ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

It's what we call a 'hardy annual'.

Every year, we cover the results of the Academy Awards, live from LA. Every year, it draws strong audience figures, yet appears to divide our audience.

This year was no different.

On the plus side, we had good figures on Monday. Kate Silverton's interview with Dame Helen Mirren (watch it here), live from the red carpet at the Vanity Fair party, was rebroadcast across the day and was also one of the most downloaded bits of video on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News website. We had a big email and text response from viewers who really appreciated the live interviews, which also included James McAvoy, Michael Sheen, Kate Winslett, Sam Mendes and Beyonce.

Others felt we had gone over the top, complaining that there was "too much Oscar coverage" and fearing that "licence fee money is being wasted".

I've responded to a few of those who emailed to complain, but thought I ought to blog about it as well.

Firstly, is it 'news'? I say yes.

Dame Helen Mirren is a household name here in Britain, but to win in the coveted 'Best Actress' category in America has to rank as a very significant achievement. The film industry is important to the economy of course, but above all I think it's about covering popular culture. If you were to strip popular culture out of news, you'd end up with something that bears little relation to peoples' lives. And, of course, we still covered the rest of the news, as on any day.

Did we do too much? Probably. But it's an event that is happening as we are on air and we know from all our research that viewers like to see live coverage, even if it's a bit rough and ready, of live events. Interviews with stars of the calibre seen on that red carpet are very rare, so it presents a great opportunity for us.

Why did we send Kate? Another question that was asked more than once. We always send a Breakfast reporter to the Oscars. This year, we sent Kate instead. She was effectively there as our reporter, with the added advantage that she could 'co-present' the programme. She worked tirelessly - with live inserts last Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as well as on Monday morning. The 'sit down' interviews she conducted included Clint Eastwood and Dame Helen, along with Cate Blanchet, Ralf Little and even the throaty voiceover man who does most of those Hollywood film trailers. She also presented a special for ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24.

Her dress? It was borrowed, as we made a point of saying on a number of occasions. Most of those who got in touch absolutely loved it, although some people missed seeing her wearing her trademark specs.

Will we do it again next year? Certainly. And will some people complain?...

It's a hardy annual.

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has been given the provisional go-ahead for its free digital satellite service. ()

Manchester Evening News: β€œThe future for Salford and the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is revealed in this exclusive first detailed view of the new Media City.” ()

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, , shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Can a nation be guilty of genocide? A question we looked at last night following the verdict of the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) that Serbia was not directly responsible for the massacre at Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. The Bosnian government had taken neighbouring Serbia to court to try to prove Belgrade was guilty of war crimes in the war of 1992-95.

The finding of the court was finely balanced in that it did find that what happened at Bosnian Muslim-held town Srebrenica when it fell to Bosnia Serb forces in 1995 was genocide (up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys are thought to have been killed) and while ruling that Belgrade was not guilty of committing that genocide it also ruled that Serbia was guilty of not preventing genocide - so there was something for everyone in the decision.

This was reflected in the discussion on last night's World Tonight (listen here) between Anthony Dworkin (director of the Crimes of War project) and John Laughland (who wrote "Travesty: the trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the corruption of international justice," which is highly critical of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, (ICTY) which tries individuals, rather than states as the ICJ does). They both found something to praise in the decision of the ICJ - but not the same thing.

One of the key questions that came up was whether a whole state representing a nation - such as the Serbs - can be held responsible for what happened in the past when their country was led by a undemocratic leaders? Not a new question when we think back to the Treaty of Versailles and the imposition of reparations on Germany after World War One, but it is very pertinent today as the international community struggles with what to do about Kosovo and Iraq.

In Kosovo for example, the United States and Britain argue that the Serbs have to let Kosovo go because the Serbs have lost the moral right to govern the majoriity Albanian population following the violence and repression by the government of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s. Meanwhile in Iraq, the British and Americans argue that the international community should forgive most of the debts the country incurred under Saddam Hussein because the people of Iraq should not have to pay the price of the policies of the former dictator.

Tonight we are looking at the decision of the newly established International Criminal Court to name individuals indicted for war cirmes in Darfur - which is the other route to seeking justice for war crimes: go for the individual rather than the state.

But - as you may have anticipated - this approach is also criticised, often because in the case of ICTY some of the big fish have yet to face trial (Ratko Mladic) or have died while on trial (Slobodan Milosevic) and only the smaller fish ever get convicted. (Before you ask what about Saddam Hussein, I have omitted him here as his trial was not an international trial, but as you will remember his trial was crticised by the UN among others for not being fair).

Anyway, these are arguments that have been aired on The World Tonight among other ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ programmes and will continue to be as Darfur, Kosovo and Iraq remain unresolved.

Britain was a nation of animal lovers. Or was it shopkeepers?

And an Englishman's home was his castle.

But in 2007, have we become a Kingdom united by our love of the car?

Just mention a topic about cars on the radio first thing in the morning, and the response is instantaneous. It might be road pricing, car parking, the cost of petrol or, like this morning, the use of a mobile phone while driving.

Hell hath no fury like a motorist scorned - or at least told by someone else how to behave behind the wheel. Our text service runs hotter that the tarmac on the M25 in the middle of July, the e-mails more jammed than the M6 in the rush-hour.

The anti-car lobby tries to be heard from the sidelines, but it tends to be about as effective as a bicycle bell against a cacophony of car horns. The roar of the traffic drowns out most other opinions.

With more cars on the roads than ever before, we probably shouldn't be surprised. But - after nearly two million people were sent an e-mail by the prime minister because they petitioned the Downing Street website - it seems motorists are learning the power of putting their collective foot down.

We'll keep putting other opinions on air too, but is there a risk they'll increasingly be drowned out by the supporters of the right to drive? Jeremy Clarkson for PM?

The Sun, Daily Mail and others: Reports on Tuesday night's Watchdog report into security at airport car park valet services. ()

Daily Star: Mediawatch UK criticises level of violence in films shown on British TV. (No link available)

Daily Mirror: Report on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ activities for World Book Day. (No link available)

Guardian: Report says TV soaps should include more politics. ()

Washington Post: Review of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World by Howard Kurtz.()

Independent: Review of Richard D North's book Scrap the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ! ()

The Guardian: β€œFrustrated by government jamming and dwindling audience figures, staff at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's China service are worried about an increasingly uncertain future.” ()

The Scotsman: Reports on comments by former ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News presenter Michael Buerk looking at what kind of society it would be if the rise of the internet saw the end of national newspapers and serious television journalism. ()

Daily Mail: Reports on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24 presenter Kate Silverton's appearance at the Oscars and asks whether news is dumbing down using glamorous reporters. ()

Former ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ correspondent Robin Aitken has written a stimulating book on his experiences of working in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ - "Can we trust the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ?" Last night I appeared in debate with him in London.

Robin's case, to simplify massively, is that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is full of left-leaning journalists who produce left-leaning news that is anti-European, anti-monarchist, anti-prison, pro-immigrant, anti-market, pro-public spending etc etc.

