91Èȱ¬

The spectacular at Weston-super-Mare caused a fair degree of early morning teeth-gnashing in the newsroom, swiftly followed by heartfelt and relieved thanks to our fantastically public-spirited and technically literate audience.

We watched the fire raging - live - on a...err...rival news channel, who had the good fortune to have a cameraman/sat-truck operator living not far from the town. And boy, did they make the most of that stroke of luck! It was an uncomfortable hour, to be frank.

By the time our own team had hot-footed it to Weston, the fire was beginning to die down - but by then we had already received some fantastic "UGC" (User Generated Content) from scores of citizen journalists who were instrumental in helping us convey the drama and sheer scale of the fire.

In fact, by lunchtime 91Èȱ¬ News had received almost 500 and dozens of video sequences from members of the public, either e-mailed or texted in to us. To everyone who contributed, a big thank you!

Whilst lots of you were contacting 91Èȱ¬ News in London direct, many were in touch with the Points West newsroom in Bristol, while others were delivering some amazing pictures direct to our satellite truck in Weston (Ray and Ralph, that's you!). You can see some of their fabulous footage here.

Which just goes to show that you can strike lucky - or not - in having a camera crew on hand for unexpected news stories, but you can almost always count on someone with a camera being nearby. And that someone could be you!

Dramatic live coverage this morning from Manila where a group of rebel soldiers were holed up. The rebels were demanding the resignation of Philippines President Arroyo - essentially trying to mount a coup d'etat. The security forces fired teargas and used an armoured personnel carrier to batter their way in. And we watched it all live on News 24 (you can see some of the footage here).

I've blogged in the past about the compelling nature of live pictures, but today's events posed even more problems than usual.

Problem 1:
What exactly was going on?
As well as conveying the latest information - in a rapidly changing situation - we had to provide analysis and background for those of us not intimately familiar with the latest twists and turns in the power struggle in the Philippines. Which meant the newsroom team were frantically trying to find eyewitnesses to describe what THEY could see, as well as getting the political context from - amongst others - our world affairs correspondents in London and newspaper journalists in Manila.

One highlight was a British tourist who ended up trapped in a shop opposite the hotel - she gave us a fascinating eyewitness account and is perhaps the first person to have had a foot massage interrupted by an attempted coup.

Problem 2:
Our one man on the spot - who gets him?
91Èȱ¬ Manila correspondent Michael Barker was reporting live - for News 24 and 91Èȱ¬ World as well as World Service radio - from the hotel lobby as the drama unfolded. It is often quite a juggling act to make sure all the various 91Èȱ¬ outlets get a fair share of the one correspondent in the thick of the story. Today, Radio 5 Live were the unfortunate victims of a lost phone connection just as they were about to interview him. They used some excellent local journalists outside the hotel instead.

Problem 3:
Live pictures - really?
Most of the feed from Manila was live - with cameras both outside the hotel and in a corridor inside. But sometimes, with no warning, the news agency switched to recorded images. I think we managed to make clear to the audience which bits of our coverage were live and which were not.

Problem 4:
Could this turn really nasty?
The biggest issue facing us this morning - and an ever-present consideration when transmitting live pictures. Even on a news channel, which does what it says on the tin, we don't want to show viewers overly graphic images of injury or death. We take great care to try to convey the seriousness of a story, but without being gratuitous or sensational in our use of pictures.

Today, we were ready to leave the live stream of pictures at any moment - and when we saw the APC firing into the hotel lobby, we came very close to making that decision. As it happened, the most distressing pictures were of journalists and rebels clearly affected by tear gas.

There is a tried and tested plan B for these circumstances: to show potentially shocking pictures not live, but with a 10 or 15 second delay. Some radio stations do this with phone-ins, so they can stop the real nutters getting on air. And WE do it so that someone monitoring the live feed can yell "too gory - don't show this bit" - allowing us to switch instantly to some acceptable recorded pictures before the unacceptable images were broadcast. Today, we stayed - slightly nervously - with the live feed. But it was a close call.

By the end of today, I expect that this morning's coup attempt will have disappeared from the headlines - but it was riveting while it was happening. I hope we conveyed that, and helped explain why it was important.

Update, Tues 11:00 AM: Thanks for your comments, I've replied to some here.

Much discussion, both inside the newsroom and elsewhere, about News 24's rolling coverage of .

"Where's the news?" asked several viewers - and a couple of very senior 91Èȱ¬ bosses - once it began to emerge that...

