Live coverage on BBC News Online

first-hand reporting from our correspondents,
tweets,
insights from users,
clips from BBC interviews,
stills,
live recorded video,
links out to other sources

The format has been a big success in terms of usage...

And.. value? In terms of accuracy, objectivity, context, etc?

While being first is well spiffy to lord it at the awards, it's not proving that great on actually delivery trustworthy, objective information.

Thank you Steve on the update, I must say I like the "live page" with the rolling news column. A comment about them is that they are not searchable quickly adding better search and being able to filter the content like BBC own reports, social media and e-mails with tick boxes at the top would be great.

"One of the key things we are looking at right now as part of the trial is how to bring our social media output and our news reporting - and the teams that do them - even closer together."

GROAN !!

Help ! it seems that we will only be allowed to respond/comment re stories on the Scottish business site once in a blue moon now. AND since the Scottish political site is only available on a part-time basis, can you tell me why these cuts ?
You talk about this wonderful "live news" when in Scotland we can't even get a basic news or political news blog to respond to or comment on.
Why is this happening ????

Please make at least some of the video content available to watch outside of the UK!

Hi Steve
It may be a tad off topic - But if a national Broadcaster - say "Pravda" for example - decided that its citizens would be prevented from having their voices heard - How would the BBC report it?
"We are no longer enabling comments on this page as a general rule. We will continue, however, to enable comments from time to time on this page as we do across our online service to provide users with the opportunity to contribute on particular stories."
We in "Northern Britain" would be pleased to know whether this is now BBC UK Policy - or just Douglas having a bad day?
Cheers!

This comment goes a bit further than just the "live reporting". It may sound trivial, but could you put a precise time stamp on more items? Maybe it's just my memory, but I am sometimes unsure as to the exact chronological order in which events are being reported as "live". Sometimes it seems the word "continuous" or "blanket" seems more appropriate. (And if an article or comment says "just now" or "five minutes ago" I am not confident of when it really happened, especially if internet responses appear slow.)

The significance of accurately timed reporting of events needs no mention in, say, sports and financial reporting. I acknowledge that it becomes harder to put precise timing on reports and events as the reporting "window" gets shorter, but that is the task you are taking on yourselves.

I could live without tweets and "insights" from randomly-selected members of the public, who add little more than their subjective opinion to the topic.

It's irritating enough on the BBC football coverage, with chelsea4eva66 (or whoever) chipping in their ill-informed two-penn'orth, but on a supposedly objective news feed, it dilutes and damages serious news reporting.

It seems to be more than just the various Scottish blogs that no longer allow comments.

Any reason for this?

'8. At 16:03 10th Nov 2011, WBAB wrote:
I could live without tweets and "insights" from randomly-selected members of the public, who add little more than their subjective opinion to the topic.

Subjective yes, but how randomly selected one wonders? Bit like what is modded.

And as to comments, allowed or otherwise, Nick Robinson has evidently had enough of this interactive lark and his mis-named 'blog' is now no more than a new speaker on the BBC broadcast only wall.

Live, maybe. But certainly not much else of value.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

ARE WE GOING TO GET AN ANSWER RE THE POLICY
OF NO MORE/LIMITED ENABLED NEWS STORIES IN
NORTHERN BRITAIN ?

Frequently I browse your site from the office. I'd like not to have to stop the video stream whenever I load this kind of page! Could you make it not start automatically, please? Even better than that would be the ability to have the live text without the video on the page at all, but that may be asking too much.

There is no facility for those with a Beeb ID to leave comments on 'live' page
Just wondering why?

Abhijit Lahiri sends regards for the commendable job of live text on the BBC news online. It is as if gulping news abstract in no time.

The concept of "live" video complicates the lives of us who don't have (or need) a TV licence. We can watch things on iPlayer that have previously been shown on TV, but the situation with live video that is not being shown on conventional TV is not clear. I am still awaiting a response from TV Licensing on this in relation to the Democracy Live services. This new "live" service adds more complications - how are we supposed to know whether a live video clip is being broadcast on conventional TV at the same time?