Robin delivered his polemic with brio. He is clearly enjoying the role as a controversialist, freed from the constraints of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ impartiality. But I argued that his book wouldn't pass muster as a piece of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalism, as it was strongly anecdotal and not based on firm evidence.

If the question is "Can we trust the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ?", the evidence shows most people do trust the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Survey after survey indicates the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is significantly more trusted than other broadcasters and more trusted than any national newspaper. The public which trusts the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ includes many readers of right-of-centre newspapers. Those people clearly distinguish between a newspaper that might reinforce their views and the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's role in providing an impartial perspective.

However I acknowledged in the debate that there are subjects where the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has been too slow in reflecting the full range of public perspectives - in particular over immigration and Europe. I argued that that shortfall derives not from the personal perspectives of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalists, whatever that may be, but from the particular institutional position of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Its relationship with parliamentary politics, while fully independent, has always been a close one and the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has tended historically to operate within the parameters of formal politics.

However the range of opinions in an increasingly fragmented population and the technologies, such as texting and e-mail, which allow these diverse opinions to be more easily expressed have obliged us to shift the balance between formal politics and public politics. This disparity has been one of the factors behind our coverage over the years on Europe and immigration. Opinion surveys show there has been a gap between the range of views within Parliament and the range of public opinion.

The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's commitment to interactivity - for instance through this site's section, through texts to Five Live, Radio 1 Newsbeat and News 24 - is providing an important new element that is feeding directly into our journalism. Although that can only ever be one influence on our editorial decision-making and in the end, we are paid to apply our judgment.

But listening to audiences more and being open to public criticism through debates and blogs (such as this) are ways in which we are able to demonstrate openness. We hope that greater openness will mean that the trust we already receive from audiences can be maintained and strengthened.

To one of its former assistant editors, Five Live sounds too much like neutered populism. Tim Luckhurst – – says his qualm is that Five Live is pursuing a strategy that will render it indistinguishable from commercial chat radio. Tim is billed in the Sindie as one of the Five Live launch team – and maybe that’s the issue. It’s inevitable and right that Five Live should have changed since its launch. Let it go Tim. We’ve moved on - and so should you. Some things remain the same though. Five Live still has at its heart a wish to reach an audience that much of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ finds it hard to reach – a non-metropolitan, diverse, working-class audience; not so much middle England as ordinary Britain.

How do we try to do that? It’s always been about accessible journalism, and about tone and style. In more recent years it’s also been about interactivity. Radio has always been good at interactivity, and Five Live has always been good at phone-ins – seeking expertise and compelling testimony rather than shouted opinions. But in the several years since Tim left us Five Live developed other links with the audience – email and even more importantly text messaging. Peter Allen called texters β€œour army of reporters” years before someone clever came up with the phrase β€œuser-generated content”.

We’re now trying to deepen and further enrich our relationship with the audience. Tim Luckhurst’s piece was based on an interview with the controller of Five Live, Bob Shennan, who told him we’re doing more news that evolves from our close relationship with our listeners. That’s dead right. But it doesn’t mean, as Tim seems to think, that we won’t cover breaking news or use ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Newsgathering correspondents. He quotes the inevitable β€œone ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ producer” as saying β€œI can list correspondents who have not appeared on Five Live for over a year. It is not on their radar. Many programmes have abandoned serious news.”

Well, I can list correspondents who are on Five Live all the time. People like the home editor, Mark Easton, who joined the panel for our recent live immigration debate in Blackburn; the security correspondent, Frank Gardner, whose two-ways with Peter Allen are a particular joy; the defence correspondent, Paul Wood, who helped us tie down a recent audience-led story about the cost of posting parcels to troops abroad; the business editor, Robert Peston, who was discussing the OFT report on drug pricing on Breakfast only this week; Mihir Bose, the sports editor who kept us in close touch with whether Sheikh Mohammed was going to buy Liverpool Football Club. I could go on and on. What about Jeremy Bowen keeping Simon Mayo’s audience up to speed on the Middle East? Where are these programmes that have abandoned serious news? Not on Five Live.

Tim Luckhurst says an insider told him β€œManagers define [Five Live] as sport and talk.” I haven’t met those managers. But if they’re out there – or rather, if they’re in here – they’re wrong. Five Live is as committed as ever to robust journalism, to covering breaking news and to a broad agenda. Of course, every broadcast service evolves over time and Tim is right that things aren’t the same now as they were in his day. The media landscape has changed and so have we.

When Martha Kearney told me she had landed the job of main presenter on Radio 4's World at One, my first thought was that I couldn't think of anyone better suited for that role, or of a better move for Martha. My second was a mixture of emotion and panic.

Emotion because since 1994 Martha has been such an integral part of the Newsnight experience, both on the screen and in the office. As political editor she could often be seen pacing around after 10pm, putting in last calls to ministers and anxiously waiting for her paged messages to bear fruit. Very often she would then pop up on air with an exclusive new line or ministerial quote.

Politics is her big love, but she is more of a renaissance woman than that. She reads novels like other people breathe, bakes cakes, keeps bees, can decline Latin nouns - frequently does - and has a highly satisfactory knowledge of 70s new wave music.

Panic because Martha goes at a moment you wouldn't call quiet. Blair's departure, Brown's arrival, loans for peerages, elections a-go-go, Ming in trouble, possibly even Cameron's policies. Martha, we're going to miss you, but look forward to hearing about it all on WATO.

Daily Telegraph: β€œMartha Kearney will succeed the late Nick Clarke as presenter of Radio 4's The World At One.” ()

Financial Times: Reports that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust has delayed its decision on whether the international website will carry adverts. ()

The Guardian: β€œThe ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has been named as the UK's strongest business brand ahead of Google, Apple and British Airways, according to Superbrands' top 500 report.” ()

The Guardian:Reports on leaked ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ internal e-mails following the RTS awards, with allegations of juries being biased and unfair results. ()

The Times: Dan Sabbagh comments on why the job ahead for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust and chairman should not be that of a regulator but to listen to the audience. ()

Last weekend, excerpts from a book by former ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ reporter Robin Aitken were published in a Sunday newspaper (). He wrote that being a Tory in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ was "the loneliest job in Britain", and claimed that the ideal at the heart of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan , had "all but disappeared".

Naturally I disagree with Robin on this. But tonight I'm taking the plunge and discussing with him and others whether the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is institutionally biased (). I'll let you know how I get on.

I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, a source had told him that we were in a β€œin a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline β€œβ€

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that , together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

β€œAttacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

In fact of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.

And this Sunday, series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.

The Guardian: "The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust is set to indicate whether its international website will be allowed to run adverts." ()

Marketing Week: "SNP politicians are lobbying for an independent Scottish Broadcasting Corporation to replace the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, if the nation wins independence." (no link available)

What makes a good news camera operator?

For me there are four key areas...

