91Èȱ¬

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@David Cromwell, wow! I am glad to see there are professionals charged with monitoring and improving news media. User feedback on stories is usually limited/ignored.

@Steve Herrmann, I hope there is more discretion used while inline linking than in blogs, where linking to previous articles in the same blog, blogrolls and SEO-optimization are common practices to increase traffic/advertisement revenues. There is an by optionally including hyperlinks as footnotes, something that might be considered for link-heavy articles.

Personally, I am eager to see science/tech articles that actually cite published work and aren't just fluff pieces/PR releases reprinted.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Unfortunately, the links the 91Èȱ¬ provide on their news stories are biased. This is not my assessment, but that of the 91Èȱ¬ themselves who recently responded - in full agreement - to a complaint that their links lacked balance.

I see nothing in the guidance notes issued by Herrmann to address the problem of 91Èȱ¬ bias.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Steve Herrmann.

comments #2, #3, #4 and #6 make for interesting reading I can relate to. ;)

"Our links in blog posts.."

many of the 91Èȱ¬'s blogs are fascinating to read, very often insightful and (when one counts in the contributions made by the public) educational. their usefulness as a resource could be enhanced by providing a link to a page containing a collection of pertinent links; for example, the 'Spaceman' blog should have links to NASA, ESA, and other space agencies, as well as to the respective government committees, etc.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There's been improvement, but as a dedicated link-follower I find that there is still a tendency to link to an organisation or journal 'front page' rather than to actual reports and papers pertinent to the discussion.

Any chance of an article on correct citing, quoting and referencing of Internet sources of information? It's something I try to drum into students from an early age, but many are ignorant of this important art! If nothing else, it helps reduce plagiarism - people who know how to handle sources properly only plagiarise by intent, those who do not often do so by accident.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The above-noted removal of David Cromwell's comments demonstrates the 91Èȱ¬'s increasingly punitive and intolerant response to rational and evidence-based criticism.

On the issue of linking policy and the new guidelines, could Mr Herrmann answer the following question. If, in the supposed spirit of open discussion, accountability and 'self-inspection', the 91Èȱ¬ did run a story about media impartiality, would it be prepared to link to Media Lens and other such sites critical of the 91Èȱ¬?

In the same public interest vein, shouldn't the very discussion of linking policy at this blog be encouraging particular mention of external sites with that kind of media monitoring remit?

Isn't that an elementary part of the viewer's right to unhindered information and self-interpretation of the issues?

I expect this message to be held up or removed.

John Hilley

Hi Steve,

Can I ask how your news stories are compiled and are they rigorously checked for inaccuracies?

Only asking as there is a story currently on the 91Èȱ¬ website that has a number of inaccuracies in it (including the reappearance of ones previously brought to the 91Èȱ¬'s attention - and subsequently removed by the 91Èȱ¬ on that occassion). Also the article makes up complete lies about people being contacted by the 91Èȱ¬ when in fact no contact has been made.

Thanks

Astro

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Please arrange for the external links you will have inline to open in a new frame, tab, or browser window in order not to loose place in the current 91Èȱ¬ article browser window.

Thank

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"News stories - add inline links to the key source, e.g. report, document, newspaper article"

I certainly welcome this move, however, I hope it's not just going to be a case of simply linking to another news website. What we need is more "Scientific Journalism" (as wikileaks Julian Assange would say). All too often news outlets simply fail to check basic facts or check original sources (or even bother quoting them). It's no use writing an article and linking to another news sites report when that report is wrong or based on highly dubious information.

A good example would be the recent 91Èȱ¬ report on "400,000" documents due to be released by wikileaks.

See
/news/world-us-canada-11562494

This figure of 400,000 is highly dubious indeed, the only source seeming to be a blog at Wired Magazine. Nevertheless, this figure of 400,000 rocketed around the world with news companies performing their usual role of not bothering to investigate anything or check any facts whatsoever. Would the 91Èȱ¬ knowingly base a news article on a blog entry like that? What's more, would they actually quote that blog entry as a source or be too embarrassed to admit to such a source?

I suggest the 91Èȱ¬ spends more time checking for original sources and less time censoring posts critical of the 91Èȱ¬ (particularly this one).

