Time for a change
You may notice some changes to the Newsnight blog today. We've decided that after the best part of two years, and more than a thousand blog posts, that it's time to focus on what works best.
So the decision we came to was to have a collection of blogs - rather than a single one - and to separate things out in ways that will make it easier for you to find the bits you want. So, if you're interested in politics, you can follow Michael Crick's blog. If you're interested in diplomatic issues, you can read Mark Urban's. And next week, our economics editor Paul Mason will (re)start his blog Idle Scrawl, on everything from the economy to the European football championships. More of our correspondents will follow in due course.
We'll also have an editors' blog, and a blog from the web team, where we'll publish our prospects for the day, and ask for feedback from you for the programme.
But if you're one of those people - you know who you are - who likes to consume and comment on it all, then all our blogs will continue to be aggregated on one page at www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight.
We'll write a bit more in the next couple of days about this, but for now we hope you like the changes.
PS: I should say - if you'd like to look at the old blog, for old times sake (including poring over the 1,700 or so arguments between believers, non-believers, agnostics and the plain contrary under our most successful entry, The God Delusion) it's all been archived here for your nostalgic pleasure.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Peter I like the new idea. We know our views will be read, possibly not agreed with etc.
Will stuff like GM get taken up by Michael Crick? Susan Watts will have a blog?
Would a meta-level index be an idea as you will also have holidays and people like Mark Urban and maybe Paul Mason may be out of the country and unable to blog?
Complain about this comment
New format looks good. Also am sure many of us appreciate the efforts made to scan posts and put them up on Pages quickly (with occasional exceptions, such as when my posts get dropped out.)
Thanx to Peter Barron and everyone involved.
Complain about this comment
JUST WHEN YOU THINK . . .
Why have I got that 'new mobile' panic?
Complain about this comment
Thanks Gangofone (1)
We'll be adding more of the correspondents as we go along and the webteam - Stuart, Brian and Ian - will also have their own blog where we can pick up anything that doesn't fall into the neater categories.
Peter
Complain about this comment
WHOSE COUNTING?
Will the counters return for each blog? I know they only used to work some of the time, but on balance, it was easy to spot if things had moved on.
Complain about this comment
Barrie (5)
I hope so - I'm not sure why the counters have dropped off.
Peter
Complain about this comment
G'evening Peter,
This is great, it looks really sleek. I see you've fixed the colour box for NN members and it looks like the 'Being discussed now..' is fixed too (the date/time of the latest comment being top of the list now, rather than the date/time of the latest NN blog post).
Have you also been able to fix the live links and the 'illegal xml' characters? (I'm in the process of writing a blip about it so if you/your team have I can save myself the trouble)..
Regards,
Cloe
PS: Just testing.. sorry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
Complain about this comment
J'accuse...
Peter are you serious about interactivity? It seems to me that if you were you would:
1. Allow the public (or at least selected members) to originate subjects like a proper forum.
2. Your reporters would also engage in debate instead of delivering their tablets of stone.
3. Your presenters and staff would also be required to comment and interact.
4. You would have some form of interactivity in your programme as well. The only thing I recall is 'Oh My Newsnight' and that was years ago.
Is that unfair? Would the BBC allow you to do any of these things?
Complain about this comment
Fingers crossed this should post..
Live link formatting on the blog:
Some were wondering... I think post-Error502-era live links have to be 'formatted' before being posted. Hopefully this is useful and, although it may seem complex, it actually works rather well.
You need to use the following code:
<a href="URL">Name_of_link</a>
The first part, around URL, defines the address of the page:
- instead of 'URL' insert the address http://.../ between the double quotes
- make sure there are no spaces between the double quotes and the address
The second part, around Name_of_link - is the visible link
- if you want the actual address to be visible, insert the http://.../ again (can be very long..)
- otherwise give the link a name, like in the example below 'HTML tutorial - links'
The two parts have to be a single phrase. If it won't work check that there aren't any extra spaces but there are also 'illegal' characters that simply don't work (see next post).
HTML tutorial - links
Complain about this comment
Some more oddities of the post-Error502 blog:
If you type the ampersand or lesser/greater-than signs in your text it gets interpreted as HTML talk. Your comment then doesn't post at all and you get a lovely "The-comment-contains-invalid-xml".
For these characters to appear in your comment you have to type the equivalent HTML codes, which, ironically, I don't seem to able to post just now..
_______
I've given up.. Here are a couple of comments from the PM blog that did manage it:
PM blog - HTML formatting
PM blog - ampersand
Complain about this comment
tpbeta (8)
1. Allow the public (or at least selected members) to originate subjects like a proper forum.
Viewers suggest lots of stuff here and we pick up some of it - but we'll look at the possibility of a viewer generated thread
2. Your reporters would also engage in debate instead of delivering their tablets of stone.
More and more are - and I hope the new blog will make this easier
3. Your presenters and staff would also be required to comment and interact.
Noone is required to interact, but more are doing so. The trouble with the presenters interacting is that the things they say end up in the papers
4. You would have some form of interactivity in your programme as well. The only thing I recall is 'Oh My Newsnight' and that was years ago.
