It’s a story that has seen a hive of online activity: the BBC puts a new reporter in the army for six months (he’s never worked in the media before); puts out a documentary, based on mainly anecdotal evidence; the army suspends five people (not clear how many were a result, if any, of the investigation); the mainstream media reports on the whole thing (Telegraph report linked here, as an example).
A Facebook group has been created criticising the reporter for the programme - suggesting he should be tried for treason - which at the time of writing has 1,460 members.
Yet nowhere on the BBC website is there anywhere to post a comment. Although BBC news stories don’t always allow comments, this could have been ideal discussion material for a blog. But because there wasn’t any we’ve seen a flurry of activity on our own site, from users who probably wouldn’t normally use a journalism news site. Likewise, Digital Spy had a fair number of comments. The other place with high level of comment is an unofficial Army forum, Arrse (British Army Rumour Service).
People reacted to the question I asked on Friday ‘why the low ratings?’ with a range of suggestions.
Most, if not all, the commenters disagree that the footage was ’shocking’ or ‘remarkable’. I agree with those that think the documentary had flaws in its method and reportage, but stand by my original comments. Whether it needed this type of ‘undercover documentary’ to give exposure to racism and bullying in the army (anecdotal evidence, or otherwise) is another matter (that was the discussion I was expecting to be provoked).
Bizarrely, if you currently search for ‘Russell Sharp’ on Google you’ll come to our own website, rather than the BBC’s. While we welcome the additional comment and discussion on our own site, would this not have been better placed on bbc.co.uk?
I emailed the BBC Press Office a number of questions about their online management. Initially I was told that there had been an opportunity for feedback in the phone-in on Radio 5 Live, immediately after transmission. I know, I tried to listen. Russell Sharp was supposed to be on it, but was replaced at the last minute – the explanation on air was that he was (or had been?) ‘holed up’ in an edit suite.
I’m posting here the full response from a spokesperson at the BBC in regards to the response to the programme.
I asked why the BBC decided not to open up comments to the public:
They said: “It’s good to see our journalism promoting debate and discussion. We don’t always provide an opportunity for people to comment on every story posted on the news website - decisions are taken on a case by case basis. In this case there was also a phone in discussion on 5Live which examined the issues raised and heard from people with an interest in the story.”
I asked if they were disappointed in the low ratings. They said: “The broadcast of Undercover Soldier last week is absolutely in keeping with BBC One’s commitment to placing agenda setting investigative journalism at the heart of the peak time schedule. We are proud to have ensured the maximum number of viewers had the opportunity to see it. An audience of 2.3 million viewers alongside the media exposure it brought to the issue of bullying in the army is an illustration of public service broadcasting at its best.”
I asked them what they thought about this story that appeared in the Sun, which suggested Sharp could be called back into the army.
They said: “The Sun approached us for a response to their story on Friday but sadly didn’t see fit to include it in their piece. It was as follows…..
‘We would never comment on a hypothetical situation but the MoD will no doubt want to focus on the issues raised by the programme rather than the individual who helped raise them. We are cooperating with the Army in their investigations’.”
The discussion continues, as does our blog traffic. When I posted on Thursday I expected a few reactions from journalists criticising the reportage of the documentary, to explain its low ratings, or a comment on the interests of the viewing public.
Instead, it became apparent that there has been very little outlet for the viewers of the programme to voice their concerns with the BBC’s methodology and subsequent reporting.
Tags: BBC, BBC Press Office, Radio 5 Live, Russell Sharp, The Sun, undercover soldierA Page 3 girl widget for RSS feeds, launched by The Sun on Friday, has beaten previous download figures for Sun apps after only three days, the newspaper has said.
The Keeley Hazell application (see below) was built using Adobe Air - a new piece of technology, which allows one widget to be built that will be compatible with both PC and MAC systems.
Further editorial developments are planned for the site over the next few weeks to build on changes to the site navigation and page design introduced last week.
The homepage is longer and features a panel on the right-hand side showcasing breaking news, ‘most read’ and ‘most discussed’ articles.
In addition, users are now taken directly to the article after clicking on a homepage headline, rather than visiting the section homepage.
The changes to the homepage have received criticism from media commentator Roy Greenslade, who asked if the revamp was a reaction to the Daily Mail’s recent relaunch.
However, Danny Rogers, The Sun’s editorial manager (online), said the new features were the result of long-running development.
“It has nothing to do with the Daily Mail. This has been going on for the last six months,” he told Journalism.co.uk, adding that the changes were aimed at displaying content in a more accessible and user-friendly way.
Tags: Adobe, Danny Rogers, Roy Greenslade, The SunYesterday was a day of thirds for me. Two thirds good, one third not so good. In the first two thirds, I attended a roundtable discussion on RSS hosted by MediaFed, a provider of RSS feed tools and services.
It would have been topped off with an excellent three-course meal had I not had to leave for another meeting after the starter (so only one third of a lunch for me, and those that know me well will appreciate how I grieved for the loss of that sticky ginger pudding).
Ahem, but I digress. The purpose of the first discussion was to get some representatives from the UK publishing industry around a table to discuss their current implementation of RSS feeds and how they expect the platform to develop in the future. Before I summarise the points of the discussion, I think it would be useful to summarise what I think are the key RSS requirements from both readers and publishers.
More »
Integration - the great buzzword of the newspaper industry in recent times - is seen by many (the Telegraph, the Guardian, Johnston Press, even the BBC) as the future of news delivery.
But not at the Sun. Managing editor Graham Dudman told the Press Gazette that despite integrating all the paper’s digital elements a further integration with its Sunday sister was not on the cards.
“There are no plans of merging The Sun and the News of the World editorially or having journalists working across both titles,” Dudman said.
“We have not even been thinking about it – they are totally separate; great rivals.
“The papers are two very separate beasts and will remain so.”
Tags: BBC, Graham Dudman, The Guardian, The SunWhen reviewing Times Online and theSun.co.uk for our series on accessibility, we only really skimmed the surface of both sites’ blogging areas.
This was largely because issues of accessibility prevented our user from locating the blogs section on each website. Asking them for their thoughts once I, as a sighted user, had helped locate them would have been misleading.
The lack of a dedicated ‘blogs’ link or section heading on each site’s homepage illustrates the papers’ differing approach to blogging - Sun blogs come under the personalised My Sun area; whereas Times’ blogs are listed in the comment section.
While this means that any user purposefully looking for this section might struggle to find it without prior knowledge, this is an issue of content rather than accessibility. Each newspaper has chosen not to feature a blogs section on its homepage, because this is may not be the content it wants to flag up first.
This is a subjective choice by the publisher, which may not meet the subjective needs of all the audience. So does making a news website accessible mean making a compromise to try and please most of the people, most of the time?
Tags: The Sun, The Times, theSun.co.uk
Main news from Journalism.co.uk