New thinking
| 10:50 UK time, Friday, 6 July 2007
You may have seen earlier in the week, calling for more ambition and innovation from the 91Èȱ¬.
It’s perhaps not surprising that the 91Èȱ¬ Trust’s research shows that people want fresh ideas – few would be happy to accept only the familiar year after year. What we in 91Èȱ¬ News have to work out is exactly how that desire applies to the services and programmes we produce. The questions are certainly rather different to thinking about the next Saturday night entertainment format or another drama as fresh as Life on Mars.
Innovation in News can mean many things. Over the last five years we have begun to offer a much broader range of services available wherever and whenever people want them. So whether , on a big screen in a city centre or , we can offer different ways of distributing news. There is the potential to be able to do a lot more in terms of personalisation, by subject or by location. And we can make much more of current affairs content by not simply thinking in terms of particular programmes and commissioned timeslots. The aggregation of our content in different forms will be a crucial part of the future.
There is also technical innovation, enabling us to be live faster and more cheaply in more places. In our recent coverage of the floods in Yorkshire, we have for instance pioneered the use of a VSat dish to send many of the pictures and live coverage. Instead of using a large satellite truck and relatively expensive broadcast satellite space, this simply mounts on top of a normal vehicle and uses a fast broadband connection over satellite to send pictures and sound back to Television Centre. These aren’t innovations our viewers should even notice in themselves – but they should mean the reporting we can offer is even more immediate and authentic.
And finally (as one now-departed news format used to say), there is the question of formats. In many ways this is the most difficult. We know that audiences value innovation but reject gimmickry. It is not enough to do something in a different way simply because we can. But when we launch something new and get it right, the impact is huge. Radio Five Live has been a long-term success through consciously achieving a sound different from Radio 4. Television presentation has been transformed – if you get a chance, just look at a programme from 15 or 20 years ago and see how formal it feels. Our uses of studios, live location reporting and interactivity have all gone through a revolution. There is the potential to do something similar again over the next few years as long as we use the tools in a way which benefits the journalism and doesn’t get in the way.
We see innovation as key to keeping existing audiences and reaching new ones. New services and new approaches will be vital and that’s why we’re keen to hear thoughts about what we should be doing. But even more vital will be the editorial ambition which drives what we do every day. The thinking about how to select, treat and develop a story is in the end what most determines our success. The lessons all broadcasters have learned is that people will try an innovation once simply because it is new. However, they will only keep coming back to it if it is both simple to use and the content meets their needs.
Comments
Technological innovation is all well and good but must be used judiciously. I am fed up with seeing reports 'going live' to a reporter who has not had any time to prepare or even investigate what he/she is talking about.
The news is essentially about imparting information, not keeping up with the latest gadgetry.
Adrian
I just posted this in response to Rod's blog:
/blogs/theeditors/2007/07/taking_sides.html
but it's relevant here too:
"I don't want or appreciate the cosy chats between news presenters.
I don't want to feel like I'm watching some coffee advert, I want a news bulletin with sufficient detail to hold some attention.
Why when an expert 91Èȱ¬ staff reporter is on location or in the studio are they interviewed by a 91Èȱ¬ presenter rather than be allowed to just tell the audience the story from their informed position?
Surely you'd fit MORE detail in allowing the expert to take centre stage and not be subjected to pretty pointless questioning?
Even when 'ordinary' people are being interviewed the 91Èȱ¬ reporters have developed a habit of telling the interviewee's story for them.
Here's what would happen if the 91Èȱ¬ were interviewing a WW2 veteran:
Presenter: Now Bill, you were a spitfire pilot in the war, I understand you once had to escort a bomber carrying Churchill on a secret meeting with the US President, is that right?
Bill: Erm, yes...
Presenter: (cutting in) and how did you feel being trusted with such an important task, afterall you were only 19 at the time, did you feel nervous?
Bill: I did, yes...
Presenter: Well back to the studio.
That's EXACTLY how the 91Èȱ¬ interviews people, it tramples all over their story to make it fit an often artificially small window in the schedule. I often wonder why people don't just walk away and leave the presenter to their preening.
News24 has the funding and resources to be a national treasure, it could offer the most in-depth coverage of the nation's affairs instead it's just light entertainment dressed up as news with a generous use of onscreen clutter to paper over the cracks.
Of course nothing said here will make a jot of difference."
Ooh - I like the sound of your new mini-satellite dish. Hopefully that means you can send more of your reporters to stand "LIVE" outside empty buildings at night, or in the middle of a field, or a football stadium to send us the same reports that you could give us from the studio. There is nothing guaranteed to bring more light onto a subject than having a reporter "on the spot" for no particular reason. Hooray!
Hi,
all this new stuff sounds good! what would be good is if the 91Èȱ¬ had a mini site on the stuff the use to bring us the news and shows on the bbc like how one your broadcast satellite trucks works and how this new thing works! and how you up date and run your websites? and what keeps them going!
I am an international student in UK for three years and have absolutely fallen in love with 91Èȱ¬ News and TV. I just wonder when people complain about impartiality, they need to go out and see other broadcasters. The originality of Drama (Dr Who, Rome, Judge John Deed) is amazing and so is the quality of documentaries (Days of Raj). 91Èȱ¬ news website is the best news website I have encountered so far. You have passionate and dedicated journalits who report every story with a truly global outlook (Mark Mardell on EU, Alan Johnston on middle-east). I think 91Èȱ¬ is the best in world and it is not fair to criticise it all the time just for the sake of it. The efforts to improve things further are most welcome but I do not expect 91Èȱ¬ to take undue critisism very seriously.
I think the 91Èȱ¬ has made undoubted great strides in its embracing of technology, however it is definitely in the programmes it produces that there has to be improvement. I would like to see more effort being made to produce content for different sections of the public and then screening them sensibly. All to often there is a show on for one group followed by three shows of no interest to those that followed the first on any of the 91Èȱ¬ channels! The introduction of C91Èȱ¬ and CBeebies do well to address this for children but why has there not been the same changes for the adult population? As I see it you would have a channel for those over say 65, with relevant sitcoms, documentaries and films. One for young adults with generic tastes, one for young adults with alternative tastes with two of the same structure for older adults. With a structure like that it would be a lot easier for everyone to find at least something they wanted to watch and would keep a lot of people watching as their interests were being taken into account.
On a different note I think the news is far too generic to satisfy everyone. If there was to be say a news programme for each of the categories that is used on the 91Èȱ¬ wesbsite at different times it would allow everyone to see the news they wanted. I cant imagine many people who are only interested in entertainment sitting through 10-15 minutes of hard hitting stories to see the bit they want and likewise vice-versa.
Easier outside broadcasts are all very well, but it's now reached the stage where, if I see Huw Edwards is actually IN THE STUDIO I know nothing major has happpened today, and I can safely switch off.
" just look at a programme from 15 or 20 years ago and see how formal it feels. "
And look what we have now:
The chatty style where if there are two presenters one starts the story and other finishes it. Why?
Reporters stood in the middle of empty streets, just to prove it is empty!! Telling me that over there is such and such street. Totally meaningless, I don't live there, it's like me telling them where my local shop is. - London car bomb.
Reporter stood in Downing Street at 2215 - cheaper than giving him a desk?
Best response from an expert was, again the London car bomb, when the reporter handed over to Frank Gardiner asking what he thought. His response started along the lines 'I'm not here to tell you what I think but the information I have is....' Spot on reporting, dealing with the facts and putting them into context, not the touchy-feely type of reporting that is getting in the way so much.
All your new kit will do is get more people in the field, doing the nodding dog every time somebody talks to them.
'We know that audiences value innovation but reject gimmickry.' True, but we also reject superficiality. We're all for increased coverage and accessibility of coverage and analysis; it's when the change seems to go in the other direction that it gets annoying.
Good changes:
- Podcasts and vodcasts
- Internet replays and additional material
- Digital 'red button' material
- Use of viewer-submitted material
- Emphasis on a wider range of viewpoints
Bad changes:
- Newsreaders standing around or leaning against a railing. It makes it look like the news reporting is so incidental to the work of the news offices that it has to be reported from some out-of-the way corner.
- The obsession with replacing all newsreaders with young women. Maybe it's just me but I like my newsreaders (male and female) with enough professional experience to know what's important about the news they report, and with enough gravitas to do it. I can't take twentysomething twiglets seriously and, if the television news is anything to go by, neither can many interviewees.
- The aforementioned 'coffee chat'. If your news reports resemble anything on the show 'Broken News', you need to reconsider your priorities.
Keep up the good work, and remember that the minute style triumphs over substance you've lost the battle.
If audiences reject gimmickry, why on earth do we still have to watch presenters standing up to read the news?
NEW THINKING SUGGESTIONS
Van-Klavereb talks about techniques and McKensie discusses formats and youth. How about VALUES?
Values are the root cause of much controversy and interest, implicit in most news items. Why not try adding a paragraph identifying the values issues underlying a news item?
Examples:
The morality and utility of hostage taking.
Is participating in imperialism a good policy for Britain in today’s world?
Should our immediate national interest override long-term UN policy?
The 91Èȱ¬ is certainly superior to our TV stations,but I see the red light showing,and91Èȱ¬ will be "Born,bred and corpsed" like the rest of the multinational world.The aussie so called tv stations are mainly advertising mediums, ad overloaded with yankee throw outs etc.I did visit the GP to see if I could get any amnesia tablets to enable me to watch ancient films that I have seen many times. I am 88. I do find the 91Èȱ¬ is my favorite watching medium,and I would hate to see it go downhill. Anyway good luck and good watching Regards Henry
"If you get a chance, just look at a programme from 15 or 20 years ago and see how formal it feels."
If by 'formal' you mean presenting facts rather than flashy graphics, interviewing experts rather than ill-informed members of the public, and using journalists who behave with professionalism rather than pretending to be chatty and accessible, I can't see anything wrong with formality.
mod 2 and 8 up.
Martin is spot on in his critique of the current trend of news journalism. I don't give a toss whether it's formal or informal, I want information delivered concisely and with sufficient background for it to make sense. I am really sick of the 91Èȱ¬'s current "interview" style of reporting.
just give us the facts.
its simply news, it doesnt have to be wrapped up in costly tech and other gimmicks, that will only patronise some. thers nothing worse than overkill. stick to what it is, NEWS.
How do the costs compare of (a) the straightforward news delivered by one newsreader and (b) the present floor show with flashing lights,drums and brass bands, and two or more people walking about the stage?
Have you asked viewers which they prefer and what they think about the difference in costs?
Just happened on this . . .
You can't be serious about the wonderfully "different" sound of Radio 5 Live. When listening in a car to a rational phone-in exchange, they break for a trail and the sound goes utterly berserk. Distorted, multi-layer, music and speech babble.
Then, abruptly it stops, and all is calm. The reason I say "in a car" is that as I am only an occasional "5" listener, I get fooled every time into thinking AM is having a wobbler and picking up more than one station. It isn't clever.
I'm with paul, nothing like stright shooters.