OhMyNewsnight went well, but the truth is it's a struggle to persuade viewers to invest the time in making content for Newsnight. But there is plenty of interactivity - look at the NHS map which has had about 1300 responses so far
Peter
Complain about this comment
Cloe_F (7, 9 and 10) -
Thanks for your HTML guidance for fellow-posters. As you've discovered, symbols such as the ampersand still have to be entered in long-form HTML - which I appreciate can be a pain. Perhaps we'll follow up your posts with a short guide to some useful characters of our own.
Stuart
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your response, Peter. You at least are willing to interact and I applaud that.
But show me where Mr Urban or Mr Crick have responded in the comment section of their blogs. It's pretty rare, is it not? They treat the blog as a column - sometimes an intimate gossip column, usually a very high class column - but a column nevertheless. All the communication is one-way. It's perverse to think we won't notice that.
Your NHS map is a good idea, but is it programme interactivity or is it web interactivity? More studio audiences like Crewe election please. More tie-ins with 5-live. Less of what you lot think versus what the politicians think please.
And the idea that your presenters don't routinely blog because it could end up in the papers is an honest and practical response but essentially boils down to admitting that the presenters don't feel they can engage with new media because they're too in thrall to the power of old media. They're incapable of saying anything interesting without it interacting explosively with their celebrity status. That's not a good place for a journalist to be.
Anyway all publicity is good publicity. Make them hit the keyboards!
Complain about this comment
...and as I've discovered, I've lost my colour box. :(
Complain about this comment
Not quite sure if this IS the right page to put up programme comments but...
I thought the Burma pieces were spot on and certainly filled in for me what had been missing in previous media coverage. Excellent.
Susan Watts was very even handed in her report. I do feel if this is a GM campaign, and I think it is, we would want to explore the motivations much more. The GM companies are there for a profit, and they look to have a stranglehold strategy. Altruism is not on their agenda in my world - I think they would say they are indeed profit orientated. As we are on the new member pages I apologise but somebody else made the point very well earlier.
On tpbeta's point above about interaction I ask questions. I don't care whether I get the answer directly so long as I get it eventually. As with Burma the questions I wanted answered were very well answered.
Complain about this comment
Crick did reply once in April 2007 when there was banter between Peter Barron and Crick's partner a BBC exec -such fun it was about who made Crick''s first film on Newsight side splitting !
Complain about this comment
Looks like a good improvement Peter.
It's good that the Newsnight website and blog in particular are so popular and regularly updated. I know they are an annex to the main show, but a couple of evenings a week I miss Newsnight, and whilst I don't mind catching up with particular interviews or reports I want to see on iplayer, I never really want to watch the whole show the next day. So the blog is a good way to keep up to date with what is going on on the show, and generally in politics etc.
It's good to see even more of your talented correspondents blogging now as well! I do agree with comments above though, it would be nice to see more of the presenters on here. Perhaps they could do something about what is going on in 'the world of newsnight'- how a particularly complex bit is put together, or a follow up on interviews on the show etc. I think it would just be nice to hear more from these relatively elusive members of the team!!!
Complain about this comment
1. At 05:42 PM on 23 Mar 2007, Michael Crick wrote:
I remember the Clinton-at-Oxford film very well. The best bit, though, was at the end when we tried to film through the door of Clinton's old college, Univ. and a porter turned up and closed the door in our faces. So I reopened the door and poked my microphone through. "Why did you you close the door?" I asked. "Was it because of Bill Clinton?" "Who's Bill Clinton?" he replied. Priceless.
And I've checked, Peter. Lucy's film was the first, not yours
How twee !
Complain about this comment
tpbeta (13)
The NHS map will be programme interactivity - we are currently making a film based on the comments made so far and there will be a Crewe style debate on the future of the NHS coming soon, featuring some of those who have commented.
Peter
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re#11.
Having had a chance to find my way round the new format, it's a hit. And already bringing in more posters, which saves you feeling that you're hogging it, when there's lots that you want to say.
Responses from the team will, I imagine always be rare, which I'm sure everyone appreciates, but it is good to know that they're scanned as time allows. We do watch and we do care. Just a set-format response to say that stuff's been looked at, without the team feeling the need to take up particular points, might be worth considering.
But at any rate, damn good show chaps.
