This is an edited transcript of Lyse Doucet’s Royal Television Society Huw Wheldon Lecture which will be shown on BBC2 at 11.20pm on 11 October.

It used to be so much simpler. Remember those good old golden days of newsgathering?

Thirty years ago when I started reporting for the BBC in West Africa, we typed our news copy on clattering telex machines, hand-carried TV tapes to London, and used a mutter box.

You’ve never heard of a mutter box? We’d hook it up to a telephone to boost the quality of the line. It was often held in place by two long nails hammered into the edge of our big desk. This was state-of-the-art technology back then.

And our audiences? Oh, they sent us letters, sometimes extremely long letters, by post. That gave us lots of time to think about our answers, and even collect the stamps.

Back in the day, news was a different kind of business.

When I covered my first war in North Africa, in Chad in 1987, I ended up being the only foreign journalist left in the capital, N'Djamena, when the big battle finally happened.

The news reached us around midnight on 13 March that French-backed Chadian troops had crushed Libya-backed rebel forces at the fabled desert outpost of Wadi Doum.

Breaking news! I sent it the quickest way possible - running as fast as I could to the one place that had a telex machine: the State Telecommunications Building.

But my speed - as it was then - to get the news out was slower than a pack of wild desert dogs lurking in the night. They chased me. One bit me. But that’s another story. 

I telexed my war story to London. The next day I was expelled by the government, which hadn’t realised I was still there. Or at least it tried to expel me. A sandstorm closed the airport. That gave the BBC more time to finally get through on a crackling telephone line from London. I was interviewed about the war, and my dog bite too.

Those days are gone.

Many other journalists and I, both foreign and local, are still reporting on wars in North Africa and the Middle East. But there’s now very little chance that there would only be one journalist in a country to report on a big battle, big news - anywhere.

And you don’t need much these days to get the story out. If you have to, you can do it all with a smartphone - a tiny piece of technology that can film, take photographs, tweet, access the internet, broadcast live on ISDN-quality lines; everything we need to do in the field.

And if we, the journalists, aren’t on the scene, there will - almost - always be someone else there with the same kind of smartphone who can tweet a thought, a picture, upload a video to YouTube or Facebook or whatever social media they use.

Of course amateur videos from people who happen to be at the right place at the right time have been part of our coverage for years. We used to say ‘Thanks so much for the footage - it really helps us to tell the story.’ You want some money for your scoop? Ahhhh… let me get back to you.

But what if these people with cameras don’t need us anymore to tell their story? A lot of news is now in the hands of the people - quite literally.

So… what is our future when so much has changed, and keeps changing?

Every newsroom is trying to keep up with this fast-changing news world and they’re struggling to establish ground rules for their own journalists posting their own messages.

So, have we broadcasters become no more than just a bunch of tweeters and bloggers, just like everybody else? Is it just a matter of time before this social media revolution topples us from the top of news?

Survival starts by recognising there is a new news order.

Now, we won’t always be first with the news. Twitter may get there first. Now, we won’t always get the first compelling videos. Facebook or YouTube may show them before we do.

But it doesn’t mean - as they chanted in the Middle East - the downfall of the regime - our regime, our way of broadcasting. Contrary to expectation, during strong social media stories - England’s riots, Japan’s earthquake, Norway’s massacre - viewing figures for BBC TV news spiked.

Strip away this new-fangled technology, this incessant stream of information, and what is it all about? Authority, journalism, storytelling.

Because, while everything has changed, nothing has changed. In our business, the story AND the storyteller matter. It’s the faces, of much followed, much appreciated correspondents, the best in this business, who have been on our screens and in our homes for as long as we can remember… and the new faces who keep emerging.

Perhaps there is something that’s reassuring, a reality check if you like, about putting aside the constantly shifting, and sometimes confusing, kaleidoscope of the internet, for something more solid and trusted; for correspondents and programmes that have stood the test of time.

Because speed is only one part of news. Above all, we need accuracy. Any broadcaster worth anything at all would rather be second with the news and right than first and wrong.

And that’s what the strong viewing figures for broadcast news are telling us. A social media revolution that could have signalled the end of broadcast news has instead become its biggest confirmation.

We now co-habit a much wider, more open space. We keep an eye on social media. They keep an eye on us. That’s not a bad thing at a time of ever greater scrutiny of media ethics and practices. The Leveson Inquiry into media ethics brought the dangers home to all of us.

This social media revolution also empowers audiences. We hear from you immediately; you expect to hear from us. We broadcast your comments and criticism. It’s now part of our coverage.

Some say news has come full circle, returning to those days of old when news could only be transmitted by word of mouth - an oral history by those who lived through it, or had the means to convey it; from person to person, house to house.

Our monopoly on delivering the news has been broken. There’s always been a saying in our business: you’re only as good as your next story. We have to keep confirming that we should be watched or listened to - for our editorial judgment, our talent to inform and entertain, and because you still trust us.

The history of TV news has been written on a canvas of ever changing technology; ever growing threats; ever greater opportunities. Now it’s confronting a challenge so great it seems to threaten an end to broadcast news. In this revolution of social media we can be on the right side of history - but only if we approach our own story the way we do the rest of our news: by trying to understand it and doing our best to get it right. 