• No one had been hurt;
• The police were confident that there was no terrorist involvement;
• The fire was relatively quickly brought under control.

Among the flood of text messages to News 24 - most of which provided some very helpful information in the early stages of the story - were a couple which, shall we say, questioned our news judgement:

• "So boring - have you any pictures of paint drying instead?"
• "We don't care in the rest of the country, you London-centric numpties!"

So, why did we run - for so long - with a story about a fire in a disused warehouse?

When we first spotted - from Television Centre, several miles away - a massive plume of smoke over East London, we had no idea of what exactly what we were dealing with. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but - at that time - we could not be sure we weren't in the early stages of reporting what could have been a huge story: another terrorist attack on London, or a major explosion involving multiple casualties.

It would, I think, have been grossly irresponsible to have left the developing story before establishing the basic facts.

This highlights the fundamental difference between a continuous news channel and a traditional bulletin: it is our job to report the news as it unfolds, as it develops. And this sometimes means reporting "live" on incidents at some length which, in the end, turn out to be less than earth-shattering.

The second factor was the immediate response of so many people in and for many, many miles around London: "I can see smoke from Watford. What's going on?". There was clearly a thirst for information, which we tried to provide as comprehensively as possible.

The final reason for covering the fire in the way we did was the availability of live pictures - from fixed cameras on at least two 91Èȱ¬ buildings in central London, and later from the 91Èȱ¬ News helicopter. There is something compelling about live images which appeal not only to journalists - you can never be quite sure what is going to happen next, and our audiences generally seem to appreciate this type of unmediated coverage. And, let's be honest, the pictures were pretty dramatic. Which is why - controversially - we stuck with them for over an hour.

Were we London-centric? Up to a point: had the fire been in, say, Newcastle and we had live pictures available, I daresay we would have covered it in much the same way.

To those who felt it was a waste of airtime, I apologise, but would like to offer some statistics in mitigation:

• the number of people watching News 24 doubled during the first half hour of the live coverage of the fire;
• when News 24 carried on covering the fire instead of simulcasting the One O'Clock News, our audience was three to four times higher than normal;
• our online - and statistics - show the item about the fire was the most read on the 91Èȱ¬ News website - beating the next most popular story by a factor of three to one.

Update, Wed 02:05 PM: Thanks for all your comments - I've responded to some of them here.

In retrospect, yesterday proved to be what 91Èȱ¬ managers might euphemistically describe as an "interesting and challenging" day to experiment with a real-time blog live from the News 24 gallery. There were - as usual - many breaking news stories to deal with, but what was genuinely unexpected was the way the drama unfolded about the 91Èȱ¬ itself and that documentary about the Queen. I hope we made sense of it on News 24 and across 91Èȱ¬ News.

To answer at least some of the questions and points raised yesterday:

Why lead at 12 on the Queen story?
The 91Èȱ¬ apologising to the Queen was clearly a major news item - as today's newspapers seem to demonstrate.

What other stories have been "spun"?
We all sincerely hope that this unfortunate episode was not symptomatic.

Could we offer a "newsier" service while Breakfast is on 91Èȱ¬ One?
Financially difficult - particularly at present. Although News 24 does - and will - "break away" from Breakfast early when there is major breaking news.

Does popularity of stories on 91Èȱ¬ website influence decision-making?
Up to a point. Many stories prove very popular online, but wouldn't make it into the News 24 headlines (today's example might be "Grumpy old people can’t help it"). But seeing - in real time - what is driving interest online can help in the choice of stories we chase on News 24.

How many people are in the News 24 gallery?
Generally, seven: editor, studio producer, director/vision mixer (in traditional galleries, the director and vision mixer are two separate people), sound director, communications director (lining up "outside source" contributions), caption writer, autocue operator. Plus our graphics team (of two) sit at the end of the gallery.

Could posts be displayed with the most recent at the top?
I think so, but this would be beyond my technical capabilities - which are akin to those of a caterpillar.

Are Reeta and Shami Chakrabarti related?
No.

Most fraught atmosphere in the gallery?
Big pre-planned, set-piece events - particularly when we're simulcasting a special programme on 91Èȱ¬ One - generally add to the tension.

"Unlikely" testing stories?
Often ones involving the 91Èȱ¬!

Do we liaise with Five Live over chasing stories and guests?
Yes - the Five Live teams sit only yards away from ours, but I'm sure we could do more.