Complain about this comment
Grumpy-jon (21)
Thanks very much - the general mood here seems to be that it's a hit. There are inevitably a few glitches we need to get sorted out - comment count coming soon - but overall the number of users seems to be up, and I'm particularly happy as my comments seem to go up unmoderated meaning a conversation without long delays is becoming possible
Peter
Complain about this comment
I think there's a degree of unwarranted self-congratulation on display here. Considering this is the forum of the BBC's supposed flagship daily current affairs show, the level of traffic on the forum is actually embarrassing. Any of the better known political bloggers do better. Why do you think that might be?
Complain about this comment
This is a brilliant new idea - love the fact that the Newsnight Crew get to have their own blog as well, and we are able to comment on it too.Thanks :-)
Complain about this comment
tpbeta (23)
Sorry for the unwarranted self-congratulation. One of the reasons for the revamp has been to focus our blogging effort better with a view to upping the numbers.
Peter
Complain about this comment
One way of "upping the numbers" is to bring on controversial topics.
NOT in the unfortunate manner of the WHYS_employees, but by challenging news stereotypes.
For example, what opinion surveys in Middle Eastern countries reveal.
Surprise: economics is more important than God, etc.
They love America, but hate Bush and his policies, etc.
For those who can use hints:
Mark Tessler, Mansoor Moaddell. Need more?
Complain about this comment
Peter (25)
Awww you're too nice to flame. But really - if you're going to let people comment, how much of an extra step is it to let them start threads?
And a live chat facility among forum members wouldn't be a bad idea. You really need to turn this motley solipsistic band of contributors and readers into a community if you want it to succeed.
Complain about this comment
Here's one to initiate:
IRAN makes more sense as a strategic ally than Israel.
Their present public opinion makes it entirely feasible.
etc.
Complain about this comment
Looks sound to me. Indexes would be nice and also nice (as also suggested by tpbeta (27)) would be at least one blog whose format is more like that of the forums one often sees on the net where you can respond to every post and start your own threads - but perhaps that wouldn't be a blog proper whatever a blog actually is. Give it a vague all sins encompassed here name such as 'Feedback' blog?
I do think tpbeta also has a valid point in his (23). The quality is frankly not always overwhelming. Gavin Essler recently wound up an edition recommending us to visit a 'lively debate' on ... well oh dear I forget exactly what ... but when I got there of just six posts thus far three were on the grammatical shortcomings real or imagined of the posters!
However, grammmatical shortcomings or no, it's excellent that we can post comments directly in and know that they are indeed read by the editor.
Complain about this comment
It was recently reported that the Iranian government was putting pressure on the Newspaper Association because the newspapermen did not want to have some directors that the government wanted them to elect.
Does this indicate that the Iranian regime is an evil one that must be threatened and attacked?
Does it suggest that there is widespread opposition to the government?
If the West makes threats and boycotts, will it strengthen the government or the opposition?
What policy would strengthen the opposition and weaken the mullahs?
Complain about this comment
One should not be afraid to examine the reality of Iranian public opinion and politics (as distinct from the Israeli propaganda line):
This is from a former Foreign Minister of Israel:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p09s01-coop.html
Someday, perhaps, the BBC will make available what Christian Science Monitor reader/viewers have available now.
Complain about this comment
Do any of our busy BBC employees ever check the New York Review of Books?
The lastest issue has a lot of data on the Bush/Cheney desire to attack Iran.
Some things I didn't know:
" This is not the first time such arguments have been made. Some Americans, including Air Force generals, believed in the late 1940s that a preemptive war against the Soviet Union was justified by the peril of Moscow with a bomb.
Twenty years later the Russians, in their turn, were so alarmed by the prospect of Beijing with a bomb that they quietly proposed to the Americans a joint effort to destroy the Chinese nuclear development effort with a preemptive attack."
There is a problem here. I do hope that the Americans communicate with their Congressmen.
Is there any chance of the British public being made aware?
Complain about this comment
Why haven't heard much about the Supreme Leader of Iran issuing a fatwah against the development or use of nuclear weapons- perhpas it didn't fit with preconceived notions?
It appears that someone knows more about Israel/Iran/USA than all of us:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/
Should the link not appear, it is Avnery's article 1215904313 on the zope.gush-shalom.org website.
There is also mention of Sharon's plans to occupy Iran, which he took to Washington
Complain about this comment
If Newsnight is going to run polls on historical topics, you might at least make some effort to get the facts right. About Churchil, you say "First elected as a Liberal he served in the 1906-1918 Liberal Government, before switching to the Conservative Party.."
Churchill was first elected as a Conservative in Oldham in 1900 and did not switch to the Liberals untol 1904. He rejoined the Conservatives in 1924.
He said that he had not only "ratted" to join the Liberals but "reratted" to go back to the Tories.
I realise this would require really heavy research, like looking at Wikipedia, but it would be better to say nothing at all if you don't have time to do that.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS