DOCSLIB.ORG

Wednesday September 17, 2Pm Richard Sambrook, Head of BBC News Richard Hatfield, Director of Personnel, Ministry of Defence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wednesday September 17, 2Pm Richard Sambrook, Head of BBC News Richard Hatfield, Director of Personnel, Ministry of Defence Wednesday September 17, 2pm Richard Sambrook, head of BBC News Richard Hatfield, director of personnel, Ministry of Defence MR RICHARD SAMBROOK called, examined by MR CALDECOTT Q. Mr Sambrook, you gave evidence to this Inquiry on 13th August. Have you been following the evidence since? A. I have, yes. Q. Are you aware that both Mr Dyke and Mr Davies have given evidence to the effect that there are lessons to be learnt by the BBC? A. I am, yes. Q. Is that a view you share? A. Yes, it is. I think there are a number of lessons that the BBC will have to take from this. Q. Can I just run through some possibilities and get your comments on them? Mr Gilligan referred, this morning, to the fact that the 6.07 broadcast was in fact produced live and not scripted. Have you any comment to make about that? A. I think it is clear that any report which sets out a set of serious allegations should be carefully scripted in advance. Q. Mr Gilligan also referred, in his evidence this morning, to the fact that on Radio 4, on 26th June, you described his source as a senior and credible source in the Intelligence Services. Was it right that there was a conversation between you and Mr Gilligan shortly after that broadcast? A. My recollection is that it was the morning of Friday 27th when Andrew Gilligan told me the identity of his source; and at that point it became clear to me he was not a member of the Intelligence Services. Q. Can you tell us why no correction was broadcast, putting that right? A. I felt myself to be in a dilemma over it. Clearly it would be preferable to be absolutely accurate about it; but equally, again as Mr Gilligan indicated earlier, we had a dilemma because we did not wish to do anything which might lead to the identification of our source; and by narrowing the scope for the search for the source, which was clearly already under way, to those people closely involved in the dossier who were not members of the Intelligence Services, it seemed to me would be likely to help significantly in their identification. So I was uneasy about the fact that we were not correcting something that -- an error I had clearly made. My view was that on balance we owed a greater duty of confidentiality to try to help prevent the identification of Dr Kelly. Q. Can I move on now, please, to the question of notice to a party criticised or to be criticised on a programme? In the context of this particular case, what was your view about no notice being given to Downing Street before the broadcast? A. I indicated in a conversation with the Today Programme team that my view on it was that the allegations were such that they should have been put to Downing Street in advance. The programme team's view was that their experience was that Downing Street refused to comment ever on intelligence matters and that Downing Street were also happy for ministries to take the lead; and that as this was in broad terms a defence issue, and they already had the Defence Minister, Mr Ingram, booked, it was right to try to extend the bid for Mr Ingram. I mean, I noted the sort of custom and practice they referred to, but again my view was that the allegations were such that they should probably have been put to Downing Street in advance and I told them that. Q. We have seen the correspondence in your first round of evidence. There was clearly a live dispute between Kate Wilson of the MoD on the one hand and Mr Gilligan of the BBC on the other as to what took place in a telephone conversation between them on the evening of 28th May. Did you form any view about the procedures which the BBC had followed in relation to that dispute which gave you concern? A. Yes, when it became clear that there was a difference of view over what notice had been given to the Ministry of Defence, on I think it was that Sunday, I asked Miranda Holt, who is one of the Today Programme's day editors, to come in and go through the programme's computer records to see if we could put together exactly what calls had been made, which she did, which formed the basis of the letter to Ben Bradshaw which was showed earlier. It was clear that although they had noted times and some individuals or initials who had made calls, there was no note of the content of those calls. Indeed, in