SacredFacts

Biting the hand that's stopped feeding you...

Leading a public broadcaster can be a perilous occupation, as we know. Take France for example. At the start of 2008 President Sarkozy decided there should be no advertising on French public television. (For British readers, it's common for public broadcasters to take advertising as well as public funds in other parts of the world). This would obviously leave a big funding gap for France Television to fill. There have been promises of staged funding and special grants to help bridge the problem - but no agreement.

Then on Monday Sarkozy criticised the broadcaster saying he could see no difference between what they did and what the commercial channels did (by implication - questioning the value of the public funding). This follows increasingly tense relations between France Television and the government. Sarkozy recently said in future he would personally appoint the President of the Public Broadcaster - in the past it was left to the independent regulator.

So today the Director General Patrick de Carolis hit back. In an article in Le Figaro he said: "When someone says that there are no differences between public and private programming, I find that false, stupid and ... profoundly unjust. In the last three years we have tried hard to make respectable television and I know that we are respected.'' And he suggested if the funding needed wasn't agreed by September he would resign.

He may not be given the choice. Calling the President "stupid" is not usually career enhancing.

Two themes here: the independence of public broadcasting under attack by politicians who do not respect it (acknowledging of course that all PSB's need to reform and need to be accountable).

And a wider battle about the right balance in the future of the media between the market and public intervention. In the UK, it's played out through OfCom reviews which are gentlemanly in comparison with other countries. Just across the channel, it's an altogether tougher game.

(Disclosure: I sit on the Executive Board of the EBU with Patrick de Carolis)

BBC Arabic TV

I've been involved in many programme and channel launches in my time - but few as smooth as the launch of BBC Arabic TV. This was in no way due to anything I did - but was the result of many months of hard work by a great team. The outcome - a sharp, modern, TV news service that is also unquestionably BBC.

If you missed the launch tape you can see it again here.

And here is a piece I wrote for the BBC Editors blog the day before launch. Not all the commenters seem to be convinced by the idea of building bridges or in favour soft power, but they balance up by the end!

It's all about pictures

Everywhere I turn people are talking about video on the web.  You Tube is about to take live feeds. What took the TV industry 40 years (to move from scheduled to live services) has taken them about 18 months. SImilarly, everyone is playing with Qik - which allows you to live stream from your mobile phone and your audience to chat and message as you do so. Disappointing content so far however. (Apart of course from Robin at Cybersoc who has been playing with it...)

The Guardian two weeks ago featured DiggNation and BoingBoing TV as examples of the boom in new online video programmes.

Then there are sites like NextNewNetworks which allows people to effectively produce and schedule their own content.

Or if you want to engage with the broadcasters, for £60 you can become an Executive Producer at HaveYouGotTheNerve TV and collaborate on new formats and - maybe - get them commissioned.

And of course blogging is going video - with Seesmic and YahooLive for example. ("Yes this is what my built in webcam from my laptop on my desk looks like!")

All on top of aggregators like Blinkx, LiveStation or Internet TV like Joost.

On the other side of the ledger, Doughty St TV seems to have stopped at the end of last year presumably as its funder decided not to go on paying the bills, and some commenters think very few people are watching.

(ALthough the FT disagrees...talking about "websites such as vidShadow, Veoh and Youku dominating the list of the fastest growing websites in the UK. )

Dangerous to generalise, but the success of the BBC's iPlayer with half a million streams a day, suggests the appetite for online video is growing.

It's early days: easy to predict that video would be part of the next wave, much harder to get it to work in a strong and economically viable way.

However, it will happen, and it contributes to making online conversations more compelling and faster.

Basically, assume we can soon all be on air, live, to the world all the time. Wasn't there a movie about that?

Any other good video experiments? Please post below...

[UPDATE: Here's some more to try - launch your own channel with Mogulus.com - Live and recorded video, or Blogtv.com - you bring the webcam they "bring the stage"...or ustream.com, live webcasts streamed. And Rory Cellan Jones reviews FLixwagon on the BBC Tech Blog, dot.life. Blogging has gone video - we just need to find the ones worth watching.]

And try just watching the live stream of any of hundreds of channels on LiveNewsCameras.com or ChooseandWatch.com - please note not all of them legally streamed.

