trivia into the programme such as the Gordaq and Stephen Smith's unusual interviews. Panorama is still excellent - and hasn't substantially changed for decades. Question Time and This Week blend seriousness with a bit of fun - but it's the seriousness that counts.
This whole ±«Óătv innovative innovation business seems like an episode from "The Office" with Ricky Gervais managing not to convince his fellow employees of a series of things.
Let me say bluntly: I had no confidence in the look of Mark Thompson when he was appointed, and my opinion has not changed. I fear that he will wreck the ±«Óătv with his endless meddling and tinkering, instead of consolidating news coverage and keeping the key areas as they are.
Oh, and while you're at it, get rid of such deeply patronising "reality TV" programmes as "Excuse My French". The level of French which people like Esther Rantzen have hysterics over while literally putting their feet up is that which probably millions of Europeans have already attained in English.
The m[or]onolingual Brits pride themselves on being the best in the world at making "hilarious" programmes out of what is quite normal the other way round. If the expression "get real" has any meaning, it certainly does here. So please create more programmes teaching Blightymongers to speak French, German, Italian and Spanish, pronto like, and dump this silly experiment.