a conversation I had with Andrew Gilligan about what he may or may not have said to Mrs Wilson, although he said this morning that he spoke about cluster bombs but her also extended the bid to WMD and outlined the allegations that have been made, he had no note of that conversation and could not be precise about what he had said. Therefore it seemed to me that actually a better note should have been taken. Q. Can I, please, just move on to some matters involving you rather more closely? The reply to Mr Campbell's substantially long letter of complaint of 26th June was, in part, drafted by you? A. It was, yes. Q. Do you accept that there were some errors in that letter as to what Dr Kelly had in fact said to Mr Gilligan? A. Yes, I do. Q. Had you looked at Mr Gilligan's notes at the time that you drafted that reply? A. No, I had not, no. Q. Do you accept, with hindsight, that you should have done? A. Yes, I think if I had been able to go through Andrew Gilligan's notes in some detail and gone through them with him in some detail, we might have got to a point where we realised these were not comments that were directly attributable to Dr Kelly; and clearly I regret that. Q. Was Mr Gilligan involved in the drafting process of that letter? A. Yes, he was. Q. I do not think we need turn the passages up, but did Mr Gilligan consent to the letter going out in the form that it did? A. Yes he did. Indeed, part of the reason why Mr Gilligan spent most of that day in our offices, as the letter was being drafted, was that he could be consulted on matters such as that. Q. I want to go into a little more detail, to the circumstances in which you received Mr Campbell's letter. Can you, first of all, tell us what time you received it on 26th June? A. My recollection is I received it at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. When did you become aware that that letter had been leaked by or on behalf of Mr Campbell into the public domain? A. At about the same time, it became clear. We were getting calls from other journalists to the effect they had seen the letter and had it released to them. Q. Had you any forewarning from Mr Campbell that he was going to do that? A. No, I had not. Q. Was there a deadline for reply imposed by Mr Campbell in his letter? A. Yes, he asked for a reply by the end of the day. Q. Do you follow the Lobby briefings at all, Mr Sambrook? A. I had a number of them, at that time, drawn to my attention by BBC staff who attended the Lobbies. And of course they are available on the Internet shortly afterwards. Q. Were you following the Lobby briefings on the morning of 26th June? A. Yes, I was. Q. Can we please have up on the screen BBC/5/101? If we could please scroll down towards the bottom of the first page -- I am not going to go through these in detail because I think it is common ground that the questions with those bullet point marks beside them at the bottom of the page, and indeed over the top of the next page, very closely if not verbatim match the questions asked by Mr Campbell in his letter. A. Yes, that is right. Q. This briefing, we can see, is the 11 am briefing. I just want to ask you about some passages on page 5/102, that is the page we are on. Could you just look, please, at the first long paragraph, in effect the third paragraph, starting: "Asked if we had...". Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. If you go three lines is, halfway through the line: "... the PMOS said that as Alastair Campbell had underlined to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday, we had repeatedly asked the BBC questions about these matters, but we had not yet had a satisfactory response." Then a couple of lines further on: "... as Mr Campbell had said yesterday, extensive private correspondence unfortunately had not managed to resolve the issue, particularly since the BBC's answers kept changing. Pressed as to why Downing Street would not be sending a letter to the BBC, the PMOS said the questions were based on what had already been broadcast by the BBC. So far, we had failed to obtain any satisfactory answers." Then the next paragraph, please, about four lines in, starting at the end of a line: "We had been in lengthy correspondence with them, as he had set out, to obtain satisfactory responses to our questions." Had any of those questions listed in that briefing ever been put to you before by Mr Campbell in anything like that form? A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Press Release Embargoed: 00.01 April 7, 2016 Innovate Or Risk Irrelevance, New Report Warns TV News Providers Traditional Televi