Re-creating D Day

It took Steven Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan a cast of a thousand extras, huge budget and special effects. It took the BBC's Timewatch 3 blokes, an estate car, some props and a bit of creativity....

This is what we do, as someone said.

The Tens

Im glad ITV's News at Ten is back. It's good for Broadcast News in general and serious competition will keep the BBC on its toes. But you didn't have to wait long to see what will differentiate them. ITV led with a scoop interview with Hasnat Khan, Diana's last love. The BBC led with John Simpson undercover in Zimbabwe. Feel the difference and make your choice. (Or contrast the two editors: ITV's Deborah Turness says she wants to leave viewers with a smile or a tear in their eye. The BBC's Peter Horrocks says he wants to give viewers something to think about) First night ratings (which aren't the final measure of success) 3.8 to them 4.9 to the BBC.

Sarkozy re-organises French international broadcasting

Source: La Chaine Info, Paris

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken of plans to revamp the country's foreign broadcasting network during a news conference for French and foreign journalists.

In reply to a question from Radio France Internationale journalist Genevieve Goetzinger about the reform of foreign broadcasting, he had the following to say on La Chaine Info TV this morning, 8 January.

He said: "I've worked a great deal on this subject with [Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner and [Culture Minister] Christine Albanel. I hope it will be as rapid as possible and definitely this year. The idea is to create a France World [France Monde] label. That is a holding company that would unite the resources of TV5, France 24 and RFI in ways still to be debated, which would enable all these networks, made up of great professionals, to broadcast a much more imposing French presence than at present.

"The resources could be mutualised. We could rely on complementary networks of correspondents which are, moreover, pretty impressive: I'm thinking of RFI. We could give a new editorial identity to TV5 and we could benefit from the success of France 24. The problem is that we've got one that's well broadcast but has editorial issues, another that has no editorial issues but isn't broadcast well enough and a third that needs to rely on the other two because it's only got radio and TV's essential.

"There are other issues to debate and are already the subject of differences between us. We don't necessarily agree on everything. I think a public channel, France-World, that would of course retain the identity of each of the participants but a state-owned brand can only speak French and I'm not inclined to use taxpayers' money to fund a channel that doesn't speak French. There could perfectly well be subtitles according to region - Spanish, Arab, English - to provide France's point of view. Between Al-Jazeera and its Arab point of view and CNN and its Anglo-Saxon point of view, we'd like to provide a French point of view but to do so, I'd really prefer it to be in French because providing a French vision in Arabic or English might be interesting but we'd find it hard to make ourselves understood."

More from NewsXchange 2007

Broadcasters rise to the challenge of the YouTube age

Report by Duncan Stanworth of BBC Monitoring at the News Xchange 2007 conference in Berlin on 26 October

The mushrooming of open-source internet video provides a bottomless well of programme material, particularly in the political sphere, but it poses key challenges for mainstream media, the News Xchange 2007 conference in Berlin has heard.

Patrick Walker, head of video partnerships at the Google search engine and leading video-sharing site YouTube, said the site's founders could not have foreseen its potential. More than 100,000 years' worth of video has been posted since 2005   (correction) People have watched more than 100,000 years worth of YouTube videos since the company was founded in 2005. Footage has documented political upheaval, natural disasters and human rights abuses - including street protests in Burma, wildfires in California, and the beating of civilians by police in Egypt.

Internet video has increased public participation in politics, and has forced politicians to be accountable for their words and deeds, Walker said. It has introduced a new, young audience to the political process. But Andrew Keen, author of "Cult of the Amateur" and a critic of the trivialization of politics, said online video has put politicians on the defensive. In particular, US politicians are "vulnerable every second, and saying less and less". He dubbed the forthcoming US presidential poll the "YouTube election", saying it will be less open, and less spontaneous, as a consequence.

"Editorial integrity"

Speakers saw an ongoing role for "traditional" media. Julien Pain, editor of user-generated content (UGC) at France 24 TV, said it was crucial to check the provenance of open-source internet video: "It is our job as journalists, not YouTube's problem." Keen said Google and YouTube were media companies, with moral and other responsibilities for managing content. He urged open-source video providers to bring in traditional media, "to help it to grow up". "You need gatekeepers, editors and fact checkers.