1) A good eye. Some have it - some don’t. It’s the ability to spot the telling shot and frame it either beautifully or in a compelling way.
2) Journalistic instinct - filming something to create an arresting narrative.
3) Technical ability - sounds obvious, but frequently they find themselves in some of the most inhospitable conditions on earth. If you can't make the machinery work in those conditions, you’re finished.
4) Bravery - when you’re capturing something important, you are often in dangerous circumstances.

One camera operator has all the above and more in spades. He is called Darren Conway (DC to anyone who really knows him) and last night he won the Royal Television Society award for Camera Operator of the Year.

His portfolio included extraordinary images that have been described as "burning themselves onto the viewer's retina." From coming under fire in the Lebanon to living with Pastoralists in the Turkana he captured the defining images of last year. He is an extraordinary camera operator and one of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's greatest assets.

For those who take an interest in these things, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News website just passed another statistical milestone - for the first time we served over one billion (1000m) pageviews in a month. (Yes, we’ve been keeping count of them all). For those who don't take an interest - time for you to move on to the next blog entry ...

But, for the interested: To give you an idea of how this compares with past months and years, it took us about two years before we served the first one billion pageviews. Our first 100m month was in June 2000 and our first 500m month was in March 2004. It'll be ten years this autumn since the site launched - who'd have predicted these kinds of figures for online news back in 1997?

As a snapshot of a nation's insecurity over the way we look, our Radio 1 'body image' survey has got people talking. Half of all the young women who took part in our online questionnaire for Newsbeat and our sister station 1Xtra would consider plastic surgery. A third of size 12s think they are overweight - and nearly half the respondents had skipped meals to slim.

This wasn't just a small scale snapshot either: with 25,000 responses this is the largest, albeit self-selecting, survey of body image among the UK's young adults. As you would expect from Radio 1, the vast majority of respondents were aged under 35. Body image, and problems that stem from it - including eating disorders and depression - are very much a running theme to our journalism on Radio 1.

There are some who are very surprised by all this. One woman outside our target audience age range confided in me her despair: so much for living in a post feminist world - today's women seem so much more self critical than our generation. Who's to blame? Is it the media? An obsession with the size zero super skinny models? Shops that seldom seem to stock larger sizes and push large volumes of size eights and 10s at the front of their displays? Or is a sign of youthful insecurity?

You'll have your own views and the men have theirs too: one listener got in touch to ask "am I the only guy in this twisted country that thinks size 14 is sexy?". Plenty of others told us how much they loved their girlfriends for their "sexy curves", but some of them admitted that despite that the women thought of themselves as fat and ugly. So male praise isn't working then. (I'm still not popular for attempting to reassure my friend that her size 12 was two sizes below the nation's average size. Big mistake for raising it. Ouch.)

And although far fewer men are unhappy about their appearance - the quest for the perfect body isn't confined to the female sex: one in five men in their early twenties had tried bulking up in the gym with protein supplements, and 80% of blokes thought the ideal body image was one of a very muscular physique. Incidentally, reassuringly for the skinny blokes, more than a quarter of women who took part in the survey thought that was the male body beautiful.

The Herald: β€œThe ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ came in for a cyclone of criticism yesterday after a weatherman described the Western Isles as β€˜nowheresville’.” ()

The Guardian: β€œΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ staff campaigning against the proposals for adverts on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ.com have made a final call for the director general, Mark Thompson, to abandon the scheme.” ()

Daily Mail: Reports that ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ security correspondent Frank Gardner, who has been wheelchair-bound since being shot by al-Qaeda in 2004, presented a report standing up. ()

The ANC - South Africa's ruling party - has accused the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ of being racist for reporting the country's crime problem (more details ).

The truth, as ever, is a touch more complicated. Its has criticised a report by World Affairs Editor John Simpson, which ran on the eve of President Thabo Mbeki's "State of the Union" address. Curiously the article says we didn't mention urban renewal or real estate investment, instead choosing to focus on the country's 50 murders a day.

It's true.

But a few months ago, following the World Cup in Germany, Africa Correspondent Orla Guerin reported on the economic growth taking place ahead of the 2010 tournament, to be held in South Africa. Her colleague Peter Biles recently reported on Johannesburg's inner-city regeneration for "Africa Works" for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World Service - the clue is in the title; it was a landmark series reflecting the successes of the continent.

John Simpson and his team spent five days gathering material in Johannesburg and Soweto. In the opening lines of his report, John Simpson made clear that the modern South Africa is a thriving optimistic society; he used the findings of opinion polls which suggest that despite the high levels of crime and AIDS, there's optimism that the problems can be solved; he filmed at a Soweto school where pupils are ambitious and optimistic, despite the problems they face. The opening lines of his piece say that some of the gleaming skyscrapers in downtown Johannesburg were empty. The green glass Garden Court Hotel which appears on screen when the line is delivered, is empty; so too is the Carlton Hotel, which an official web-site describes as 'mothballed' waiting re-development.

We wanted to put some of the points to the government - we asked for the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, no-one was made available for interview.

The ANC newsletter says the - South Africa's national broadcaster - "would have absolutely no problem" focusing on the particular areas of London where crime is a big issue. Nor would the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Indeed in the last week, we've broadcast a number of pieces on gun-crime in South London and beyond. But there's no question that crime is a real issue in South Africa. John Simpson's report touched a raw nerve - but to liken the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's report to "the most die-hard racists in the country" is absurd.

We're proud to be part of the modern South Africa - our bureau chief in Johannesburg was brought up in Soweto, and is South African himself. In the United States, on the eve of the President's address to Congress, we explored the State of the Union - similarly in the UK at the State Opening of Parliament. It is surely right that we subject South Africa to the same sort of scrutiny as we do Britain and the United States. It's not racism - but the sign of a modern, vibrant, successful democracy.

Judge for yourself by clicking here.

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the ANC has criticised the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ for being racist, after a news report by John Simpson on violent crime in South Africa. ()

The Guardian: β€œTop Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has attacked ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ executives over a plan to make all company car users go on a "safe drivers" course.” ()

Persuading Tony Blair to come into TV Centre and do a major ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ1 interview, live, with no restrictions or caveats on the question areas is an achievement. Getting the PM to say something new on one of the key issues of the day is another matter altogether.

Jon Sopel, battled valiantly last month trying to get the prime minister to say when he was leaving office, who would succeed him and how much his closing months were being overshadowed by the Cash for Honours enquiry. Very pertinent questions received pretty un-illuminating responses. So, how to get some answers that would leave viewers wiser about government policy, the PM's intentions or his legacy?

First, we decided to limit the area of questions to a small number of the topics that would - in an ideal world - be raised. Getting answers on inequality in society after ten years of a Labour government, the Iraq war, climate change and the PM’s legacy - leaving out other great swathes of domestic and foreign policy. Giving Andrew Marr time to question the PM closely on those issues that were raised.

Secondly, we tried to stick with it when the interviewee was gently veering off in another direction, and answering a question that was subtly different to one he'd just been asked.

Thirdly, we aimed to curb Andrew's natural inclination to intervene while the PM was talking. We were hoping to avoid the tetchy exchanges that might still fail to produce that elusive illumination.

So, what success this Sunday? That's more for the viewer to assess than the producers (you can watch the interview here). However, the PM did talk animatedly about inequality in society, denying David Cameron's assessment. He did admit that he was "devastated" by the killings in Iraq, and did indicate that he expected the British plans for troop withdrawal to continue even if the Americans were busy pouring in more troops. And he did map out his commitment to climate control indicating that this would be a focus of attention post-Downing Street.

And was it too sugary at the end? Both Art Garfunkel and the PM both had reservations in advance about sitting down and chatting - on camera - with the other. In the event, after an interview that was a bit scratchy at times, it seemed right to end with a minute of warm exchanges. And you could argue that finding out that the PM still plays guitar "most days" adds something to the sum total of human knowledge. Well, just a bit.

The Independent: Columnist Raymond Snoddy on what the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ must do for its employees. ()

The Guardian: Steve Hewlett questions whether the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iPlayer is already out of date. ()

The Independent on Sunday: Former Five Live assistant editor Tim Luckhurst asks whether the station is β€œbecoming just a populist, lavishly funded competitor to commercial chat radio”. ()

Sunday Mirror: β€œThe ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's Shipping Forecast is being released - as a dance track.” ()

Mail on Sunday: Excerpts from former ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalist Robin Aitken's book on being a Tory working at the corporation. ()

I certainly agree with the comments about the need to remember how tragic the events of 9/11 were.

There should be no escaping the fact that nearly three thousand innocent people lost their lives that day.

But I don’t think that respect for the victims and their relatives is a reason to avoid reporting why so many innocent people lost their lives.

It does mean that we should report sensitively.

We hope we have done so in our film about 9/11. And we hear from the sister of a man who lost his life at the World Trade Centre. It is important that the voice of people such as Cheryl Shames is heard.

You cannot ignore the fact that there are a lot of questions about what exactly happened on 9/11.

Chris Townsend makes the valid point that the sheer number of conspiracies should not be mistaken for the depth and breadth of evidence supporting them.

But again I don’t think that is a reason to avoid investigating the questions that have been raised. In fact I think the sheer number of questions is one reason why they should be properly investigated.

I think that any subsequent investigation should be based firmly on the evidence. And we have tried wherever possible to speak to eyewitnesses and to find hard documentary evidence.

Have a look at our section on our website, where we have set out the arguments for and against, and the evidence we have found.

You’ll have to watch on Sunday and make your own mind up how well we answered the many questions that have been raised.

On Tuesday, ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ news programmes all reported - that they experience significantly lower levels of personal kindness than children in many other countries. On Wednesday, programmes began to report the death of 15-year-old Billy Cox, itself a pretty extreme example of lack of personal kindness.

In TV News it was discussed intensively on Thursday morning as to how these stories might be connected and what the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's responsibilities are. In particular, how to report a crime that could potentially make our children feel more vulnerable and in turn create the circumstances where fear and further crime increase?

In raising this question, some journalists were anxious in case we downplayed or suppressed a story that is clearly dramatic and important. So we discussed ways in which the shooting could be reported fairly but minimised the impact on children. We talked about a number of creative treatments, many of which influenced our subsequent coverage:

β€’ Give the context that gun crime has been falling in London.
β€’ Explain that gun crime is concentrated predominantly in small parts of our main cities.
β€’ Hear from adults and children who are taking action against crimes.
β€’ Work closely with colleagues in areas like Newsround and 1Xtra who have better contacts and experience.
β€’ Take advice from ethnic minority colleagues who may have a fresh perspective on the story.
β€’ Explain the language and assumptions in reports. For instance, exactly what is a gang?
β€’ Constantly question whether the writing and reporting creates negative stereotypes of children that go beyond what is justified by the facts.

There is no doubt that the simple headline fact of a 15-year-old shot in his own home may alarm many parents but the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ surely has a responsibility not to add unnecessarily to the anxieties seen so vividly in Unicef's report on the state of mind of our young.

Catholics set to pass Anglicans as leading UK church - that was the in the Times on Thursday - the story was based on a report from Cambridge University into the lives of Catholic immigrants, which also predicted that the number of regular Catholic churchgoers will soon overtake Anglicans on present trends. It was not a story - or rather a prediction - that got much coverage on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Why?

In our editorial meeting, one of the team had pitched it as a story, but in between the government's over its consultation on nuclear power or Peter Hain's on inequality, the consensus was it didn't quite make it as a story for that day's programme.

Earlier in the day, I was doing a Q&A for a training workshop for journalists where we were discussing The World Tonight's editorial agenda and the question of whether the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's coverage of religion and religious issues is fair came up, following recent criticism of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's journalism from some of the churches and other religious groups.

This got me thinking. Are we fair in the way we cover religions and religious issues? Now, I don't accept the idea put forward by prominent Christians that there is a secular ideology that prevents religions and religious viewpoints from getting a fair hearing. To me, the use of the term ideology presumes some kind of organised system of thought, while it seems to me that the real concern of organised religions is that in pluralistic societies their beliefs are afforded equivalence with any or all other beliefs while the nature of faith is such that it precludes a relativist approach.

But coming back to the editorial meeting, I wonder whether we decided the story about attendances at Catholic Church being set to overtake those of their Anglican equivalents didn't make it, not because we are followers of a secular ideology, but because many of us lack empathy with the religious worldview, and so we underestimate the importance of religious stories, unless they relate to other more political issues like equal rights for homosexuals or women - hence we cover the debate over the Catholic Church's for their adoption agencies to opt out of anti-discrimination legislation or the in the Anglican church over attitudes to homosexuality.

If this is the case, then it is surprising given the increasingly important role of religion in world affairs over the past two decades or so.

Daily Mail: Richard Littlejohn responds to Kevin Marsh’s recent comments here about his column. ()

The Guardian: β€œAshley Highfield, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's director of future media and technology, has outlined plans that could see the iPlayer available via TV, and indicate how the corporation hopes to secure the future of Freeview.” ()

The Independent: Interview with Newsnight’s political editor, Martha Kearney. ()

Daily Mail: Columnist Richard Kay on the dilemma for Kate Silverton who’s going to be reporting at the Oscars which coincides with a 24-hour ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ strike. ()

The Guardian: John Tusa on the job facing the new ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ chairman, whoever they may be. ()

It's a shocking headline: British children have, apparently, a worse childhood than those in 20 other developed countries, .

And, though you can nitpick about certain details, the detailed findings seem to support the headline. Unicef studied at , and at every stage - whether objective statistics or children's subjective views - Britain came out poorly.

Why? That's got to be the main question occupying policy-makers, journalists and analysts. Many people will be suggesting solutions, but one thing is sure: many of those doing the commentating (myself included) will be writing and speaking from comfortable middle class homes and well-paid secure jobs.