Why the interest in the drugs arrests in Ghana?
Two 16-year-old British girls arrested on drugs charges is not an everyday occurrence - their age made it a more compelling story.

Why was HM Revenue and Customs representative captioned "Customs and Excise" (the name changed some time ago)?
Sorry - it was a mistake made in haste.

How are our on-air maps generated?
We use software called "Curious", which - I'm told - works a bit like Google Earth. And each time we make a new map, we add it to our library.

What went wrong at 10.49?
Ah. Glad it wasn't obvious.

Did you pay for a special "ghost-blogger"?
No, though I didn't type my posts myself - I wouldn’t have been able to type so fast! A fantastic guy, who is one of our blog moderators, sat next to me and made sense of my random rantings.

Did blogging detract from the actual output?
Hope not, but not for me to judge.

Can a real time blog be done daily?
NO ! It certainly added to the pressure in what is already a …umm…lively environment, but it was also oddly invigorating. If the powers-that-be approve, and there is demand for it, we may do it again sometime - perhaps with less of the "watch what's going to happen NOW" and more on how we reach the decisions made about the output. Perhaps you could suggest how it could be done better - if at all - in future?

So, just an hour to go until we start the liveblog from the News 24 gallery - as discussed here yesterday.

In response to yesterday's post, a reader asked for an outline of my day before and after I'm on air. Are you sure, Kenneth?

I get to the newsroom at 06:30; our first editorial meeting with the News 24 team is at 07:15 - where we talk through what we're expecting from the day's news agenda, and how we'll cover the stories, which angles to pursue, which guests to chase; another meeting (this IS the 91Èȱ¬, after all) at 08:00 - where we talk logistics with our newsgathering colleagues and the One O'Clock News team: this essentially agrees where to send camera crews, live trucks and correspondents.

Then grab a coffee and into the gallery for 08:20, and by 08:30, we're away - and that's where I am until 13:00. Then a debrief, a sarnie and it’s planning for the next day...

Some of the stories I'm expecting to make the headlines today: a "friendly fire" inquest into the deaths of two British soldiers in Iraq; later, we should get the interim report into the US troop "surge" in Iraq; we have some compelling material on the issue of domestic violence; and we'll see the Queen visiting the Tyne Cot Cemetery to commemorate the 90th Anniversary of WW1 Battle of Passchendaele. But I can guarantee some news that is entirely unplanned.

See you at 10:00.

UPDATE 10:00 - here we go!

It's Ten O'Clock. New top story to lead on - inquests. But what we're most interested in is the Queen throwing a strop on camera (ahem).

PS: You can watch News 24 online by clicking here - feel free to ask any questions that come to you...

10:04 - Just breaking some news from the Press Association. Sixteen-year-old girls from London found with £300,000 worth of cocaine in Ghana..

10:05 - There's an interesting debate going on... 91Èȱ¬ news and 91Èȱ¬ programmes don't always point in the same direction. Today, there's some disquiet in parts of the 91Èȱ¬ about using the pics from the Queen programme at this point - but news is using them.

10:07 - The story about delaying inquests for UK troops killed abroad is powerful in so many respects. It's a political story - but it's also very personal. And the man we talking to now, whose son was killed in Iraq, and had to wait three years for the inquest, illustrates that.

10:09 - Our defence correspondent Paul Wood has just nipped into the gallery to suggest a slight change to our script on this story, to make it clearer.

10:12 - Within a few minutes of hearing the Ghana story, we've got a map to illustrate it. But it's one we've got on our system, we didn't have to make it fresh.

10:16 - My presenters (Simon and Kate) are teasing me about this blog - it's going around and around in ever-decreasing circles. Apparently I'm in control.

10:18 - Just working out what to do on the arrests of the 16-year-olds in Ghana. we've got a corr in Accra who will hopefully be able to do a report for us soon.

10:22 - On the case of the - the sacred TB-ridden cow - our religious affairs corr is live. We're dropping the pre-recorded report just to go live to Robert.

10:23 - Just had a text from Declan Curry telling me he's keeping up with the blog on a train. The pressure is now on...

10:24 - Quick work from the director as an unexpected sound source popped up in the studio. It sounded like cartoons.. didn't go out on air, I should say...

10:27 - Foreign Office is offering assistance to the girls arrested in Ghana. The statement says 'next of kin have been informed' - has echoes of what the F.O. says after military fatalities...