    Press release Embargoed: 00.01 April 7, 2016 Innovate or risk irrelevance, new report warns TV news providers Traditional television viewing is falling, and the rapid rise of online video viewing continues. If television news providers fail to respond to these profound shifts in how people use media, they risk eventually becoming irrelevant, a new report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford warns. While television remains an important medium for news – and will remain so in years to come, according to authors Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Richard Sambrook – failure to recognise and engage with the steep changes in the industry now could lead to losing touch with audiences as people, especially younger people, spend less and less time with traditional television. Television viewing figures in the UK and the US have declined by 3 to 4% a year on average since 2012 – directly comparable to the decline in print readership seen by newspapers during the 2000s. The decline is particularly pronounced amongst younger people. Meanwhile, the rise of video- sharing sites, video-on-demand services and social media-integrated video means that younger audiences watch more and more online video. “There are no reasons to believe that a generation that has grown up with and enjoys digital, on- demand, social and mobile video viewing across a range of connected devices will come to prefer live, linear, scheduled programming tied to a single device just because they grow older,” says Dr Nielsen, Director of Research at the Reuters Institute. “This raises wider questions about how sustainable the broad public interest role broadcast news has played in many countries over the last 60 years is.” What’s the solution? At the moment, says the report, there is no one clear way forward, but the key is to recognise the challenge now, rather than maintaining a defensive, pragmatic approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Richard Sambrook
    Jenny Rata From : Mark He,lihy Sent: 26 J .me 2003 22 56 To : Donald Steel and Assistant ; Peter Robe :s, Jack;e Burdon Subject : Richard Sambrook on Today (26 6 03) ~b"'C Radio 4 The Today Programme Interview with Richard Sambrook Transcript on behalf of: Mary Morris Words 4, Lynton Terrace Lynton Road London W3 9DU Tel : 020 8992 2742 Fax: 020 8248 9'! 07 --mail : wapcis(d4drnecia.co.uk John Humphrys : The accusation from Downing Street couldn't be clearer. The BBC is lying and won't apologise . In particular, Alastair Campbell - Tony Blair's Director of Communications - says that this programme's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan has accused him of sexing up last September's government oossier on Iraq, and transforming it, giving prominence in a late draft to a piece of intelligence that was from a single source . A prominence that the intelligence agencies were said to be unhappy with. That, he told the Commons foreign affairs select committee, was a lie. Well to respond to Mr Campbell we're joined in the studio by the director of BBC News, Richard Sambrook. Let me ask you, Richard Sambrook, a straightforward question . What is your response to the accusation that this is something that goes beyond the normal badinage that happens between political parties and governments and the BBC, this is a case of a lie which has been propagated and which you will not withdraw - how do vou respond to that allegation? ~~CIS (O6 ? 96 3G Richard Sambrook: Well, Jim, I think Alastair Campbell yesterday seriously misrepresented the BBC's journalism .
    [Show full text]
  • Battle to Save Children from Gang Terror
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Lashmar, P. (2008). From shadow boxing to Ghost Plane: English journalism and the War on Terror. In: Investigative Journalism. (pp. 191-214). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9780415441445 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/19055/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203895672 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] From shadow boxing to Ghost Plane: English journalism and the War on Terror In my career as a journalist, there has never been a war on terror but a war of terror. John Pilger.1 “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible….This political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombed from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.
    [Show full text]
  • The BBC Goes Blogging: Is ‘Auntie’ Finally Listening?