In my spare time I am involved in a voluntary group which has given me some insight into these difficult lives. But I'm still not really exposed to the true scale of poverty, conflict, break-up, abuse, deprivation, lack of expectation, lack of education, lack of support, peer pressure, parental pressure, educational pressure, discontent and dissatisfaction that affects millions of children in Britain.

We got a taste of that last year on Newsround when we talked to children living in deep poverty and made a series of animations about their lives. It's been a privilege to see reappear this week - they tell a powerful story.

But more than that, we believe that on Newsround we have a crucial role in giving children aged six to 12 a voice. One of the problems with today's report is that it will prompt yet more hand-wringing by parents, legislators, journalists and educators. This is definitely part of the problem: the pressure being put on children today. They feel miserable about their lives because they think they aren't wanted, valued and or doing anything right. There's an amazing good-news story about improving exam results, for instance, and yet every summer it's knocked down as "exams getting easier" and woolly coursework. What do children have to do to be liked and respected by adults?

We are working on more ways to allow children to give their side of the story. You can read our to get an insight into what some of our children think. We are supporting the Children's Society, which has launched a to allow children to feed their thoughts into the Good Childhood inquiry. We are thinking of child-friendly ways to allow children to contribute, on their terms, and not just as punchbags in an adult arena.

This is something I care about deeply. Your take on this would be fascinating.

Lots of questions have been raised about 9/11:

Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall so small and why was there so little damage to the outer wall?

Why does it look like there is no plane at the crash site in Pennsylvania where flight United 93 came down?

Why did a building called World Trade Centre Building 7 collapse even though it was never hit by an aircraft?

And why was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?

Through the internet and the media generally, allegations of complicity by the US government in the 9/11 attacks are intensifying.

We've just finished a new series called which will start this Sunday on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Two at 9pm with a programme about 9/11.

We’ve talked to a number of the people who question the official version.

Dylan Avery, the 23-year-old film-maker behind the internet film Loose Change says the US government β€œwill willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.”

Alex Jones, a Texan nationally syndicated radio talk show host, tells the programme β€œ9/11 is an inside job… a false-flag terror operation.”

Jim Fetzer, former US marine and retired university professor, who helped found a coalition of academics called Scholars for 9/11 Truth repeats the Sherlock Holmes quotation β€œwhen you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

There has been an official fightback of sorts.

President Bush is imploring people to reject conspiracy theories: β€œLet us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” which he said were β€œmalicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”

The US State Department has a to debunk conspiracy theories – not just about 9/11 but a whole range of stories circulating on the internet.

But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities.

Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Trying to prove or disprove these alternative theories is not easy.

Officials are loathe to engage, thinking that any response will only fan the flames of popular conspiracy theories, and yet no response seems to be worse still.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States investigating the allegations and talking to witnesses wherever possible.

Ultimately you can’t beat speaking to eyewitnesses, such as the local coroner at Shanksville, Wally Miller.

Wally Miller tells the programme how comments he made about the wreckage at Shanksville have been misquoted on the internet by people who do not β€œtake the trouble to come here and ask me about it.”

Miller is quoted as saying, β€œI stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there”; yet he also said it was perfectly clear that the manner of death was a plane crash, and the point he was trying to make was that it had become a large funeral service.

The Conspiracy Files also talked to Senator Bob Graham who co-chaired the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 which detailed the failure of the CIA and FBI to use intelligence it had received about Al Qaeda before the attacks.

Senator Graham told us there was a β€œcollaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.”

β€œWithin 9/11 there are too many secrets” adding that β€œwithholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence’ in security”.

And crucially we may not have learned about that conspiracy without the questioning of every aspect of the official version.

Daily Telegraph: β€œThe ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has spent another Β£700,000 of licence payers' money replacing its on-screen links between programmes.” ()

The Guardian: Simon Jenkins comments on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ coverage of the bird flu outbreak in Suffolk. ()

Is journalism – including ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ journalism – β€˜on the side of’ civil liberties? Or at least, on the side of free speech?

A question worth putting after the Sun twice asked last week β€œwhose side are these guys on?” ... meaning, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. It was first prompted by a correspondent on the Ten O’Clock News reminding viewers that the Birmingham terror arrests were β€œan intelligence-led operation. Intelligence can be wrong". Forest Gate? Jean Charles de Menezes?

Then, after one of those men arrested - and released a week later – appeared on Radio 4's Today programme, the Sun :

"It sometimes seems the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ would prefer terrorists to succeed than for an innocent man to be briefly held without charge. In their politically correct bubble, intelligence is always flawed and anti-terror action is inevitably heavy-handed. So the release of two suspects held over the alleged plot to behead a British Muslim soldier was a gift from heaven."

Over at the Daily Mail, columnist Richard Littlejohn to Abu Bakr's using his freedom to say on Today that Britain was β€˜a police state for Muslims’.

Littlejohn’s logic was tortured: mind, it was the same column in which he found it hard to condemn bomb attacks on government offices ... so long as not too many people weren’t too badly hurt.

I quote:

β€œBe honest, until you heard that a woman had been injured, how many of you suppressed a cheer at the news someone had sent a letter bomb to the company which runs London's congestion charge?

…

Even after we learnt that two men were treated for blast injuries, I'll bet that there were still plenty of motorists who thought: serves the bastards right.”

Two things made Abu Bakr a bit β€˜dodge’ apparently; one, that he seemed β€˜very well briefed’ and two, that he was represented by one of Britain’s best known civil liberties lawyers. He should have made it a fair fight and engaged a copyright lawyer, I suppose.

Littlejohn is, of course, wrong footed by the inconvenience that, in the eyes of the law, Abu Bakr is as innocent as anyone … perhaps even more innocent than someone with an ambiguous stance on blowing up government offices.

It would, he argues, have been ok to interview Abu Bakr if the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ had a record of interviewing, let’s say, the (innocent) associates of gangsters.

ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Head of TV News, Peter Horrocks, posted here last Monday that it’s β€œnot the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s job to take sides”.

Sort of.

If journalism is about anything it is about free speech. No-one would – or should - question the right of Sun leader writers and Mail columnists to speak freely. If predictably.

It’s the same right that allows the pub bigot to void his spleen in the snug … or an innocent bookshop employee like Abu Bakr to tell Today that he thinks he and his fellow Muslims don’t enjoy the same civil liberties that, say, Richard Littlejohn enjoys. However offensively well-briefed his argument seems.

The Mail and the Sun are in that great tradition of punchy, gobby, misguided, opinionated, rabble-rousing journalism in this country – and long may it survive. Long may they keep their right to be wrong.

But that right applies to every individual and it's the job of journalists to support it; the freedom to speak, to be treated fairly and according to the law and to be free to live a life unburdened by prejudice.

There’ll always be forces pressing to take those liberties away; there’s always been a new β€˜crisis’ that means this age is different from all that went before. The pieces will always be in flux …

But when journalists write leaders and columns against freedom of speech … you really do have to wonder whose side they’re on.