10:29: There’s a massive difference between continuous news and a bulletin, in terms of how you manage it. In our situation, we could not run a live studio and gallery with the level of stress and tension that is the norm during a half-hour bulletin. If we operated at that level we would implode! When there is frantic breaking news, we're at that level. But generally we have to keep people as calm as possible - if we were at each others throats continuously, we might not make it to lunchtime!

10:30 - We're trailing ahead to a special day of coverage we've planned for tomorrow - tagged 'After the Floods'. We're back in most of the areas worst affected by the flooding, trying to offering practical advice to those affected. Promises to be an interesting day.

10:34 - We're about to dip into the House of Commons, because Alistair Darling is taking Treasury questions for the first time... Not that we're expecting any great news from it, but it's an interesting moment in politics.

10:39 - We're now running some previously researched material on domestic violence - we think it's very powerful.

10:41 - We've a very enthusiastic and tight-knit team of journalists on News 24. They work very well together. One of the producers has been having a nightmare getting all the elements of her piece for today together... and she's been cheered up by other members of the team, who have been singing to her in the newsroom.

10:45 - Interesting decision to be made - where to place the breaking story from Ghana. It's new, it's unexpected, and interesting at various levels - but covering it is very very difficult. All we can currently offer is a telephone piece with our reporter there, and our correspondent in vision at the Foreign Office. The story is what we call 'picture challenged' - but it's so interesting that we intend to lead on it at 11. helped us make our minds up.

10:49 - Oops! You didn't notice that did you? Good.

10:50 - At 11:00, the presenters, directors and studio producers change shift, and a new team comes in. Muggins here, however, goes nowhere until lunchtime...

10:53 - A very late change to the running order there, to provide an update on the Ghana story. Done with just a moment's warning. It shows the value of the N24 presenters - fantastically flexible and quick thinking, and generally good humoured!

10:58 - A comment - from David - asks where I sit in relation to the presenters. Physically, I'm about 20m from them - they're behind me over my right shoulder. They are, however, far closer electronically. They hear my voice whenever I need them too, and I can see them continuously on gallery monitors.

11:00 - A very quick debrief with the presenters - back in a minute...

11:07 - Our man in Ghana has finally made contact with us... seven minutes after we wanted him. Communications problems with far-flung reporters are an occupational hazard.

11:12 - First pics from inside the Red Mosque have popped up. Our reporter is going in as well. But the first shots available to us are from Pakistan TV. Matthew (presenter) is ad-libbing this - ie, without a safety net - giving lots of description and background. Works well.

11:15 - As I mentioned, we have no pictures to illustrate the Ghana story. We are getting, from our news library, general shots of Accra and Accra airport.

11:19 - As you may imagine, an awful lot of information that we gather doesn't end up on air. For example, earlier we were checking out an evacuation of a busy railway station, after a suspect package was found. It turned out to be simply an unattended bag, and given the level of tension following the recent attempted bombings, the station was evacuated. These incidents occur almost daily and are seldom reported.

11:22 - Andy - luck!

11:25 - We run what we call 'floats' to illustrate live interviews and reports. So our reporter at Maidstone Crown Court talked about the arrival of Chris Langham (the actor) as we showed the footage. She described the events as we ran the pictures. Obvious really, but harder to line up than you'd imagine.

11:31 - I'm talking to our reporter at the Foreign Office, but i can't see her - i could hear her, she could hear me, but we're looking at nothing but bars. Ah, there she is... She'll be on air in a moment..

11:34 - Unfortunately, reporting NATO casualties in Afghanistan or UK/US casualties is a depressingly regular occurence.

11:36 - We can link up live to our correspondents all around the world - but try to do a two-way with our political correspondent at the Foreign Office and the picture keeps breaking up. Don't you just love technology.

11:37 - Just had to pull out of the live two-way because of the poor quality of the feed. The team down there will move position and hopefully things will be OK by 12...

11:39 - Just had a note sent to me by one of our correspondents, who was told recently by the Queen that she and Prince Philip watch News 24. Nice to know! Just sending the note to the presenters...

11:41 - Just slipping out of the gallery for a moment, back soon,.

11:46 - I'm back...

11:48 - A member of the team has just said to me that a lot of emails and texts are coming in from viewers who feel that our domestic violence material (which I mentioned previously) isn't reflecting the number of men who suffer from this problem. We're going to use some of those messages to try to address their concerns.

11:50 - There's a story about a plane that's been diverted due to security concerns. Deciding which of these alerts are a scare, and which are serious, is one of the trickiest parts of the job.