    The BBC goes blogging: Is ‘Auntie’ finally listening? By Alfred Hermida Abstract This study examines how the world's largest news organization, the BBC, has sought to incorporate blogging in its journalism, both as a format for new journalistic thinking and as a platform for greater accountability and transparency. The research covers a period of seven years, from 2001 to 2008, when the BBC came under intense scrutiny over its journalism and mechanisms for public accountability. It is based on an analysis of internal and public policy documents produced by the BBC, blog content on BBC and personal websites and the personal recollections of senior editors at the corporation. The findings suggest that the BBC is approaching blogging as a tool to enhance trust with audiences through expanded transparency and accountability, in an attempt to transform its historical elitist attitude towards its audiences. But, at the same time, the BBC is grappling with fitting this online format within its long-established journalism norms and practices, seeking to normalize blogs within existing journalistic frameworks. Keywords: accountability, BBC, broadcasting, blogs, Internet, journalism, news, transparency Alfred Hermida Assistant Professor Graduate School of Journalism 6388 Crescent Road University of British Columbia Vancouver V6T 1Z2 Canada Tel: +1 604 827 3540 E-mail: [email protected] Page 1 The BBC goes blogging: Is ‘Auntie’ finally listening? Introduction This paper examines how the BBC has adopted the new media technology of blogging as a tool of accountability and transparency in its journalism, offering an important case study of the relationship between culture, innovation and the news in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Published in Richard Sambrook and Stephen Cushion Eds., the Future of 24-Hour News: New Directions, New Challenges, London: Peter Lang, 2016
    Published in Richard Sambrook and Stephen Cushion eds., The Future of 24-hour News: New Directions, New Challenges, London: Peter Lang, 2016. Financial challenges of 24-hour news channels Robert G. Picard News channels, like all broadcast channels, face fundamental cost and revenue challenges that require them to produce and make available content at costs that can be covered by their sources of revenue. News channels typically operate at lower cost per hour for programming than other channels, however, because they do not have to invest in risky—but highly demanded—original drama and comedy or to engage in heavy rights competition for sports rights and desirable contemporary films. The amount of money required to operate a 24-hour news channels varies significantly among news channels because it is dependent upon the scale and scope of operations, where the broadcasts will be distributed, and the number of languages in which programming is produced. Costs are thus influenced by whether it is a domestic or international operation, who pays for the distribution of the channel, how much of the programming involves live broadcasts, how much live remote broadcasting is undertaken that requires use of satellite links, the number of news packages reused during the broadcast, repetitious use of broadcasts from earlier in the day, the number of bureaux and correspondents, the extent of multiplatform operation, and other operational factors, Nonetheless, the basic financial requires for operating a 24-hour news channel are rather straightforward. An international broadcaster, or one in a large nation, will require £20- 35 million ($30-50 million) for start-up costs including facilities, equipment, personnel, and service contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • BBC Versus the Blair Government
    CSJ‐08‐0009.0 Reputations to Lose: BBC versus the Blair Government In June 2003, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) confronted what it considered one of the most brazen challenges ever to its editorial independence. The stand‐off pitted Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour Party government against the BBC’s executive team. On one side stood BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who on May 29 had reported—based on a single, anonymous source— that “the government probably knew” that information included in a key intelligence report was unreliable, but used it anyway in order to present a best‐case scenario for invading Iraq in March 2003. On the other stood Communications Chief Alastair Campbell and the Blair government, accusing the BBC of biased reporting and lying. The BBC was an unusual newsgathering organization. It was publicly funded but, under its charter, the government exercised no editorial control over its news programs. Historically, the BBC enjoyed a robust reputation for editorial independence and integrity. Not surprisingly, its non‐ partisan reporting brought it into frequent conflict with successive governments. Prime ministers and chancellors were not happy to hear their policies—on foreign affairs, the economy, education and so forth—criticized by a news source as influential as the BBC. In most cases, these disagreements flared behind closed doors, or in the press for a few days—and died away. Sometimes, however, circumstances and personalities combined in a particularly combustible way. That proved to be the case with the Gilligan report. Campbell vehemently denied that any government official had “sexed up” the intelligence report for political purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • ABERFAN-CONFERENCE.Pdf
    Remembering Richard Sambrook: Good morning everybody and welcome here to the Bute Building in the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. I’m Richard Sambrook, I’m Professor of Journalism here and the Deputy Head of the school and I’m delighted to welcome you all here to today’s event. I offer a special welcome to those of you from Aberfan who have come to join the discussion today and we greatly appreciate you being here. We also appreciate those who’ve travelled a considerable distance to be part of this event, including the photographer Chuck Rapoport, who’s come from California, and you may have noticed some of his pictures on the display outside. We’ll be seeing a lot more, I think, this afternoon. And later, Vincent Kane, who is going to be travelling from Cyprus to join us today to give the keynote speech at the end of the day. I’d also like to thank the Cardiff University City Region Exchange project for their support which has made this event possible. I hope that you’re going to find it a very useful and positive discussion and day, and with that, I’m going to hand over to my colleague, Professor Kevin Morgan, to open the first session. Kevin Morgan: Thanks Richard, and welcome to you all. My name is Kevin Morgan, I’m Dean of Engagement at Cardiff University, and I’ve been asked to chair this opening session. And before I introduce our speakers in this opening session, I’ve been asked, for a few minutes, to reflect on my own memories of Aberfan, coming from the Cynon Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2004 Bulletin 80
    Advertisements Diary Dates Please refer to VLV when responding to advertisements. VLV Ltd cannot accept any liability or complaint in regard to the following offers. The charge for classified advertisements is 30p per word, 20p for Monday, 20 September members. Please send typed copy with a cheque made payable to VLV Ltd. For display space please VLV visit to Channel Five contact Linda Forbes on 01474 352835. Covent Garden, London WC2 2-3.30pm VLV GIFT MEMBERSHIP Kelly Books 1000s of books, pamphlets and magazines Thursday, 30 September Give VLV membership as a gift to a - new and out of print - VLV visit to Jazz FM friend or relative. We will add a BROADCASTING & MASS (including extensive stock of back issues of London W1 greetings or birthday card to their COMMUNICATIONS: 2-3.30pm membership pack plus a free copy ‘Radio Times’ and ‘The Listener’). of the Radio Listener’s Guide ● GENERAL Thursday, 7 October Kelly Books, 6 Redlands, Tiverton EX16 4DH Evening with Sir David Attenborough to UK Radio 2004. ● HISTORICAL Tel: 01884 256170 Fax: 01884 252765 The British Academy, London SW1 £14.50 single member ● PROGRAMMES Email: [email protected] 6.30 – 8pm £22.50 for two at same address ● PERSONALITIES Website: www.kellybooks.co.uk £21.50 overseas member Monday, 11 October VLV visit to BBC Written Archive Centre, Caversham Park, Reading The Radio Listener's Guide 2004 Television Viewer’s Guide 2004 2.30pm The Radio Listener’s Guide gives details of all the BBC, A new guide for UK television viewers. All the Tuesday, 19 October commercial and Digital radio stations in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Collaboration in Investigative Journalism
    Recent major leaks of documents and data have seen new approaches to JOURNALISM IN INVESTIGATIVE COLLABORATION GLOBAL TEAMWORK: THE RISE OF investigative journalism develop. Collaboration across countries and across GLOBAL TEAMWORK: THE organisations has been necessary to share the scale of the investigation, share expertise, and co-ordinate publication to maximise impact. RISE OF COLLABORATION IN This new model of collaboration, in an industry otherwise focused on INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM exclusivity, indicates ways of adapting to technological, business and political change to strengthen accountability journalism at a time when it is under pressure from multiple directions. Edited by RICHARD SAMBROOK This book is a collection of essays from some of those closely involved in developing new models of collaboration in investigative journalism. It offers lessons from some of the recent major investigations, like The Panama and Paradise Papers and Edward Snowden’s NSA fi les, and a framework for others seeking to mount major collaborative investigations in future. Richard Sambrook is Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University and a Senior Research Associate of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. He was previously a journalist in BBC News for thirty years culminating in a decade on the board of management as Director of News and Director of Global News and the World Service. RICHARD SAMBROOK Edited by ISBN 978-1-907384-35-6 9 781907 384356 GLOBAL TEAMWORK THE RISE OF COLLABORATION IN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford aims to serve as the leading international forum for a productive engagement between scholars from a wide range of disciplines and practitioners of journalism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Microsoft Government Leaders Forum
    Monday, 23 April 2007 Grand Hotel Huis ter Duin Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands AGENDA IN BRIEF: Sunday, 22 April 19:00 to 20:30..................Welcome Reception ................................................. Margriet, Irene, and Salon Terrace Monday, 23 April 08:45 to 10:30..................Plenary Forum................................................................................................. Picke Suite 10:30 to 11:00...................Refreshment Break .............................................................................Tappenbeck Foyer 11:00 to 12:00...................Plenary Forum................................................................................................. Picke Suite 12:00 to 13:35...................Lunch......................................................................................................Keizerzaal Room 13:35 to 15:05 ...................Plenary Forum................................................................................................. Picke Suite 15:05 to 15:35 ...................Refreshment Break .............................................................................Tappenbeck Foyer 15:35 to 17:45....................Plenary Forum................................................................................................. Picke Suite 19:00 to 21:00 ..................Formal Reception & Dinner...................................................................Keizerzaal Room 21:00 to 22:00..................After Dinner “Lounge” Session.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Trust: Impartiality and Objectivity in a Digital
    Sambrook Paginated_Layout 1 06/06/2012 15:44 Page 1 REUTERS INSTITUTE for the STUDY of REPORT JOURNALISM Delivering Trust: Impartiality and Objectivity in the Digital Age Richard Sambrook July 2012 Cover image © TBI Communications Sambrook Paginated_Layout 1 06/06/2012 15:44 Page 2 About the Author Contents Richard Sambrook is Professor of Journalism and Director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University. He spent 30 years as a journalist and 1. Introduction manager in the BBC, editing many major programmes and covering events 2. Definitions from China to the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the United States. He was Director of the BBC's Global News Division, overseeing services for audiences 3. The History: The Emergence of Professional Norms of 240 million people each week. 4. The View From Nowhere – Objectivity in Print Journalism 5. Who Can You Trust? Different Kinds of Journalism 6. Process and Output: The How versus the What 7. The UK Debate: Broadcast Regulation 8. Impartiality and Moral Equivalence 9. Some Proposed Solutions 10. Conclusion Bibliography Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Sambrook Paginated_Layout 1 06/06/2012 15:44 Page 3 About the Author Contents Richard Sambrook is Professor of Journalism and Director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University. He spent 30 years as a journalist and 1. Introduction manager in the BBC, editing many major programmes and covering events 2. Definitions from China to the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the United States. He was Director of the BBC's Global News Division, overseeing services for audiences 3.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Happening to Television News?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff WHAT IS HAPPENING TO TELEVISION NEWS? RASMUS KLEIS NIELSEN AND RICHARD SAMBROOK DIGITAL NEWS PROJECT DIGITAL NEWS PROJECT DIGITAL NEWS PROJECT DIGITAL NEWS DIGITAL PROJECT NEWS DIGITAL PROJECT NEWS DIGITAL PROJECT NEWS DIGITAL CONTENTS About the Author 2 Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction: A Golden Age of Television, but not of Television News 5 What Is Happening to Television News? 5 The Erosion of Traditional Television and Growth of Online Video Challenge Television News Providers 6 Overview of the Report 6 1. The Erosion of Traditional Television Viewing 8 1.1 Television News Viewing 8 1.2 Young People and Television News 9 2. The Rise of Online Video 12 2.1 On-Demand, Distributed, and Mobile Viewing 13 2.2 Television beyond the Box 13 2.3 Broadcasters Are Unlikely To Be the most Important Players in Online Video 15 2.4 The Business of Online Video and its Implications for Television News 15 3. Television News in a Changing Media Environment 17 3.1 Incumbent Legacy Media and Insurgent Start-Ups Face Di erent Challenges 18 3.2 Distributed Content 18 3.3 Long form 19 3.4 Live Streaming News 20 3.5 Mobile Video News 20 4. Ways Forward for Television News 22 4.1 The Need for Experimentation 22 4.2 Successful Experimentation? 23 List of Terms 25 References 26 WHAT IS HAPPENING TO TELEVISION NEWS? About the Authors Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is director of research at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and serves as editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Press/Politics.
    [Show full text]