The Herald: Feature asking whether Top Gear stunts cross the boundary of bad taste. ()

Belfast Telegraph: Reports that Radio Five Live presenter Steve Nolan said live on air that he’d smoked cannabis. ()

has picked up on a recent report highlighted by about internet use in US schools. The report by the on the Future of Journalism Education says national and international news websites (and it mentions the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ as one of the examples) are overtaking TV news and local papers as a means of teaching in the classroom.

There’s a system of Newspaper-in-Education programmes which for years has been β€œa vehicle through which US papers provide free or reduced rate copies of their paper for classroom use in order to enhance students’ civic education and encourage them to become lifelong newspaper readers.”

The report says most of the people running the programmes are not fully aware of β€œthe threat the internet poses to their programmes" and warns that a result could ultimately be the weakening of local communities as well as their papers.

Two things struck me about this:

1. If schoolchildren are using the internet to get a wider view of the world and its news that can only be a good thing, and in that context I’m pleased the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News website is one of those they are looking at.

2. As far as local news goes, the report seems to underplay the capacity of the web to bring together communities of interest and indeed communities, and the potential this gives to local news organisations. The report says some local papers – the , and – have responded by tailoring elements of what they do online specifically for the classroom. Surely that’s the best of both worlds, local focus along with the convenience, immediacy and interactivity of the web, which schoolchildren are increasingly used to. (We’ve had a go at something similar with a section on this website – designed for use in UK schools).

Shouldn't the Newspaper-in-Education programmes simply be switching their attentions to how they can best use the websites of local newspapers in the classroom? That sounds like a huge opportunity rather than a threat.

The Guardian: β€œLeading candidates are dropping out of the race to succeed Michael Grade as ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ chairman.” ()

The Independent: Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard argues that ethnic diversity in the newsroom is easier said than done. ()

It that from the Spring, if Ofcom approves, Sky News will no longer be available free to viewers on Freeview.

They currently get around 845,000 viewers a week on this platform out of their weekly total of 4 million. For us at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, I think this is a double-edged sword.

Sky have already rather given up on viewing figures as ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24 has moved substantially ahead of them (6 million a week versus 4 million). Whereas, a few years ago audience size was their preferred measure of success, it has now been quietly dropped. The move on Freeview will almost certainly be another big blow to their audience size.

I can fully understand why Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB have taken this decision on commercial grounds alone: you can make money out of movies and sport but not easily from news. However, I do think it's a real shame for TV News coverage in the UK.

We are very fortunate to have two thriving 24-hour TV News channels and I firmly believe competition is a good thing for the audience. Sky's decision will be a bad thing for news audiences, particularly those who can't afford subscription services and choose Freeview for that reason. I would just say that for us at ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24, we put immense value on our audiences and their views - and will continue to do so whatever platform they watch us on.

One of the upsides of the information revolution is that new ways of presenting our material pop up with every passing week. We've been experimenting with all sorts of things, the latest being . One of the downsides is that as yet there's very little audience research on what works and what you actually want.

We've been a weekly version of the programme for a few months, and recently started offering a daily highlight, but while we know that about 200,000 podcasts a month are downloaded we don't really know if you're lapping up every last moment or if they're clogging, unviewed, your hard drive.

Given that if you've received this as a subscriber to or are reading it on the editor's blog you're probably the sort of person who would download a Newsnight podcast - although I could be completely wrong about that - this is your chance to tell us what you think.

Is the weekly podcast, which aims to offer the best bits of the week on Newsnight, too long at 25 minutes? Do you want to see a small number of big items or a brief digest of everything?

The daily podcast aims to offer a reasonably timeless highlight which you can take with you to savour on the train, possibly once you've digested the newsier . Does anyone actually do that?

Do you watch the podcasts on your iPod, or just watch them on your computer? And is there still demand for the original audio podcast, radio still being a far bigger draw in this world than TV?

Tell us how you watch it and we'll aim to oblige. Or indeed if your preferred way is still: on the sofa, 10.30pm, possibly with a glass of wine.

The lines are blurring. Once upon a time it was very simple - television channels made programmes and newspapers printed stories. Now, thanks to the internet, broadcasters like the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ publish stories in text as well as all our traditional activities. And newspapers are increasingly getting involved in video.

This week there was a very clear example of how the world is changing. The Sun newspaper obtained the cockpit video from an American aircraft involved in a "Friendly Fire" incident in which a British soldier in Iraq was killed. Every media organisation picked up on the story, and The Sun was very happy for us to use their video - which had the newspaper's logo "burned" on to it throughout.

However, the Sun also insisted that no other organisation could use the video on their website. They knew their online traffic would increase massively since . A newspaper which clearly understands the power of news video.

So where does that leave us? Already the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has taken big strides forward in its provision of news video on its websites - so far the domestic offering is far more advanced, but we'll be further expanding our international offering this year. But as an editor, I'm wondering more about the consequences for our agenda.

We can see from the daily stats the kinds of stories that online viewers like to watch - and they're not always the same as the ones we've give most prominence to in our televison bulletins. Here are Wednesday's most viewed videos from the international pages of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News:

1. Airbus A380 campaign takes off
2. Airbus shows off the A380
3. Astronaut's murder plot charge
4. Hydrogen motorcycle launched
5. Annual Empire State stair race

All of which were stories we'd covered (with the possible exception of the stair race) on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World, but not with the kind of prominence that web users apparently gave them.

So how should that inform the decisions we take about running orders for our television news bulletins? Obviously we'll continue to make judgements about the significance and relevance of stories to our audiences, but how much should we be taking into account the trends we see from the web stats?

I've been reading the comments that followed the post I made on Monday, and there's one factual issue I'd like to address.

A number of responses make the point that the Sun quoted ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News as having said "the intelligence services often get it wrong" and asked me to explain why we said that. I checked back on a recording of the relevant bulletin. Correspondent Daniel Sandford simply said "This is an intelligence-led operation. Intelligence can be wrong".

We completely stand by this statement. The Sun can't stand by its quote.

The Guardian: "The new ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust's register of interests reveals the corporation is now run by the most media-savvy group of people in recent times." ()

Press Gazette: "Panorama's new format and peak time position has brought in a million extra viewers and an audience "ten years younger", according to the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ." ()

Have you got lots to say about Breakfast? Ever thought we've got it wrong (too many animal stories?!) Or even got it so right you want us to do more on a subject? Well keep reading because here's your chance to become part of one of the first ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ TV News audience panels.

At Breakfast we're always looking for ways to engage with our viewers. You've always got lots to say and many of our best stories come straight from one of you sitting at home and then deciding to get in touch.

Some time ago we spotted this potential and set ourselves the challenge of being a programme that really involves our audience. So, for several years we've made the most of your rich and valuable stream of e-mails, text messages and phone calls (and sometimes even this blog). Some are used on air minutes after they arrive in our inbox - a comment on the talking point of the morning. Others provide important feedback that help shape future editorial decisions. Some get turned into reports for Breakfast - for example when we receive a compelling personal story.

So we started thinking about how we could take your involvement to the next level. It quickly became clear that places like Radio One's Newsbeat and Newsline in Northern Ireland had the answer. Both have set up, and are successfully running, audience panels. A dedicated band of listeners and viewers who play a sustained and significant part in the shape, tone and content of the programmes. Basically, it's a more systematic approach to making the most of what you have to say.

So we've embarked on a recruitment drive. We're selecting our own panel, and we're hoping you will give us monthly feedback about what you think of Breakfast. We'll also ask you about stories you would like to see tackled, and what aspects of a subject you would like to see us take on.

We're not quite at the stage of talking ourselves out of jobs - I'm sure there are many of you who wouldn't like the night shifts! But what we recognise is there's so much you can contribute to a programme like Breakfast. We know that all the best ideas don't simply emerge from our office at Television Centre. And we know from our audience research that you like a programme that's really in touch with your concerns and opinions.

So go on - if you want to have your say go to our and find out more. You can start telling us what to do without leaving your living room!

Daily Mail: Columnist Stephen Glover comments on Jeremy Paxman, saying the presenter, "has recently developed his sneering and bullying tendencies to the point where they are interfering with the job." (no link available)

The Guardian: Columnist Mark Lawson criticises the use of 'dramatic devices' in TV News reports. ()

The Guardian: Reports that 'well-known faces' in ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News are facing a clampdown on expenses claims. ()

Maybe I shouldn't say this - and we definitely shouldn't tell their agents - but we do ask an awful lot of our presenters.

This has struck home on Five Live Breakfast because Shelagh Fogarty is taking four weeks holiday (already dubbed her "gap month"). In her absence Gabby Logan has joined Nicky Campbell on the programme.

Now Gabby is a very experienced and able broadcaster. She's coped with all that live television can throw at her. So chatting on the radio is going to be a breeze, isn't it?

But it's not as simple as that, of course. And what struck me as we tried to talk her through the programme was the complexity of the technology we expect presenters to master. First of all there's the news production system (called ENPS) in which we create our running orders. Simple - just keep a different running order open for each of the three hours of the programme; navigate between the different items seamlessly while still talking on the radio, interviewing guests, quizzing reporters. The programme's all live of course, so there's no break in the action - no long taped items to take a breather or get your bearings.

Oh, and please also keep an eye on another window on your computer as text messages come into the programme. Easy. There are hundreds of them of course. They are on a whole range of subjects. And include views, opinions and words which often make your eyes water. The production team mark up the ones for broadcast - but it's still a lot to look at.

And don't forget the e-mails (yep, another window to keep open). They can be quite long and take some reading.

That's for starters. If you really want to be the complete Breakfast presenter, you might want to find the time to keep an eye on the Breakfast blog - and help brief yourself for interviews or react to things people say to you by doing some rapid online research. It's also helpful to glance at the TV screens in the studio - particularly when there's some live sport going on. As England's cricketers toil Down Under, a dramatic moment is never far away.

And we ask a presenter to get grips with all of this as well as ask perceptive, probing questions; brief themselves on a wide range of stories and issues; and bring out the best of contributors who may well be anxious about appearing on air.

All this of course before the sun has even come up. Gabby, being a pro, is playing a blinder of course. But I now know why Shelagh was so keen to have an extended lie down.

Financial Times: β€œBusiness Post, the express delivery service, has won a contract with ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ TV Licensing worth up to Β£8.1m in revenue annually for up to three years.” ()

The Guardian: Marcel Berlins comments on the inclusion of the Ryan O’Neal shooting story in Radio 4’s main news bulletin. ()

It was great to read your comments on a previous entry, in which I explained why Newsround had - for the foreseeable future - "banned" Pete Doherty.

Now, something else is getting it in the neck. I'm trying to stop the use of the Eric Prydz remix of Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall whenever there's an education story on the TV.

You're probably familiar with the concept: take a dullish news story, liven it up using a bit of music, and if possible, make the words of the music relevant. But this song has taken it to a new high. In the past few weeks, it's been on Tonight (ITV1), Breakfast (ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ One) and numerous other TV news shows.

Admittedly the song fits the bill perfectly. There's the very familiar guitar riff; the single breakthrough line "We don't need no education"; and then a long bit of techno instrumental, which is very easy to cut pictures to. First time you hear it, it seems inspired. By the fifth outing, you know it's the last resort of a time-poor, inspiration-poor producer.

In the 80s I was driven mad by news stories about driving, bicycles and shark attacks starting with (in order), Madness' Driving In My Car, Queen's Bicycle Race and the spooky opening bars of the Jaws theme tune.

I'm sure there are more pet musical hates that need to be outed. Go on - you know you want to!

The Times: Columnist David Aaronovitch writes about his run-in with a Daily Mail journalist on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s Daily Politics programme and comments on the Mail’s influence on the news agenda. ()

The Herald: β€œThe ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has reduced its taxi bill in Scotland by more than Β£100,000 in a single year.” ()

Daily Mail: Reports on female Newsnight’s presenters’ interview and photo shoot in Harpers Bazaar. ()

This week on the News website we take a wide-ranging look at the rapid changes taking place in contemporary India, a growing global economic power which is home to roughly one in six of the world’s people. Our series of online features is timed to coincide with a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World Service season of radio programmes called β€˜β€™.

The theme is a familiar one to anyone who follows the day-to-day coverage on our South Asia news pages, for example the recent that, although it still has to contend with extensive poverty, huge wealth disparities, skills shortages and poor infrastructure, India could overtake Britain and have the world's fifth largest economy within a decade.

Last week I was in India to launch our for the region, talk to media students and visit our journalists in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s Delhi and Mumbai (Bombay) offices. While I was there, as if to illustrate the theme of India’s economic rise, Mumbai-based Tata Steel made its successful multi-billion dollar takeover bid for Anglo-Dutch steelmaker Corus.

One of the things that struck me most was the pace of change in the Indian media. There’s an explosion in the number of TV news and financial channels (now more than 30, according to one ), a booming advertising market and 18 daily newspapers with a circulation of more than five million each. Again while I was there, a launched a local partnership with the Wall Street Journal.

Where, I was asked by some of the media students I spoke to, does the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ fit into all this? What can we provide for the Indian audience that their own lively and prolific media can’t or doesn’t?

The reply I gave was that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, with its long tradition of broadcasting to the region, is a familiar and trusted name for many, which counts for a lot in what is still a volatile part of the world. ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World TV and our online services are building new audiences, especially among the young urban middle classes and, as an international news provider with an extensive reporting network and a broad agenda, we provide a different perspective and reflect back to Indian readers, viewers and listeners how their country is seen by others and where it fits into the wider regional and global picture.

If you are in India or read our South Asia coverage regularly, what do you think? How do international news broadcasters and websites compare with Indian ones? Do those sound like the things that mark us out amongst the stiff competition?

The Sun recently ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News for its reporting of the first day of the recent arrests in Birmingham under the terrorism legislation. The Sun editorial asked whose side the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ was on because a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ correspondent explained that the arrests had been intelligence-led and that intelligence can sometimes be wrong. This simple statement of fact (remember the Forest Gate raids) prompted the Sun's broadside.

It is worth making it clear that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ does not see it as its job to be on anyone's "side". Our job is to do the best we can to be on the side of truth. Our viewers have a range of views about the recent arrests - some seeing them as clear evidence of support for terror within British society, others are strongly sceptical about the police action.

Newspapers can afford to be highly partisan. Taking sides is second nature to them. That's not the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's job.

The Independent: Columnist Matthew Norman on Tony Blair’s Today interview. ()

The Guardian: Reports that David Dimbleby has ruled himself out of the race to be ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ chairman. ()

The Guardian: Offers a verdict on the iPlayer test. ()

Is Iran supplying advanced weapons to Iraqi insurgents and Shia militia who use them to attack American and British troops? Is Iran getting North Korean help to prepare a nuclear test? Have Iranian weapons experts been helping Hamas in their fight with Fatah in Gaza? These are just some of the allegations that have been made against Iran and reported in various media over the past few weeks.

On the other hand, is the US administration making allegations against Iran and feeding disinformation to journalists in order to prepare public opinion for an attack on Iran?

Forgive the metaphor but reporting the - so far rhetorical - escalation of tension between Washington and Tehran is a minefield for conscientious journalists, especially as we need to remember what happened in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Then a lot of claims were made by the US and British governments about Iraq's weapons’ capabilities and intentions which were reported widely and could well have helped swing public opinion behind confrontation with Iraq. As we know, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and critics of the war have accused many journalists of being too credulous and not rigorous enough in reporting such claims.

In our editorial meetings we have discussed several times how we should cover the growing tension between the US and Iran - and there are some hard facts such as the US naval build up in the Persian Gulf - but we are aware of the need to be very careful which claims and counter-claims we report, and the need to tell listeners when we don't know things as well as when we do know.

This Wednesday (listen here), we decided to report that the Americans are stepping up pressure on Iran, and ask whether what we have been hearing from officials, former officials, analysts and journalists means the US is preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.

The former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, known for his hawkish views, had given an interview to ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World Service saying the US may need to take - unspecified - action against Iran over its nuclear programme, while the former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, now more dovish than when he was in office, told the Today programme there are members of the Bush administration who want to take military action against Iran and maybe trying to provoke the Iranians over their role in Iraq to justify that action.

We used extracts from these two interviews to show there is a debate in Washington over its policy towards Iran, and then we asked the respected analyst, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whether the US is preparing an attack. He said on balance he didn't think so because the groups advocating such action do not have enough influence on the White House. He also said Iran has a limited presence inside Iraq and that the US knows Tehran is still years away from developing nuclear weapons.

What we try our best to avoid when doing this kind of story is reporting claims we can not substantiate, whether made by journalists, officials or politicians, about what the US and Iran are up to without first assessing their credibility and then making clear that they are just that - claims - and explaining the political context within which the claims are being made so that listeners can make up their own minds.

One of the consequences of '' has been on Biased ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, a website devoted to pointing out what it sees as the politically-correct institutional group-think of much of the corporation's output.

This time they weren't accusing Jeremy of bias - they've elevated him to their roll of honour for his honesty in saying: "People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (more ).

So, what constitutes impartiality on this issue? Should we, every time the issue of climate change is raised, include someone like Myron Ebell from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, who argues that while climate change may be happening there's no evidence that it's caused by human activity and absolutely no need to reduce carbon emissions?

Some members of our team hold more or less that view and indeed we had Mr Ebell on the programme only last week, but we don't put such figures on every time. To do that would be a massive distortion of the scientific opinion which is overwhelmingly of the view that climate change is being influenced by human activity.

But if Newsnight stands for anything it should certainly stand against group-think, so while the broad thrust of our coverage accepts the orthodox view, we are also open to dissenting opinions. Indeed, Justin Rowlatt's latest film looks at how the production of food may be doing more damage to the environment than burning fossil fuels.

Talking of Ethical Man, is it our job to encourage people to be greener? I don't think so. There's currently huge interest among the public in leading more sustainable lifestyles and we should reflect and explore that. Jeremy may well be right that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ as an organisation should do more to get its house in order. But I don't think it's the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's job to try to save the planet. Do you?

The controversy over our decision to take the Breakfast programme to Eton for the morning (which you can see photos of ) even got them talking on rival outlets. The boss of another early morning show wanted to know "what on earth is the point of broadcasting live from Eton on Friday? Madcap idea and a waste of our money highlighting a bunch of irrelevant toffs whose parents wouldn't know what Radio Five Live was, never mind listen to it. Sounds like some Tristram at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ thought it would be a wheeze."

So why were we there? Well, we've always tried to take the programme to places you don’t normally hear from. We did the first ever live programme from inside a young offenders' institution, we spent one morning with teenage mums at a special help centre in north east England, we broadcast from inside an army camp - and we took the programme to the home of a Muslim couple angry at the media portrayal of their religion.

Each gives a glimpse (we hope) of a part of life that few of us experience first hand. And being at Eton also brought to the surface some of those age-old tensions. Should we give airtime to the privileged few? Why weren't we at a failing school on a sink estate? Who cares about these toffs? The texts and emails came thick and fast.

But there were many supporters of Eton too. I was surprised by the number of former - and current - pupils who posted on our blog. Others said that they had no time for the old style class "envy" of those fortunate to get such a first class education.

And so the debate goes on. I think it was a tremendous wheeze. And I've never met Tristram.

The Guardian: "A strong performance by Radio 2 veterans Terry Wogan and Steve Wright helped the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ extend its advantage over commercial radio with a market share lead of 11.2 percentage points." ()

Financial Times: Reports on Gavin Esler’s response to Newsnight colleague Jeremy Paxman’s critique of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s green credentials. ()

We managed to upset our listeners yesterday during a series of interviews with rape victims. We were asking if .

According to the experts, the attitude of jurors is a big obstacle in securing a conviction and for many, presenter Matthew Bannister was typical of male bias in his questioning. When one victim described being attacked after inviting a man she knew home for coffee, Matthew asked, "Isn't β€˜come in for coffee’ generally code for something else?".

Should he have asked what many people - indeed lots of jurors - probably think? Not according to many listeners who bombarded us with texts and emails of which this was typical: "Coffee does not mean sex just as no does not mean yes. Issues of consent are best addressed by men understanding that women do not need to speak 'in code' and that if they are unsure of what a woman is thinking, the solution is to ask her. I thought your comment about being asked in for coffee was appalling."

There is no topic guaranteed to divide the audience quite so neatly down gender lines as rape. It was women who objected to the coffee remark while men generally thought it was a fair point. I think it's hard to get a consensus on this one. I suspect juries have the same trouble.

Daily Telegraph: Reports that the iPlayer proposals have been approved by the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust for later this year. ()

The Guardian: Reports on Spectator by Lord Puttnam, who says he will not be applying for ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ chairmanship. ()

The Sun: Leader article criticises ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ bulletin’s coverage of Birmingham terror raids. ()