11:56 - The Press Association puts out an apology from the 91Èȱ¬ to the Queen, over that documentary. We've known for 30 minutes or so that an apology was imminent, but we're only able to report it now.

11:57 - The apology will lead the bulletin at 12.

12:04 - Just recorded some shots from Ghanaian TV (Re the drugs story). Will be interesting to see what it shows...

12:05 - Hmmm. Not sure we can use those... the hunt goes on.

12:07 - The inquest that I was once hoping to lead on at 12 - it now doesn't start until 12:30...

12:10 - Trying to illustrate the story of Formula 1 team McLaren being fined. There was a moment of amusement in the gallery when the only picture we could find, at first, was of Steve McLaren (England manager). We chose not to use that.

12:12 - Andrew: Thanks for the kind words! But not sure my heart could stand it.

12:13 - An occupational hazard at the 91Èȱ¬ - various outlets are competing to get the correspondent du jour on air.

12:14 - Just starting to get a little stressed... not sure if you can tell!

12:16 - Just trying something a little risky - see if you can spot it!

12:17 - The ability of our presenters to remain calm when all hell is breaking loose in the gallery never ceases to amaze me.

12:20 - An interesting, but hugely libellous comment in my ear from one of the directors. It's a good thing there's no live stream from here..

12:22 - We've had to chase around two major breaking stories this morning - as well as the usual news agency flashes/alerts. No busier than usual, but now we're having to turn our attention to the story we've been expecting all morning - the friendly fire inquest.

12:23 - Nipping out of the gallery again... back in a moment.

12:31 - I'm back.

12:32 - Luckily, the viewers won't have been able to see one of our presenters nudging the other to start talking there..

12:34 - Just jiggling the order around to allow our reporter at the friendly fire inquest to gather some more information...

12:37 - Obviously, by the way - when I said at the very start that the Queen was having a strop, I was mistaken! Ahem. .

12:46 - Trying to line up some guests on the Queen story. Might require some last minute juggling if they don't come through...

12:52 - Sorry for the delay - My computer was just doing something that both confused and worried me. I think it's over.

12:54 - Coming up to One O'Clock - the end of my four and a half hour stint in the gallery. Unless we're rolling with major breaking news, we simulcast the 91Èȱ¬ One O'Clock News. We can break out of that when we need to (hope that answers your question williamt) - but, at the moment, we're not intending to today.

12:58 - As we go into the weather, and hopefully, the One O'Clock News, thanks for all your comments - it's been a fascinating experience for me. We should do it again sometime!?!?!.

13:00 - Over and out.

Mildly apprehensive at something we're trying out for the first time tomorrow - a real-time editor's blog live from the News 24 studio gallery.

So, as well as trying to keep abreast of all the breaking news, getting it on air quickly and accurately, attempting to keep the presenters at least vaguely informed of what might be coming at them next, talking to our correspondents and guests, nagging (should that be "encouraging"?) my hyperactive production team etc etc etc, I will be having a stab at writing a blog at the same time.

If it works, it might give you a fly-on-the-wall insight into how a continuous news channel operates: how and why we reach our decisions on editorial and production issues; the last-minute changes in running orders; which stories merit ditching all other news to 'roll'; how we react when things don't go entirely according to plan (which, since you ask, is rather more often than is good for one's health).

And if the liveblog doesn't work, we'll simply file it under "who the hell came up with THAT daft idea?". Watch this space from 10:00 (UK time) tomorrow morning...

Citizen journalism is making the news again. We have been all but overwhelmed with and videos from our audiences of the widespread flooding. As well as the dramatic rescue helicopter footage (for which many thanks, as ever, to the RAF) by lunchtime on Tuesday, the 91Èȱ¬ had received well over 3,000 still images and 200 mobile phone videos - most from stranded motorists and people whose homes and businesses had been ruined by the rising waters.

91Èȱ¬ News has broadcast only a tiny proportion of these, so apologies if your material hasn't been on air. But the torrent of information from the public has helped shape our coverage: News 24 was able to interview several people trapped last night by floodwater in Sheffield - particularly in the Brightside Lane area, in Rotherham and elsewhere simply because they'd contacted US in the first place. Their personal stories made compelling viewing, and also guided our decisions on where to send our own journalists and camera crews.

Today, we've been able to call on presenters and correspondents broadcasting live from several locations in Sheffield, from Ulley Dam near Rotherham - where engineers are fighting to prevent the dam bursting, from Catcliffe in South Yorkshire, from Tenbury Wells and Ludlow in Worcestershire and of course from the now ubiquitous 91Èȱ¬ helicopter, which has illustrated powerfully the spread and scale of the flooding.

And once the waters begin to recede and the clean-up begins and the insurance claims are calculated - that's when the questions really begin.

How can we avoid such widespread chaos and destruction in the future? Who - if anyone - is to blame? Is this violent weather something we should now expect as a regular occurrence?

There's a question too for us - and for you: has the blanket coverage been an over-reaction? TV News is often accused of overplaying stories with strong pictures but for the families and friends of those who died in the floods, the last 24 hours have changed their lives forever. And there are thousands of people whose homes and workplaces have been devastated.

Personally, I think the effort and the airtime has been justified - I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong.

UPDATE: I've replied to some of your comments - you can read that by clicking here.

POSTSCRIPT, FRIDAY 1200: By today, we've received more than 7,000 stills and videos from members of the publc. Thank you.

When Emily Parr was ejected from the Big Brother house for using a "racially offensive" term, we had to decide - quickly - whether or not to broadcast the word itself. The 91Èȱ¬'s editorial guidelines include advice for our terrestrial TV channels, radio stations and online pages on such matters:

Offensive language is one of the most frequent causes of complaint... Judgements about its use are difficult because they depend on tone and context. There is no consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom. Different words cause different degrees of offence in different parts of the world… We must not include offensive language before the Watershed (that's 2100 - ed) or on radio when children are particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of children, unless it is justified by the context and then its frequent use must be avoided.

On News 24, the offending word "nigger" WAS used - sparingly. By which I mean that it was included in our full report on the story, and in interviews on the subject. It wasn't used in headlines or in the introduction to items on the row. The One O'Clock News followed suit, but the Six O'Clock News - mindful of the number of younger viewers watching at teatime - plumped for "the 'n'-word".

So, why did some parts of the 91Èȱ¬ transmit the word, while others did not? Did we change our minds as the story developed? And what did our audiences make of it all? The term is clearly highly offensive to many people from all ethnic backgrounds, but it is also commonly used by many young black people. As we pointed out, it's a word heard regularly in more and more styles of pop music - and not only by black singers.

To explain the story and to try to put it in context, we decided initially neither to disguise the word, nor to keep repeating it. Not to have used it at all would have left many viewers wondering what all the fuss was about; to have kept saying it would have smacked of sensationalism.

So, by broadcasting the racist term in some - but not all - of our output, you might think the 91Èȱ¬ is having its cake and eating it.Or perhaps we're simply indecisive? Other media organisations wrestled with the same issue - one national newspaper managed to print both both the word in full and "n" on the same page.

Audiences were quick to let us know what they felt by text, e-mail and phone. And they seemed unable to agree. Opinion was divided on whether the 91Èȱ¬'s use of the word was offensive in itself, or whether it helped illustrate the issue. Many thought there were double standards involved: what do you think?

PS: My colleague Rod McKenzie from Radio 1 has also blogged about this - you can read his piece here.

A bit of a first yesterday for News 24: we went to jail. Our home affairs correspondent Jane Hughes was granted exclusive access to Britain's biggest prison - Wandsworth in South London. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time anyone's been allowed to broadcast live all day from behind bars.

But it wasn't easy getting to this point.

It was back in February that the first contact was made with the Prison Service press office. "How about letting me in?" said plucky Jane. "You seem like a trustworthy sort of cove," came the reply. She then had to undergo detailed questioning from the Prison Service, the Governor of Wandsworth and assorted other officials - some of whom were extremely wary. She had to send a formal written proposal to the 91Èȱ¬ Office, which eventually acquired the ministerial seal of approval. At last, Jane, her producer and the technical team went for a full day's "recce".

It was all going rather swimmingly. But then the row over foreign prisoners blew up and Charles Clarke resigned - the day before we were due to go live from Wandsworth. Frustratingly, but not surprisingly, the 91Èȱ¬ Office told us the deal was, temporarily, off.

Yet more negotiations finally got us to Tuesday's live broadcasts.

Our team had to arrive with all the technical kit you'd expect: cameras, lights, cables etc - but they also turned up armed with a ladder, a saw and lots of rope. Which caused much amusement among some of the older lags. Especially when the engineers had to saw a hole in a door and throw a rope over the perimeter wall - all to facilitate the live broadcasts, you understand. They've not had so much excitement at Wandsworth since 1965 when Ronnie Biggs jumped the wall.

