Puffbox

Worth reading Gordon Brown’s speech this morning, in which he describes the need for ‘a new type of politics which embraces everyone in this nation, not just a select few… a politics that takes a hard look at the tough questions, not the easy path of short-term slogans.’ OK, where’s he going with this?

‘The power of progressive politics rests in the empowerment of the people it serves. I believe that progressive politics in this country will only truly succeed in shaping a better Britain if we actively reach out to new ideas, find new ways of engaging the people in our communities, and then build a consensus for change.

‘I believe that we need new ways of reaching out. New ways of listening to people. New ways of consulting on new ideas. New ways of engaging in a dialogue and deliberation. And thus new ways of building our democracy for the future.’

Things kick off this week with the introduction of a concept of ‘citizens juries’: one this week on children, another next week on crime. Then we’ll get ‘nine simultaneous citizens juries on the NHS – one in each region – linked by video.’ (However, as Nick Robinson points out, No10 is a bit short on detail, and I’m not seeing an application form on the No10 site.) We’ll also get a mega-jury ‘composed of a representative sample of the British people… to formulate the British statement of values’, and a revival of the cross-party Speaker’s Conference, to look at various aspects of the electoral and democratic process.

All good: whilst I doubt these juries will change much, it certainly makes a positive statement. It’s just a shame the political coverage will concentrate mainly on (a) the lack of a denial about an early election, and (b) the involvement of certain individuals in Brown’s commissions of all the talents.

Iain Dale reckons we could be on for a 4 October general election, basing his speculation on activity at the Department of Health: ‘Tuesday is apparently full of big health events but these are now in doubt as No. 10 have apparently cleared their diary.’ Well, he’s right that Tuesday has a lot of DH announcements lined up… but I’m actually involved in some of it (of which more later…), and at the time of writing, nobody’s told me that Tuesday is off. I’ll actually be at DH on Tuesday, so if it happens, I’ll report live. Can’t say fairer than that.

Five News editor David Kermode tells the Sky blog why he’s abandoning what he describes as ‘contrived’ editing techniques. I’m all for honesty and integrity, but I’m not convinced that the Great British Public felt betrayed by the use of the ‘noddy’. As an editorial method of moving from shot to shot, when you only had one decent camera at your disposal, and a limited amount of time with your interviewee, it worked – and it didn’t/doesn’t exactly try to be something it isn’t.

True, ordinary viewers are becoming more familiar with editing techniques: but this includes the notion, for example, of ‘transitions’ in PowerPoint – a visual trick that gets you from slide to slide. If anything, I’d have expected the viewers to start trying advanced methods like ‘the noddy’ on their home movies. And they’d probably have felt dead proud of themselves.

We’re in danger of getting this all out of proportion. If we want to develop public confidence in news broadcasting, how about banning the ridiculous ‘it’s 10pm / the weekend / both, and I’m live outside an empty office block‘ two-ways instead?

Quick update:  Newsnight editor Peter Barron is on a similar wavelength. ‘If the outcome of this debate is that viewers end up being distracted because they can see all the joins, then we will surely have shot ourselves in the foot.’ Hear hear.

The Sky-BBC spat heats up, with Sky News chief John Ryley responding on the Sky editors’ blog. I’m delighted to see him making use of this new communication channel, incidentally: where the Beeb have got into the habit of using their Editors Blog to respond to coverage and criticism, it’s been disappointingly rare from Osterley.

It’s a curious response, in truth. Not much of a defence, certainly not a retraction, and not the credo it might have been. ‘Such editorial decisions are always difficult judgements involving a balance of moral and journalistic imperatives,’ he writes. ‘Those are things that we take very seriously at Sky News, and it is healthy that these issues should be debated.’ And..?

From there, it’s really just an anti-BBC rant. Yes, the game’s punchline was that the hostage was doomed anyway. Yes, the BBC has broadcast first and asked questions later, with unfortunate consequences. But bringing it up in this context just seems a bit petty. This is an opportunity for Sky to spell out exactly what it stands for, and exactly why it’s different to News 24. I’m not hearing it so far. And if both sides have dropped the gloves, it’s a rare chance to do so in plain, blunt terms.

It’s a bit of a shock to see ‘DIANA‘ in the primary navigation over at Sky News. Memorial service aside, it’s not exactly ‘news’? It’s clearly building on the success (?) of their special MADELEINE channel… but today’s lead headline (‘Madeleine still missing’) shows how difficult it must be to keep filling a news-optimised layout.

The lessons learned should hopefully inform the development of a ‘dossier’ template for big stories on the wane. Lots of backgrounders, plenty of multimedia, easy access to the as-we-told-it stories, with only the occasional new update. But for now, I guess they’re making use of the tools available to them, whether or not they’re ideal.

There’s some fascinating fallout from the role-playing game at the Edinburgh Television Festival, which asked our major broadcasters how they would handle a live hostage situation. Basically, the channels were asked if they’d show live pictures: Sky said yes, the BBC said yes but with a ‘significant’ delay. The conclusion: the hostage was killed, because the kidnappers had seen that they were about to get stormed.

The Press Gazette effectively told Sky’s John Ryley he had (imaginary) blood on his hands. And it isn’t too hard to guess who his fellow panellist, the BBC’s Craig Oliver, has in mind when he says:

In the end we were shown a clip of a dead hostage. He’d been killed because the kidnappers had access to television, and had been tipped off by broadcasters other than the BBC that the building was about to be stormed.

Writing on the BBC Editors blog, Craig does a fair job of justifying his decisions in the game; but inevitably it’s an artificial situation, and one wonders how the Beeb could remain on the moral high ground if Sky (plus presumably Fox), Al Jazeera, and (I guess) CNN were showing live pictures.

The ensuing debate makes for interesting reading. Should the BBC (and others) obey requests for a media blackout? And how does that square with the BBC-bashers who continue to accuse the corporation of left-wing bias? Should we expect higher standards of the BBC as a public sector organisation? But how could they resist competitive pressure? For all the idealistic statements, I bet they’d go live as soon as they felt it was justifiable.