Setting the record straight on 91Èȱ¬'s Olympic locations
One of the reasons for having this blog is accountability: explaining what we're doing in our 2012 planning and opening up a debate about the issues.
What I also intend to use it for is setting the record straight when newspapers come up with daft items, so here's the first in what I expect to be an occasional series.
A headline today: "91Èȱ¬ to splash £1million on Olympic Penthouse". The story says "bosses" are looking to buy two £350,000 top-floor flats in an "exclusive" block, and then there's the favourite device - the anonymous source.
The source tells the paper: "There will be no expense spared when it comes to coverage and bosses are prepared to spend a fortune."
So let me tell you what we told the journalist. First, we are not buying any flats. Second, the figure of £1m for purchasing property around the Olympic Park is ludicrous.
The paper went ahead with publication about us "looking to buy" flats despite being told categorically that we weren't.
What we are doing is looking at two temporary locations for cameras outside the Park.
The first is in a small building on the south of the site where we will have office space and a reporting position between now and the start of the Games.
This is because we're now broadcasting from the area more or less every day, and since none of the official facilities are ready this will give us a base for a wide range of 91Èȱ¬ programmes where a lot of Olympic news is happening.
Then we're looking at the roof of a Newham council tower block for use during the Games themselves, where we would station much of our news operation and the people who are not accredited to work within the Park.
This would have the benefit of an excellent view over all the venues, from a vantage point that isn't possible within the site itself. We also intend to sub-let space to international broadcasters to recoup some of the cost.
Both of these places would be rented. The total cost of the rents will be a small - and I mean small - fraction of £1m; and words like "studio penthouse" and "exclusive block" are simply misleading.
The overall picture here is that the Olympic Games and the related events in 2012 will be the most extensive series of outside broadcasts the 91Èȱ¬ has done.
We're determined to do them well, and all our research says that audiences want us to prioritise these big moments in our national life.
But we're equally determined to give value-for-money, so every line of our budgets is scrutinised - and draft financial plans are routinely sent back to be reworked at lower cost.
Anyone working on the Olympic project will tell you it's utterly untrue that our attitude is "no expense spared". We will publish the final bill at the end of the Games, and it's one we'll be prepared to justify in detail as a way of bringing London 2012 to viewers and listeners across the UK.
I'm Roger Mosey, the 91Èȱ¬'s director of London 2012. That means I'm overseeing all the 91Èȱ¬'s 2012 preparations including not just sport but the Cultural Olympiad, our Olympic news and information services and everything that will bring the story of the London Games to audiences at home and abroad. I want to share here what we're planning - and debate some of the big issues. You can also follow me on .
Comment number 1.
At 21st Feb 2011, RobH wrote:This is either behind Murdoch's paywall or said newspaper has removed the item because I couldn't find anything Googling. Care to name and shame Roger?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Feb 2011, Roger Mosey - 91Èȱ¬ Director, London 2012 wrote:Hi Rob - well, since it's wrong I'm pleased it's not chugging round the Internet. I don't think we should link to newspaper pieces that are factually inaccurate, though I'm happy to include comment items even when they're against us. And for the record: this one wasn't a piece that would have been behind a paywall.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Feb 2011, Tim Watt wrote:The story you refer to doesn't greatly interest me, but your response to Comment Number 2 above sticks as something more interesting. Maybe even a symptom of what you're complaining about.
I'm not suggesting that there's any basis to doubt anything you've written but I consider not providing a reasonable means to verify your interpretation of this report by providing a link is negligent, and your comment churlish. No less so if entirely your criticism of it justified.
How can this be setting the record straight when you've not provided sufficient evidence to 'close' any debate?
This may reflect the views of many journalists to online reporting generally more than anything personal I'm guessing. Noteworthy nonetheless.
I see headlines online saying "91Èȱ¬ Royal Wedding coverage. No Expense spared". I guess they write the headline then make up a story to fit. Lazy journalism as per....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Feb 2011, Roger Mosey - 91Èȱ¬ Director, London 2012 wrote:Tim: it's a legitimate question. As it happens, like Rob I can't find this piece online - though it was a page lead in one of Monday's newspapers.
The point I was making was that if someone in an opinion piece has a bash at the 91Èȱ¬, I wouldn't have any hesitation in linking to it if we wanted to continue the debate. But that's rather different from saying "here's a link to a story in which the key facts are wrong" and I don't think anyone would want to drive traffic to something that's completely inaccurate.
I hope what my original post did was give enough of the context and some quotes to give a flavour - along with the detail of what we're actually doing. But obviously we'll keep how we respond under review.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Feb 2011, Tim Watt wrote:I can see your point if it was libelous or scurrilous but selective reporting disrespecting readers' abilities to make up their own mind based on facts in failing to provide sufficient evidence is misleading reporting, and dare I dare dangerous misleading reporting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 22nd Feb 2011, Matt Rogan wrote:I suspect the real challenge in here is (whisper it quietly and touch wood) things are going well as stands. Stadia on time? Check! Under budget? Check! Most British teams looking likely to perform come Games time? Check! So as a result the media will looking for any evidence of public over-spend any lack of legacy delivery as their chief angles of attack...and be creative with the truth if they can't find it.
The 91Èȱ¬ took a lot of heat in 1948 for changing their schedule to cover live sport for the first time, and the expense that brought at a time of publis debt. Their broadcasts went on to change the model for the delivery of live sport. I'm sure you'll do the same again.
I suspect heat from other media outlets will be an inevitable part of the journey for the next 18 months. These are the hard yards!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 23rd Feb 2011, Brekkie wrote:So frustrates me how the British press can get away with literally printing anything. So often you see a big misleading headline on page one only to read through the story and reach a complete rebuttal from sources concerned at the end. And without highlighting who for the second time this year a front page story (the same story in fact!) on a Sunday paper has been completely dismissed in the companies sister publication on the Monday morning.
The decisions outlined above are more than justified.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)