When News 24 ran some pictures of a bunch of (admittedly very cute) baby pandas (which you can watch by clicking here), this is what happened:

1) half of the newsroom - and one of the presenters - went "aahhhhh";

2) the other half of the newsroom - and the other presenter - said "why are we running this worthless fluff?"

3) the editor thought: where does the balance lie between news value and picture power?

Intrinsically, the story behind the birth of a clutch of newborn pandas in China is not one that would fight its way into our running orders - until you see the images of those appealing balls of fur.

It's our job to bring to our audience the latest headlines, breaking news, expert analysis and investigative journalism. But there is always room - particularly on a continuous news channel - for items that are rather less important than they are interesting.

The solid gold rocking horse given to the newborn Japanese Prince Hisahito is a recent case in point. Another example from today: a Paris St Germain defender mistimes a tackle, slides right off the pitch and takes out his own team's coach. No one hurt; it all ended in smiles - but highly amusing pictures.

Although some purists may be offended by such "non-news", audience feedback suggests such items go down very well with the majority - you can almost hear the cries of "oi! come and 'ave a look at THIS".

And now everyone - not just 91Èȱ¬ editors - , are being most clicked on online: it won't surprise you that some of these not-very-newsy-but-ever-such-nice-pictures items are often top of the pops.

Skateboarding duck, anyone?

Remember Guy Goma? The chap who came for a job interview, as a "Data Systems Cleanser" at Television Centre, and ended up live on air on News 24? No? Where have you been?

He was famous for rather longer than Andy Warhol's 15 minutes - as media outlets across the globe scrambled to hear his take on our embarrassing mix-up. Sadly, he didn't get the job he came for, but there may still be a happy ending. suggest his story may be turned into a Hollywood movie - and that ought to earn him a couple of quid at least.

Of course, if the movie moguls want to hear what REALLY happened, they know where to find me....

We're taking bets on who will play Karen Bowerman, the business presenter who conducted That Interview: Sharon Stone is hot favourite - in every sense. And casting the (talented? handsome?) news editor who carried the can (er, that'll be me, then) should be a piece of cake. Step forward George Clooney.

Can I have my 15% now, please?

I was the editor in charge of the output on News 24 - and then 91Èȱ¬ One - on the morning of 7 July last year.

From the moment the first wire copy broke - referring to a "power surge" on the Underground, the News 24 team went into overdrive. Inside and outside the newsroom, everyone was focused on getting live pictures and accurate information on air as fast as possible. Several 91Èȱ¬ producers, as well as correspondents, provided compelling eye-witness reports from Kings Cross and elsewhere.

Clearly, we were dealing with a huge story. To begin with, information was sketchy and often conflicting. As soon as we had reports of a second explosion, it was plain that a terrorist attack was a likely cause. The presenters and correspondents talked on air in those terms - but we did not say categorically that London had been targeted by terrorists until the police said so.

At the time our coverage of the breaking news was criticised by some for being too cautious. We were even accused of deliberately withholding information from the public - and of being little more than a government mouthpiece. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's fair to say we were over-cautious to some extent, particularly when talking about the casualty figures. But we emphatically did not deliberately suppress information.

Those were the ground rules a year ago. News 24 was not a channel that would cheerfully boast of being "never wrong for long" - on such an important news event, we knew we had to be 100% sure of our facts before we transmitted them as facts. And we were broadcasting to a huge audience on 91Èȱ¬ One, which added to the sense of needing to deliver sober, responsible coverage.

Since then, much audience feedback has flowed. Many people felt we were slower than we should have been in updating information. That criticism hurt - but the overall effect has been beneficial. We are now less reliant on "official" sources; we won't wait always for copper-bottomed confirmation of every element of a story. The audience has a different expectation of a continuous news channel covering a breaking story than it does of a "built" bulletin which is broadcasting after the event. Viewers expect and want us to share with them the developments as they unfold - without, of course, abandoning our commitment to accuracy. One example: Sir Ian Blair talked late in the morning of "seven" explosions - that's what HE believed at the time and so did we, along with all other news organisations.

One important source of information not properly exploited by us on July 7 was "the public". Much has been made of the fact that citizen journalism came of age a year ago. News 24 made very good use of eye-witness accounts live on air but we were unprepared for the volume of material from viewers and listeners on that day. From blogs to mobile phone photos, we simply couldn't cope quickly enough with the vast amount of information and the number of pictures flooding into the 91Èȱ¬.