Steve, I think the live coverage page is a great idea (and certainly an approach that's been proven popular at BBC already). I think the debate on whether to include social media feeds and user generated content as part of news, bar a few commentators on your blog, has moved on from whether broadcasters should or not to rather how best to include it.

From the little I've seen of the test page last week I think there are a few suggestions I can think of that might improve it. Following on from an article about social media and newsrooms, I thought the layout was good but many of the big breaking stories have content that is/ will be spread over some weeks and months. Perhaps a good idea would be to create a BBC mini-site on that news topic instead (e.g. on the Libyan Uprising) with one of the pages covering the latest news, one covering historical aspects, another covering related correspondent blog articles, and another covering something like public opinion (showing content from WHYS posts, for example). That way, not only does the public get a holistic view of the subject including the latest news content, but also a single credible point of reference for that topic (it would almost evolve into becoming a sort of Wiki for the topic) - this is something I think visitors would find very valuable as such content is rarely aggregated in this way (news, blog posts, history, issues, public opinion all in one place).

The other point of improvement would relate to allowing for more interactivity with readers. While discussion and commentary boxes are standard features, it would be great if BBC would introduce some simple polls - as most established bloggers will tell you, readers tend to be quite lazy to write but are generally very happy to add their 2 pennies through a quick multiple-choice poll.

Also, it would be good to introduce some kind of rating/ ranking system which will allow the cream of social media contributions to rise to the top - it's great including lots of tweets and feed updates but you really wind up with a lot of junk relative to useful content without some kind of user voting system.

Sizwe - Journalist and News blogger (South Africa)

#17 Sizwe M - some interesting points - especially like the one about the mini-site although am not sure BBC (or any other broadcaster) would have the resources to develop them for each major story.. agree it would be amazing in terms of public value though!

Steve, how about allowing freelance photographers and journalists (even citizen journalists) to write opinion pieces and post them on the 'live news' pages in the future. It needn't be a focus area of the page but having some diverse opinion would give the story much more perspective. If there is a ranking system applied to such posts as Sizwe suggest above then the garbage would be filtered out so there needn't be much more work for BBC moderators.

You need to have the option for news feeds to have social media updates, or not.

Personally, I don't care about opinion in breaking news, I'll make my own mind up, I just want facts.

Steve,
I would just like to say that I think the BBC and the staff behind the BBC website are doing a great job on delivering content that is trustworthy and authoritative. I have one concern that seems to be reoccurring on a regular basis and its the advice that is being offered on CV writing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15573447 It lacks the authority that can be found elsewhere, is too generic and could be of a higher standard. Let me know if you would like us to write an article that contains targeted guidance with content that the public can actually use.

Regards

Paul

would like to add my voice to complaint about the withdrawal of comments facility.
Don't suppose it will make any difference.

I would like to invite you to an exhibition but am unable to get in contact any other way . sorry to go about it this way, but im finding it hard to get information from the site. i will be covering the toppic of historic belfast and its a must see at the moment. thank you jenn

Please please change the page format back to how it used to be. Its almost impossible to read an article with one sentence per paragraph.

Take this as an example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15714771

Also really quite demeaning. I'm not 5 years old and am quite capable of digesting a paragraph containing 3 or 4 sentences.

People, think yourself lucky you can add comments.

BBC Scotland have stopped comments on their blogs.

Why does the BBC treat Scotland differently from the rest of the UK?

I've looked through your correspondent pages and it seems only the Scottish correspondents are not accepting comments (Brian Taylor -politics, Douglas Fraser - Business). As far as I can see every other BBC region's correspondents are accepting comments. Can you explain this? This is not good enough!

#25/26
Hear hear.
Most if not all of the content here is England specific and not much good to me as my nearest English neighbour is nearly 300 miles away from my home and a lot of the content does not apply to me. And yet this is the most 'local' blog that accepts entries and discussion about current policy discussions. Is there any chance of 'persuading' Brian Taylor on our behalf to post more frequently than every weekend and opening his blog to the occasional comment. At a time that the UK government seem concerned with the Scottish 'seperatist' movement, it would appear that the BBC have already decided to seperate themselves from us. Sad. It appears we are not really worthy of a national broadcaster. Tapadh leit for any help offered. Oidhche mhath.

It also appears that you don't run a word limit here? Or maybe I just haven't reached it yet. Is this another difference between the facilities available cross borders?

The live view has proved itself a success. Would like to see a more evidenced based approach to certain stories, but I like the tone overall.

I am newly registered and this is my first comment about anything.
For some time it has occured to me that our leaders and for that matter most leaders around Europe and the world are more or less clueless.
When I read that countries like Greece and Italy are borrowing money not to carry out some major important project, which would be acceptable, but to pay the interest on a previous loans.
If this were a report on say my personal economics everyone would say he is mad to have got himself so badly in debt.
Why do our leaders not run the country as they run there home. Borrow only what you can easily repay and as we perhaps say to our children if you cannot afford it then you cannot have it.
I have said for some time that in the UK when an MP is elected to the House of Commons he should immediately start a training course run by civil servants for eventual government.
To me most of it seems just like common sense. What happens to politicians when they get elected ?
I am stopping here save some grumbles for later

I just registered, this is my first comment. I just read an article about Nigeria (Nigeria author snub 'surprising') and my heart melted. I wish i could explain to your editors or someone in charge how the Nigerians see Nigeria, from our own point of view. I know that would give you a lot of insight about not only whats really happening but also what we are expecting and what we are 90% sure will happen.

I like the live page feature and am very pleased to see that you'r planning to use it more broadly.

The pages typically have live or looped coverage alongside the text. I have in the past had problems trying to load such pages from old machines or when using a low-bandwidth connection, planning to just read the text. Instead the page has crashed or frozen while the video tries to load. A function to allow you to change the default setting that the video loads automatically when you open the page, or similar, would be very helpful.

'20. At 09:54 14th Nov 2011, Steve Herrmann (BBC) - we do tend to look for comments and contributions from people who are involved in some way in the story or have a particular insight into it.'

These insights... how are they looked for? Because very often they seem more for heat over light, or even to suit a pre-determined narrative.

And trusting this is not the case is not supported by simply looking at most threads around this one.

Steve, I just hope you consider your word your bond.

news 24 just left a live report about 3 police being stabbed to go back to libya, you need to get your priorities right eye witness accounts are what news is about ! missed half the story ie the man went into a butchers grabbed a knife and stabbed the offices ,good work again BBC

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why not proper coverage of the OWS suppression? Police Pepper Spray Peaceful UC Davis Students - this is more newsworthy than anything else in USA news. Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation of the Police tactics?! http://youtu.be/BjnR7xET7Uo

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I've always counted on the BBC news for the most accurate picture of what is truly happening on the world stage. American news outlets always seem to "protect the viewers." Keep up the good work, BBC.

'41. At 08:59 23rd Nov 2011, george_grimaldis -
I've always counted on the BBC news for the most accurate picture of what is truly happening on the world stage. American news outlets always seem to "protect the viewers."

£145.50 x 20M does buy a lot. As to accuracy, maybe a quick scoot through other threads on this blog alone may offer another view.

And as an entity where such as 'interpreting events' and 'enhancing the narrative' have been coined to explain how news now gets packaged, as a viewer I tend to wonder who, and what, is being protected.

As a globally relevant story, especially after the Jones review, ironically on how viewers are served, the latest on climate emails, and how the facts get reported vs. spun will be interesting.

To JunkkMale #42

Media representation should not just depend on how much cash you personally happen to have or inherited. Your single narrative that you add to every blog regardless of subject I believe puts you in the part of the population that has the luxury to buy media representation.

I notice we still cannot comment on Scottish Blogs. Do you think we will just get fed up and go away? You have to explain why the change and don't try to fob us off with the 'opening up a greater variety of stories to comment' nonsense, we are, of course, keeping track and you aren't doing too well on that score at the moment.

'43. At 11:35 23rd Nov 2011, _marko
Media representation should not just depend on how much cash you personally happen to have or inherited.

In an ideal world, ideally. However, we seem in an era where there are many making significant market rates out of the pretence of pushing genies back in bottles.

Life is a bit more pragmatic. Though seeking the least worst of the best flawed systems is valid.

Your single narrative that you add to every blog regardless of subject I believe puts you in the part of the population that has the luxury to buy media representation.

I believe we have exchanged opinions in the past. And they have been civil and often of value.

However, of late, you seem to feel that what you believe.. 'is', and that is as hard to address as it is pointless. Which does indeed often form the basis of my feelings on a 'service' that too often strays into opinion from fact, and requires me to co-fund it doing so.

You don't like what I have to say... fine.

You 'believe' what you like... fine.

You try and suggest that only you should get to opine on a public forum what you and yours approve of... and in a manner bereft of any substance beyond that... your call.

It is hardly persuasive. Especially when you have zero clue what I am able to buy, or not. Except when it comes to rational argument.

Why is there no obvious way to add comments to BBC news stories? Most of the American-based news websites I'm familiar with (e.g. msnbc.com, cnn.com) clearly display options for posting comments to any news story. And the result is hundreds or even thousands of comments on most news stories. Surely all of this is very well known to BBC management. Am I missing something here, or does the BBC simply prefer to not have public commentary on their stories? Except for this seeming omission, I prefer the BBC coverage to that of most American news sites.

To JunkkMale #45

So with pragmatic rational analysis, you would probably conclude that even when perfectly politically unbiased you'd expect half the population to disagree with or dislike the BBC (or half the world, depending on your belief on the scope of representation).

This is a continuing political controversy because those with money/power want to promote conditions where they can hang on to it without too much effort and those with little or no money/power want to encourage meritocratic conditions where they are able to acquire it.

47. At 18:01 24th Nov 2011, _marko wrote:
So with pragmatic rational analysis, you would probably conclude..

Setting your own to be, modestly, the epitome of pragmatism, you again presume to have insight into what I may 'conclude', before setting out your view?

If you want an echo chamber I can see how you can be defensive if that you favour gets challenged, but it serves little end to indulge you on this basis.

This is The Editors. One of few forums to discuss BBC editorial interactively, pro and con, as invited in that panel top right.

I often find reasons to comment, and if they do not get referred or House Ruled, they get published. I usually restrict myself to the topics and hence address the pieces or stories they raise. Possibly the protagonists if germane. Seldom do I need to address other posters, other than to pick up on points or, as here, when one decides they don't like what they think I represent, and go after that.

I have reason to feel a £4Bpa, uniquely-funded media entity with no obvious means of censure by traditional means (unsubscribing, denial of support) does represent a powerful monopoly and threat to democracy and free speech if not reminded when it strays.

You, evidently, do not. Fair enough. There seem a loyal few whose mission it is to swoop in and 'deal' with any not toeing such a faithful line.

You also seem to feel any critique needs to be addressed, which would be fair enough if on the substance of the argument, but less so on any basis that revolves around you being right because you say so or, worse, no one else can have an opinion.

Stick to persuasive argument on the ball, I may continue to play. Presume to know what I am, or should think, you can play with yourself.

To JunkkMale #48

I'm interested in swooping on and encouraging substantive pragmatic rational argument rather than belief, faith, speculative insight, the importance of being right and so on. Don't feel any obligation to respond.

Have you any reason to feel that:

1) when perfectly politically unbiased you'd expect half the population to disagree with or dislike the BBC.

2) those with money/power want to promote conditions where they can hang on to it without too much effort and those with little or no money/power want to encourage meritocratic conditions where they are able to acquire it.

I would like anyone with a BBC ID to be able to comment on the news live

'49. At 11:09 25th Nov 2011, _marko wrote:
I'm interested in swooping on and encouraging substantive pragmatic rational argument rather than belief, faith, speculative insight, the importance of being right and so on.'

Good for you. Gotham has a new Knight. Especially noting that last one, which may explain your persistence. I gather that's where you feel you are, and any views you disagree with occupy the former?

That's a question, sorry. I realise that there are those who get only to ask them, and those who are only expected answer, as this does valuably prevent the embarrassment of being seen as one who demands rather than shares.

Which is interesting, as The Editors is a blog whose threads I value highly, as one of few avenues to discuss dilemmas and issues. Especially pertaining to the world's most trusted national treasure.

Even more so when the topic raised can avoid the OT referral or House Rule, at least before early closings (which do seem to afflict many other blogs, many of which do go 'broadcast only' a lot of the time).

Because I too like asking questions, preferably of blog authors. Sadly, with only a few exceptions, those I ask, along with others, seldom do gain the courtesy of a reply. Or if there is a 'response', those who do get them are usually very cherry picked. And in some cases (Giles Wilson & Helen Boaden spring to mind), promising to get back... but just missing the cut off before getting round to it.

One could perhaps suggest that smacks of trying to shape the discussion whilst avoiding getting pinned down.

Leaving the field open to those kind folk who can be relied upon to weigh in with accusations, distractions and demands. Which, if left, though the same apparently does not apply to their heroes, can end up with daft claims of 'see... I knew you were not going to play my games!'.

Anyhoo, as you seem to be conducting a poll on behalf of the BBC for some reason...

1/2

2/2

Have you any reason to feel that:
1) when perfectly politically unbiased you'd expect half the population to disagree with or dislike the BBC.

Given the extent of variables and parameters inherent in that simplistic statement, almost impossible to answer, but no. For start you seem to be equating the political and sociological beliefs of 'the population' at an even 50:50 split, and further concurrent with a fanciful neutral mean that does not exist even if it were sensibly possible.

2) those with money/power want to promote conditions where they can hang on to it without too much effort

Yes. And £4Bpa is a fair wedge to impose power by monopolistic influence. Kind of explaining the promotion of any status quo that preserves that with near zero effort.

'...and those with little or no money/power want to encourage meritocratic conditions where they are able to acquire it.

No idea. Who are these people? I suspect you have them well defined, if in your mind. Maybe even with a nifty % attached. As to meritocracy, it is a welcome ideal, and those on the wrong end of its abuse doubtless will be its most ardent supporters. However, as Orwell deftly observed, there are those without money, or power, who can find the means to rectify imbalances... which is great... but often can then see any change in status as an opportunity to push the pendulum in directions that make them the next main beneficiaries. Not laudable, if understandably Darwinian in a tribal sense.

Only I know who I am, and feel represented by. Frankly, politically no one currently, with a sad acceptance of least bad proving hard to maintain even over the alternative of nihilistic anarchy. Hence my struggling to defend democracy despite its vast flaws and current failings.

Sadly, I do not feel well represented by the BBC as a supposed purveyor of objective information and education. Hence, as a compelled co-funder, I embrace any of the few opportunities provided to allow me the right to express that dissatisfaction, in the absence of any other outlet. Very often with questions, again, noting no answers to those above from the guys paid to provide them.

You, I'd hazard, do, given your stances here, and seem also extremely motivated to defend it, evidenced by the rather creepy tracking of my history to inspire your initial observation that was little to do with the topic. Might I be justified in claiming you have your own singular location in the demographic firmament that, irrespective of the quality of your argument, raises questions of who you are and why you are doing what you do?

Because equally I could wonder how much of your posting history is rather singular, demanding people answer questions that suit the way you wish the narrative to progress?

May I therefore invite you to return to the topic, with just one minor question of my own, given this statement: 'These live pages have allowed us to pull together content related to a big story fast, all in one place, and to tell the story as it unfolds. They are constantly updated with a mixture that includes first-hand reporting from our correspondents, tweets, insights from users...

Beyond how the user insights referred are sourced (asked but still unanswered) to ensure objectivity, how do you feel, given its undoubted importance to the BBC 'news' mix (clearly increasing) about its reliance on twitter, and especially tweets by BBC employees, and these being deemed by their employer (well, proxy management at least; I don't recall being asked) to be outside the strictures required of any other professional 'reporting' standards or impartiality rules?

Steve,

Sorry, but I don't know how to get this message to you other than to post here. It's about HYS.

The new HYS format is technically very flaky, 1 time out of three you get a fail on a vote or an upload. It lets you start composing a new contribution without warning you that the debate is soon to close, and having let you start composing a contrib, it doesn't let you upload it if the debate has closed in the meantime.

On the HYS home page, there is nothing to show which debates are open or closed. Very often there are actually only one or two debates open, compared to the half dozen or so featured on the HYS homepage.

Then there is the HYS editorial policy. Very often the open debates are very far from being the main news. This afternoon is a very good example. The open debates were on the nature of addiction and "fat women in the UK". This, with the biggest UK strike action in a generation coming up in 4 days and on a day when NATO apparently killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, in their home barracks, in their sleep.

Nothing wrong with debating "Fat Women", but it should not be to the exclusion of harder news stories - otherwise BBC News starts to look like "Bimbo Monthly" (gosh, I hope that's not a real publication - I really do!) or worse, lays itself open to the charge of suppressing politically critical debate, a charge which is increasingly frequently levelled by HYS contributors.

Can I guest edit HYS for a week? awwwww!

It's a great facility, please keep it great.
Alan T

To JunkkMale #51 #52

Serious thanks for your considered response.

Regarding the Live Page.
Depends on whether a public service organisation should just represent all prevailing views without any overiding examination of supporting evidence and regard it all as cultural. Some people are offended at cultural behaviour or tradition that is irrational (for example religion). Some people who practice certain traditions are offended when accused of irrationality. Not everyone can agree on where this division lies.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

CHECK OUT THIS LINK !!
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE RACISM LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED...ESPECIALLY ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTS INFRONT OF MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING YOUNG CHILDREN !!
OVER 100,000 PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE HAVE VIEWED THIS, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMMENTS POSTED, AND IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO ALL OVER FACEBOOK.
THIS LADY NEEDS TO SEE HERSELF ON SCREEN AND NEEDS TO REALISE THAT WHAT SHE DID WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANYONE, NO MATTER WHAT RACE TO ANY OTHER RACEE

To Slander a Judge
My letters on the web are in the tens of thousands being referred to by corporations, medical, people in need and all: except the news media. The NH Insider has discussion on my letters and personality. People want to refer to me as a danger but as some one point out the Constitution obligates us to abolish any government official that diminishes our Constitution in any way. I volunteer at a deficit to my family for the one thing in his world that matters more than any thing else. The freedom and continued existence of the United States of America.
My medical care for combat related disabilities was stopped and the public does not care. The VA taunts me as they restarted my medical care to fluff my medical records in the case of an investigation. Pubic officials, and a few others harm my character by claiming to the public through the news media that I am mentally unstable but my response is censored. What danger from me exists that from the start of my writing letters not once have I violated the law or threatened harm to anyone other than what the highest law in the US obligates me to be? WE must expose and stop judges that violate the law for the personal gain of that special class of society. There are so many letters by me of Judge Peter Favuer criminally violating the Constitution it proves what I am saying is the truth. The NH Supreme Court refused to hear the case meaning the court committed the act of Discrimination to protect one it. No one has to like what I say but the truth is so powerful that even the NH SC does not want it believed by the public. A civilized society that says talk is the best way to avoid violence commits acts in defiance of our Constitution to keep the public ignorant of the crimes. I do not give up because so many people over the history of the USA gave their lives for the very rights that are being dismissed here. Stopping my medical care was the least of the crimes committed to stop my words by these trusted government officials.
The NH Governor Lynch charged me money to speak with him on the subject of government wrongs. He took my money (and I still have the receipt) but refuses to speak with me. The governor defies our Constitution by making me pay and the news media does not believe this is pubic information. I live to this day with four disabilities some combat related defending the USA against such wrongs. It just does not seem worth trying to get out of this place any more.
The NH Insider, Blue NH, Veterans Today and the tens of thousands of other news media and public using my letters but not hearing my words shame on you. We to this day as children go off to protect and defend this nation from just what is happening meaning it was in VAIN. The public lets a government department meaning he Veterans Administration use the word safety to justify harming not this US Marine but many US Military veterans in need be swept under the rug.
My letters alone demonstrate the true intent of the VA as a government weapon to isolate and diminish those unlucky enough to come home alive. The only danger that exists from this US Marine is exposing the wrongs in government. I make nothing from helping others for volunteering is the right of anyone individual to make the USA better for others.
[Personal details removed by Moderator]