This is the big problem with the Web 2.0 business premise. Mainstream media needs to defend its editorial integrity in the face of this," he said. Sam Feist, political editor at CNN, said his network was "peacefully co-existing" with YouTube and its ilk, but was becoming dependent on open source video. Traditional media and UGC have different roles: "The public gets it - you don't watch YouTube for the news."

Journalism has embraced open-source video as a transmission mechanism, but is "ever more important in the YouTube age". The "coin of the realm" for CNN is trust, he said. But former Canadian Broadcasting Corporation boss Tony Burman questioned how a "trust and verifier" role can be maintained in the face of massive downsizing at traditional media outlets, including newspapers and the BBC.

Media freedom

Sami Ben Gharbia, from blog aggregator Global Voices, said online video has a great impact in countries with limited media freedom. UGC has pushed mainstream media in parts of the Arab world towards addressing previously-taboo topics. However, it is vulnerable to the whims of officials; for instance, the Moroccan authorities blocked internet access after Polisario supporters posted online video material. Julien Pain noted that by cracking down on a few video posters, security forces are able to deter many potential contributors.

Al-Jazeera English's Richard Gizbert raised the issue of moral accountability. Yahoo!, he said, "had a lot to answer for over its performance in China", where it had handed over information about political dissidents' emails to the authorities. Walker conceded that the Chinese Google site "does have an accommodation for government policy", but added that the servers are based outside the country "so that the government cannot get personal information from us".

"Narcissistic generation"

The rise of online video and UGC indicates a hostlity towards traditional media outlets, some speakers noted. Robert Freeman, from the Guardian newspaper in the UK, said YouTube was popular precisely because it was not mainstream. He identified a generation of media consumers who eschewed TV and radio and saw the world solely from the point of view of what their peers were looking at on the internet. Keen echoed this, noting that social networking site Facebook was a "next-generation TV channel". But, citing a recent CNN debate in which US presidential candidates fielded questions submitted by YouTube posters, he bemoaned the fact that the user was becoming the "star". "A narcissistic generation wants to make politics about itself," he said. The challenge for the mainstream media is to find a way to create "good citizens" and to educate a generation that focuses on itself.

Looking ahead, YouTube's Patrick Walker told delegates to expect better tools and greater accessibility. The disparate nature of media is here to stay, he said. But Keen saw a future in which the smart money would gravitate towards experience and professionalism. "The experts are going to fight back", he predicted.

Source: BBC Monitoring research 29 Oct 07

It was 30 years ago this year...

This year, unbelievably, marks my 30th year in Journalism. I joined Celtic Press, a group of weekly newspapers in South Wales, straight from University because I couldn't think of anything better to do. And I still can't.

Then, newspapers were on the cusp of moving from the 19th century technology of hot metal to computer typesetting. But it was another 8 years or so until the typewriter gave way to the computer.
Since then I've been through quarter inch tape and razor blades to edit for radio, Commag and Sepmag film (combined or separate sound track), video, and now all production is digital. Print, radio, Television and the web. Thirty years ago journalism was still riding the post Watergate wave where it was seen as a noble fourth estate holding power to account. Today you have to search hard to find anyone who would publicly declare it had any nobility about it. However as Bill Hagerty once wrote: The business has always been crowded with rogues, cheats and rascals. It has also fulfilled - still does - an indispensable role in ensuring that similar characters in public life are exposed for cheating, hoodwinking or lying to the public. Or as Nick Tomalin, the former Sunday Times Mid East Correspondent, famously said the only qualities required for success in journalism are rat-like cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.

I think a change occurred during the late eighties and nineties as the media exploded through multi channel and the web. The more of it there is, the less it is valued. And the profession (if it is such) was slow to recognise what was happening. (There was also a paradox: during this period more and more power was ascribed to "the media". In any other industry, when competition increases exponentially and the customer base starts to fragment you would expect it to exert less influence.)

Personal high points: being in Berlin as the wall came down and the Cold War era ended, being in China as it started to open up in the 80s, the Soviet Union in the 90s as it fell apart. And moments of challenge: the Iran-Iraq war, Northern Ireland, major disasters. Moments of high adrenalin in live TV galleries and moments of extended boredom. There've been some low points too - the deaths of colleagues lowest among them.