That first, iconic, image of the bus in Tavistock Square was on air very fast, but many more viewers' photos and stories went unbroadcast until hours after the event. But since then, new and robust systems have been put in place. So, when the Buncefield oil depot went up in flames, a fantastic flow of audience stills and video was on air before you could say "breaking news".

After all the fuss - and media attention, Guy Goma could have been forgiven for not wanting to set foot anywhere near TV Centre again. But he made the brave, if maybe rash, decision to re-appear on 91Èȱ¬ News 24 - where we put him in touch with the original intended guest Guy Kewney (see my earlier posting, here)

They were charm personified to one another - and Guy Goma showed himself to be a real star: innocently overwhelmed by the whole ratpack experience, but very much Up For It. The question everyone wanted to know: did he get that job as a Data Systems Cleanser?

Unfortunately the answer is "no" - a fact that ITN felt able to inform him of, live on air. The guy (Goma, that is) deserves a medal for his patience and good humour in dealing with quite so many appalling hacks - us included.

Someone else who deserves a medal is the business presenter who originally interviewed him, Karen Bowerman. She's been through the mill almost as much as Guy. And her crime: to warn me moments before going on air that her interviewee might not be of the usual high quality and then to keep the poor man talking, by asking very gentle questions, while we scrambled to get the next guest lined up.

To answer some of the comments made to my first post (it IS very interactive, isn't it!):

• Jeremy says he's waiting for an apology from News 24 - Simon McCoy and Carrie Gracie apologised to both Guys and to the audience. Twice.

• Neil suggests we should get Guy Goma back to guest edit - an attractive idea, but possibly tad controversial for my slot on News 24 just at the moment.

And a question for YOU: this blog is - currently - an internal 91Èȱ¬ thing. So how come chunks of the original entry ended up in this morning's papers? Huh?

More on Guy Goma, who came for a job interview and got an interview instead. We thought the only way to resolve this was to get both Guys on telly at once - you can see the interview here.

You may not be familiar with the name Guy Kewney, but you will certainly have heard of the embarrassing incident when someone who clearly wasn't IT expert Guy Kewney was interviewed in a business slot on News 24. It's given Fleet Street's finest - and many insiders too - a good chuckle. (Watch the interview here)

puts it thus: "It appears that the joke has irresistible appeal to my fellow hax: specifically, anybody who isn't News 24 thinks it's hilarious."

He's not wrong. The mix-up has caused much gnashing of teeth, tightening up of procedures and has spawned this - the first News 24 entry on the Editors' blog.

Sadly, the real sequence of events is not quite as amusing as the papers suggest:

1) Harassed producer sets off at a brisk pace - much of the activity on News 24 is conducted at a brisk pace - to get his guest from "reception". You've guessed: wrong reception... the real Guy Kewney was at stage door, our man legs it to Stage Six reception.

2) Producer asks receptionist to point out Guy Kewney. The Wrong Guy is identified. Producer asks again - having seen photo of real Guy (he describes himself as "very pink") on website, he is nonplussed by being sent in direction of a rather darker individual. Same answer.

3) Producer asks waiting man: "Are you Guy Kewney?" Wrong Guy replies in the affirmative and is whisked up to News 24's studio with only moments to spare before going on air.

4) Business presenter Karen Bowerman has premonition of disaster - gets message to editor (me) that guest "seems not to know too much about the subject".

5) Ed Has Idea: issues instruction to ask guest ONE question and then interview our (excellent and knowledgeable) reporter at High Court, Rob Pittam.

6) Instruction fails to reach correct people: the wrong Guy is asked three questions, with toe-curling results.

7) Only later does it transpire that real Guy is still waiting patiently in reception - prompting question: "Who the hell is Wrong Guy?"

Well, he's NOT a cabbie.

He is, in fact, a graduate in Economics and Business Studies who hails from the Congo. He was at Television Centre for a job interview - as a "Data Support Cleanser" in the Business Information Department. Poor soul, he was nervous and just did as he was told.

When I tracked him down today, he said that he had found his on air interview both "very short" and "very stressful" and was disappointed not to have been asked about data cleansing. He was prepared to return to the airwaves: "Happy to speak about any situation" - but would insist next time on "preparing myself".

How did the mix-up occur? We were hoping to interview Guy Kewney; we actually interviewed Guy Goma. Could have happened to anyone...