- Kevin Bakhurst
- 9 Feb 07, 12:35 PM
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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, I think this is a double-edged sword.
Sky have already rather given up on viewing figures as Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News 24, we put immense value on our audiences and their views - and will continue to do so whatever platform they watch us on.
Kevin Bakhurst is controller of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News
- Peter Barron
- 9 Feb 07, 12:30 PM
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.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Richard Porter
- 9 Feb 07, 10:56 AM
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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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?
Richard Porter is head of
- Peter Horrocks
- 9 Feb 07, 10:36 AM
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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.
Peter Horrocks is head of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Newsroom
The Guardian: "The new Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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 Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ." ()
The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