Today I'm no longer reporting, sub-editing, producing or editing. But the motivation as a manager is the same: to get the best journalism we can to the public. I still think it matters and I still believe it can do good. More than this, it falls to this generation of managers, editors and journalists to re-invent the profession in the digital, networked world. Probably the most exciting, and perhaps toughest, challenge yet.

World News America

We had a major programme launch this week - BBC World News America which goes out at 7pm on BBC America and BBC World in the US (Midnight London). It's an investment  to create a signature newscast for BBC America which is simulcast around the world on BBC World. It's presented by Matt Frei, and the initial response has been fantastic:

The Hollywood Reporter On Day 1, it not only covered the bases far better than anyone else in the TV news pantheon but also actually made a little global news itself during an interview with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in which she gave her approval for a U.S. military strike inside Pakistan to assassinate Osama bin Laden.
Watching this hour was almost surreal to see the BBC staffers' capacity to comprehensively sum up world affairs with in-depth attention in the course of 60 minutes.

And Time.Com: The title of BBC World News America needs a comma between "News" and "America." As in: This is what world news looks like, America. Do you remember it? I exaggerate slightly, but last night's inaugural newscast on BBC America was relatively light on the "America" and heavy on the world news that has famously been disappearing from American media outlets.

Just got to keep it going now...

Oxygen of Publicity?

Channel 4's documentary "Britain Under Attack", broadcast this week, has brought the predictable criticism about airing the views of a terrorist supporter. The "Islamic Scholar" believes British foreign policy justifies the London tube bombings. Producer Phil Rees (Disclosure: I used to work with him at the BBC) said: "Muslims can get hold of the this sort of thing over the internet and where they don't feel they have a voice they are pushed into violence. We should feel our civilisation is strong enough to counter these beliefs."

The contours of this argument are familiar. Margaret Thatcher, at the height of IRA attacks in England, complained about broadcasters providing them with the "oxygen of publicity" and introduced a peculiar ban on the voices of Sinn Fein suppoters being broadcast - leading to the bizarre practise of dubbing interviews with actors voices. The Major government repealed this recognising it was ineffective.

Tony Blair's government complained about broadcasters reporting from "enemy" capitals, be it Belgrade, Kabul or Baghdad, arguing that it gave a moral equivalence to renegade regimes. Alastair Campbell advanced this after Kosovo in a speech at RUSI. This throws into sharp relief the different perspectives of politicians and media. I never accepted broadcasting from an "enemy capital" was to automatically afford them any moral legitimacy - the audience can decide that. But it does allow the audience to be better informed - and to better understand what their armed forces may be confronting or achieving.

A few months ago BBC's Newsnight ran a report from David Loyn behind the lines with the Taliban including an interview with a Taliban leader. The same complaints and outrage came forth - the Conservative Foreign Affairs spokesman calling it "obscene". Again, the BBC's view was that it better informed viewers about what British troops were confronting.

So there is a deep divide about the legitimacy of these kinds of interview.

But the argument in favour of them is not about freedom of speech. Supporters of murder and terrorism are not entitled to the same freedoms as the rest of us in my view. It is about ensuring the public are as fully informed as possible for them to make up their own minds and to understand what threats may confront them. For that, they also need explanation analysis and context. How can we understand the world if we close our eyes or ears to parts of it we don't agree with?

It's a fragile argument. In other parts of the world (Kashmir, China) no such freedom would be tolerated. And in the US, post 9/11, there are strong and divided opinions about the performance of the media: supporting national interests v. depth and range of reporting.

Unsurprisingly, most journalists believe the public interest should default towards open information. Those who seek to restrict information don't trust the public and seek to make their minds up for them. We should have sufficient confidence in public opinion, democracy and, as Phil Rees put it, our civilisation to counter extremist views. Censorship is a victory for those who don't share our values.

But this doesn't mean anything goes. It is incumbent on the media to reflect extreme views responsibly, challenging them, placing them in context. Free speech is important, but is not the same as "free-and-easy" speech. As I have argued before, the media's role is to explain tensions, not to fuel them.