Channel 4 CEO Andy Duncan also said at yesterday’s Communications Committee in the House of Lords that:

• Channel 4 is fulfilling its role as a Public Service Broadcaster (PSB) by functioning as a gateway to new talent, innovative programming and contemporary content.

• Commercial television was simply unable to invest in or provide the content Channel 4 is recognised for.

• However, when challenged about the function of programming such as Endemol’s ‘Big Brother’, Duncan was forced to concede that it served more as a source of income than it did as the ground breaking concept it was billed as 10 years ago.

• Digital channels such as E4 and 4Music were hailed as some of Channel 4′s more recent successes. Despite this, it remained unclear as to how these services were able to fit within the remit of Public Service Broadcasting. Current PSB legislation was ‘archaic’ in this respect, Duncan said. In addition, he said, online services such as Channel 4 Learning showed their requirements as a PSB had evolved successfully beyond the original vision of the law makers.

Similar Posts:

• Channel 4 (part 3): BBC Worldwide could benefit from merger, says Duncan
• Channel 4 (part 1): Station plans to focus more on regional content
• BBC returns to Sri Lankan airwaves after 14-month absence
• Digital Spy: Viewer rating of PSB goes up; programming hours down, says Ofcom
• ITN On in video deal with Daily Motion

Yesterday saw the BBC’s economic editor Robert Peston taken to task for his influence on the UK’s economy and his cosy relationship with the government:

The Guardian’s Matthew Weaver is worried that his blog might have too much influence, and the Daily Mash joked that Peston had reached a state of transcendence.

Meanwhile the House of Lords Communications Committee asked a panel of leading political journalists if they thought Peston was setting the reporting agenda.

Another BBC editor whose influence has been much discussed is the corporation’s political editor, Nick Robinson, who last night admitted he had toed the government line too strongly during his reportage of the Iraq War, and admitted that he didn’t ‘do enough’ to seek out dissenting views.

Participating in a debate entitled ‘Political campaigners and reporters: partners in democracy or rats in a sack?’ at City University, Robinson said: “The biggest self criticism I have was I got too close to government in the reporting of the Iraq war.

“I didn’t do enough to go away and say ‘well hold on, what about the other side?’

“It is the one moment in my recent career where I have thought I didn’t push hard enough, I didn’t question enough and I should have been more careful,” he said.

“I don’t think the government did set out to lie about weapons of mass destruction. I do think they systematically and cumulatively misled people. What’s the distinction?

“It was clear to me that Alastair Campbell knew how what he was saying was being reported, knew that that was a long way from the truth and was content for it so to be,” Robinson said.

“They knew it was wrong, they wanted it to be wrong – they haven’t actually lied.”

Politicians ‘actively want to avoid a debate the public wants to have’, he said.

For example, he said, Labour was reluctant to debate the implications of a single European currency.

“[The government] wanted to limit the debate to being the five tests. It wanted to avoid divisions, it simply did not want to enter a political debate,” he said.

The Conservative Party are now doing the ‘exact same thing’, Robinson said.

“They don’t want a debate on whether they will tear up the Lisbon EU treaty, they don’t really want a debate about if they will put taxes up or down, or in what way.

“These are active decisions by politicians to keep you ill-informed, and it is our job as journalists to try to fight against that.”

It isn’t the job of a journalist to ‘pick a constant fight with people in power’, he said.

“I don’t see it as a badge of pride to have endless arguments with politicians, although with Peter Mandelson they usually are.”Similar Posts:

• ‘I was so exhausted I almost walked away’: Nick Robinson talks about the election
• Top 100 media list suggests print power is losing ground to digital
• Nick Robinson: I regret my sign rage
• Peston to tackle audience questions in TV debate
• BBC Radio 4 Feedback looks at the BBC News blogs (audio)

Jobs in radio are not under threat from the increasing trend towards networked content, Peter Davies, director of radio & multimedia for Ofcom, told an industry conference today.

Davies said the introduction of networked programming between stations, where shared content is broadcast by different stations within the group, would not result in less employment or training opportunities.

“The opportunities are still there they are just in different places,” said Davies, echoing Paul Myners comments about the newspaper industry to last week’s House of Lords Communications committee.

Davies added that Ofcom did not have a regulatory role regarding training and employment within the industry but that this was a concern of the body.Similar Posts:

• MediaGuardian Radio Reborn 2008: What’s the future for Channel 4’s digital radio?
• Currybet.net: Regulation, news media and election coverage
• AsiaMedia (via EJC): Radio services go offline in Singapore
• Today programme interviews journalist from French social media experiment
• Ofcom: Galloway’s Press TV programmes in breach of code

While yesterday’s meeting of the House of Lords Communications Committee was less of a nostalgia trip than last week’s session, it seems uncertain what value the evidence given can be to the Lords’ review of media ownership.

First up was Sir Christopher Meyer, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). Having asked Meyer to explain what the PCC does – and test this out with a few case studies – the moment was ripe for some questions on how the PCC is coping with regulating newspapers online and their video content.

Unfortunately, no such probing was done – as with previous sessions of the committee, the internet was referred to briefly and then dismissed. The review is meant to investigate trends in the ‘provision of news’, so why is little mention of online media being made?

The evidence given last week, where ex-Times editor Simon Jenkins described blogs as ‘bar room chats’ despite being a contributing blogger himself to The Huffington Post, was a case in point example of the committee’s grasp of the digital aspect of the newspaper industry. Jenkins’ comments were met with agreeing nods and laughter and a rehashing of ex-editor’s anecdotes was quickly resumed by speaker and panel.

As a current editor, hearing Rebekah Wade’s evidence was more pertinent than reviewing days gone by with previous employees, who can only offer their perspective on a paper or proprietor with whom they no longer have a connection.

In between attacking the Daily Mail’s content and recycling paragraphs from his diary, Alistair Campbell did his best to point this out to the panel. They could ask him his opinions on specific events and people, but they would remain just that – opinions, he admitted, often based on the personal likes or dislikes that are part of everyone’s character.

When the review reaches a conclusion – and there’s still some time to go – the amount of real insights presented, as opposed to historical overview and personal reflection, are likely to be scarce if the committee’s questions and subjects continue looking backwards and not forwards.Similar Posts:

• Phone hacking: new government inquiry launched, PM expected to be quizzed today
• Phone hacking: Harbottle & Lewis authorised to respond to MPs and police questions
• CMS Report: News International claims party-politics make report on phone hacking worthless
• PCC calls for submissions to governance review
• Newspaper Society: Justice select committee calls for evidence on FOI Act