The reporting of science in particular seems crippled to me not so much by the 91Èȱ¬ which mostly seems to do it's best to cite relevant respected sources but rather by the journal industry that hides so much of the good work done by scientists behind pay walls.

I would hate to see the 91Èȱ¬ linking through to commercial offerings you have to pay to see. However the price you pay for free content is often partiality.

Gordon_Smith wrote "Please arrange for the external links you will have inline to open in a new frame, tab, or browser window in order not to loose place in the current 91Èȱ¬ article browser window."

I hope this isn't done because most (all?) browsers already support the means to do this very easily - e.g. clicking with middle mouse button in Firefox, or at the very least right-click and use the context menu.

If a link opens in a new tab there's no way to prevent that behaviour (as far as I'm aware) in any of the common browsers.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Gordon_Smith, #21

// Please arrange for the external links you will have inline to open in a new frame,
// tab, or browser window

Please don't do this as it's an obvious accessibilty no-no. Better to leave the end user in control over whether or not to open pages in a new window/tab.

I refer to comment no. 5 by manchester me.

It would have been good to see Mr. Herrmann address the question of bias in the choice of sites to link to. The 91Èȱ¬ is a left to far-left organisation and the sites it chooses to link to very often reflect this bias. To take an example from Israel, the English-language Jerusalem Post is a centre-right paper and English-language Ha'aretz a left to far-left paper, obsessively critical of the Israeli government.

Anyone who has followed the reporting on Israel on the 91Èȱ¬ News website will have noticed that the 91Èȱ¬ links to Ha'aretz at the expense of the Jerusalem Post. Ideology aside, the two publications are of similar quality in terms of news coverage per se and the 91Èȱ¬'s consistent linking to Ha'aretz is as clear an indication of left wing bias as any other.

I put the following rhetorical question to Mr. Herrmann:

When will the 91Èȱ¬ begin to fairly represent both sides of the debate over the Israeli-Arab conflict, or any other issue?

It is rhetorical since there is little doubt that Mr. Herrmann will follow Helen Boaden's lead and not respond to the concerns expressed in the comments to this blog.

johnwhilley #15.

re right to "self-interpretation of the issues".

agree, the 91Èȱ¬ editors could learn from their colleagues at EuroNews for instance, they have a 'No Comment' format where a camera captures events as they unfold without (distracting) commentary by journalists.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The 91Èȱ¬ hates .pdf 's so linking to a government paper seems not allowed though non proprietary readers are available. So for example unemployment figures are discussed without a link to the ONS quarterly summary. The 91Èȱ¬ is running apparently special material on the Spending Review but the short Treasury Instruction for the Review is nowhere to be found. Nor is the actual Review.

Many 'reports' that are reported in the news pages basically reproduce the press release and then some stuff from the 'cuttings' (often 'outdated') and then without a link to the document which the journalist hasn't even 'speed' read.

Scientific 'discoveries' are reported from university or research organisations' media departments but no link to the paper which is usually hidden behind a paywall.

On local pages (which seem mostly are given to crime and sport,) when It is obvious the police want witnesses there is no link to a 'protected' site for this.

Serious reporting in 'New Media' it is isn't

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am not sure if this is the right 91Èȱ¬ page to make a comment on the budget cut in funding for the 91Èȱ¬ world service. Please redirect my comment to the right person in 91Èȱ¬.

I have been a 91Èȱ¬ listener for over 30 years for the latest news and happenings around the world. 91Èȱ¬ is like an old friend to me, keeping me company while I am driving, while I am resting, even when I am in the bathroom. It is a shame, if the world service is cut. I will miss it greatly.


However, in recent years, 91Èȱ¬ has stopped being indepedent, stopped to be impartial on many political programs. It has become an activist for western values. Many programs were in fact political spins, especially those involved in China bashing. Such programs are no different from CNN or VOA. They have no values to many of us in Asia. If such bias programs are cut, then there will be no loss to us.

Nevertheless, I wish to thank 91Èȱ¬ for the many years of excellent news program...and wish 91Èȱ¬ good luck.

Fohtze

Where you do link to a pdf or document can you say what size it is and not in fb/mb etc but in terms of page numbers so e.g.

Armed services committee report (pdf-146 pages)

so we have an idea abot what we are letting ourselves in for.

@Tengsted - You are not the only one still waiting.

Have you seen the 91Èȱ¬ show
"We need Answers!"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.