This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 8. Posted by Accesstomedia

    on 8 Jun 2013 13:20

    most definitely we do need journalists especially when it is so easy for governments to hack emails and the like especially in the commonwealth of Nations
    Canada! so much controversy about the current pm and lack of transparency here that people are fed up with all the scandals

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 8: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 8: 0
  • Comment number 7. Posted by anewist

    on 11 Nov 2012 03:17

    Organizations like the BBC supply one source of news, but not necessarily the main source anymore at all. It has biases, and is white male in its top leadership. BBC can't offend its sponsors, nor government minders. We see stories and footage ad nauseum on the violence in Syria, for example, but nary a word about the US dronings on multiple counries, killing innocent civilians on a regular basis. What's going on on the ground where those drones are hitting? Who exactly is being murdered by US/NATO drones, and why are these murders a non-issue in Western mainstream news. Such murder is tacitly condoned by the BBC, via its ignoring of it, so we, including concerned Americans, must get news from sources such as RT online, because BBC dare not touch it. BBC offers white/mainstream-biased, Western, filtered news palpable and agreeable to such tastes. It fails to tell the real story when its minders, sponsors, and social norms make it prohibitive for them to do so.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 7: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 7: 0
  • Comment number 6. Posted by collincamp1

    on 10 Nov 2012 21:34

    Dear Lyse. I think that BBC management is a problem; it lacks spirit and is overwealmed by things that have nothing to with what you're talking about. It seems to be inept and lacking spirit. Livestation is all I have, now, where I am. Aljazeera wins on production and technicalities. May you live long and strong. Collin

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 6: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 6: 0
  • Comment number 5. Posted by madmaxtheprof9

    on 11 Oct 2012 16:26

    Only adoring comments are allowed here. That is symptomatic of the malaise called "journalism" within the BBC. Those interested in substantive suggestions can contact me.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 5: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 5: 0
  • Comment number 4. Posted by ckahinab

    on 11 Oct 2012 12:45

    Thank you Amjad for your comment, which I echo, I believe on importance of media as a tool for development, living in this part of the world where the whole freedom of media concept is not yet there, I found on Twitter, Facebook...and all social media tools a good and fast way to stay connected and follow what my friends are facing in their daily lives. Yet i believe that nothing can replace a real journalist work, you guys take tremendous risks in investigating, and dealing with the ground, making analysis and feeding us with real information. So thank you for all what you’re doing for us, and to answer to your question: YES, your audience still need you! Stay safe Lyse!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 4: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 4: 0
  • Comment number 3. Posted by Mzwelindiwe

    on 10 Oct 2012 15:56

    Great article Lyse, and certainly very relevant given the role that social media is playing in creating the news, not just changing the ways people consume it - take the Arab Spring just as one example of the enormous impact Facebook alone has had.

    The days of mutterboxes and long letters may have passed but I agree with Amjad above - there will always be a need for a central authority of some sort (one would regard the BBC as playing this role currently) to coordinate, verify and help prioritise the immense amount of data that is now available on any news story.

    The BBC would no doubt have to adapt to integrate these new technologies and keep a keen eye on what others in the broadcasting industry are doing - e.g. CNN, I believe, has a winning model when it comes to using social media - see for a short case study. I think while the roles within the BBC will certainly evolve as citizen journalism etc takes off, the need for someone to credibly tie everything together will become increasingly important.. i.e. the role of TV news reporters has a long way to go before it becomes redundant!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 3: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 3: 0
  • Comment number 2. Posted by Charles Miller

    on 10 Oct 2012 15:23

    Thank you so much for your comments Amjad. I am sure they will be much appreciated by both Lyse and Paul - to whom I will pass them on.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 2: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 2: 0
  • Comment number 1. Posted by Amjad of Arabia

    on 10 Oct 2012 10:56

    Yes, we most definitely do need news organizations like the BBC. Id like to offer my own experience as an activist in the Syrian city of Homs as an example as to why I believe that citizen journalism is by no means ready to replace the services offered by established organizations such as the BBC.

    As an activist in Homs, I had given numerous interviews to the BBC over the course of the revolution. In one case I was live on air when a ferocious gunfight broke out at one end of the street where my house was. Listeners were treated to the sound of a very frightened me scrambling for the hallway. Citizen journalism in every meaning of the word.

    Fast forward to February 2012, and the Syrian army's bombardment and invasion of the district of Baba Amr. My house lay in the path of the army. Electricity had been cut. Internet had been cut. Mobile phones and land lines had been cut. I might as well have been on the moon for all the use I was. The only link I had to the outside world was my medium-wave radio.

    Tuning into the BBC, I discovered that the courageous Paul Woods was in Baba Amr, witnessing the regime's assault on the area. He even provided listeners with the useful tidbit that there were T-72 main battle tanks positioned near the university and a children's playground (which pretty much nixed the mad idea I had for a midnight dash to safety. That bit of information undoubtedly saved my life).

    In places where the dictatorship of the day do their best to cut off access to areas they want to subdue, the citizen journalist finds that the very infrastructure they rely on has been denied to them. Only established organizations such as the BBC have the skilled staff, resources,experience and organization to get the news out of the places that the world most needs to hear from. Thanks to the BBC and other MSM outlets, the world knew in precise details what was going on in Homs that month, despite the best efforts of the regime to prevent that.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 1: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 1: 0

More Posts