From the editor's desktop

Pete Clifton, editor of the BBC News website, takes a look back at a busy week in the newsroom.

Click here to read a selection of your comments

ELECTION BLUES

No, not a declaration of my political colours - you can't have them in this job - but a very real challenge for us as the UK election campaign kicks off.

The PM announces the election, Blair and Howard have a pantomime exchange in the Commons and news conferences pore over the detail of every claim and counterclaim about the economy, health, education, crime and any other issue highlighted by the party focus groups.

Part of the fun and games on our Election 2005 site

The BBC is duty bound, of course, to cover the election campaign in detail. It's not our job to get people to vote, but we should be providing them with as much information as we can as they ponder whether it's worth making an X on 5 May.

As soon as the election was announced, we pushed the button on our long-planned election website - Election 2005.

"Phew, quite a day," I observe, arriving at home with the site up and running.

"I'm bored with it already," replies a less-than-understanding Mrs C.

And, let's face it, she may be in the majority. A day into our coverage and the death of Prince Rainier of Monaco has already eclipsed the election at the top of the page impressions with 332,000 (Monaco's Prince Rainier dies, 81).

Our challenge is to reflect election news regularly on the front page of the News site and make sure people know they can go to the election site if they are hungry for more. And we have also tried to come up with a range of other material on the special site that lots of users will hopefully find interesting, engaging and, gasp, enjoyable.

The issues grid is designed for all those flummoxed by the difference between party policies, while the Basics answers all the questions you've been too embarrassed to ask.

The Peter Snow desktop alert has proved an early winner with 10,000 downloads on day one, and I think the weblog is an engaging way to find out what our correspondents are saying - and to fire back a comment

And despite all the planning, we came up with a fresh idea on day two - an election fact check. I am all for a bit of scrutiny of the party claims, so there'll be plenty more of these.

Have a click round and let me know what you think. There's a long campaign ahead, so what would you like us to do? We're open to suggestions.

When an election comes around we are also braced for complaints from every quarter, not least from the parties, who watch our every move to check for balance, errors and omissions (surely not...).

First complaint? A member of the public writes: "BBC News is on a red banner, why are you so obviously supporting Labour?" Well, for better or worse, red is an established part of the BBC News brand and this is just a reflection of that. After all, the headlines are all in blue. I'll be much more concerned if there is evidence of bias in our reporting.

ORIGINAL GIBBERISH

A strong response from David McDowell of Lockerbie, Scotland, to the revelation in the last column that our department has a monthly award for original journalism.

"Oh for God's sake, 'we had the result of our monthly original journalism competition this week'. I suggest the David Brent dancing competition next week: the person who dances most like Brent gets to keep their job."

There are lots of upbeat comments about the site, and, more strangely, about this column. Chris Patterson, from New York, for example - "Your editor's column is the keystone that has raised this site from the spectacular to the unmissable. Keep writing." Surely a wind-up?

But for now I want to engage with the disenchanted. I am indebted to Paul Coffey from Glasgow for suggesting that one of the less-contented readers (his precise words had a rougher Glaswegian edge...) should be invited down to be the editor for a day, make suggestions at the morning meeting and put together their ideal front page of the News site, which we would publish somewhere on the site (gulp).

Sounds great. I hope Mr McDowell will be up for it, but if not, one of the mob that thinks I am no more than a Status Quo lookalike will be getting an invite soon.

Briefly, still on the subject of originality, Gordon Dixon of Winchester, UK, wrote: "When you are looking for candidates for your monthly original journalism prize, please don't overlook this column." Top idea - I think my rules state I can nominate myself and then monitor, very closely, how the staff votes.

BUDGET BOTHER

A big response last week to my rundown on how the BBC News Interactive department will make some savings in the coming year. Including several from people suggesting I was an ideal saving if I didn't know the difference between principle and principal. The mistake was changed soon after publication, and I berated the sub-editor, because it was his fault of course.

Among the responses, John Dolan from London said: "I hope you all get the sack. No BBC would be a much better world to live in," while Chad O'Dell from the US added: "Good riddance. I hope this is your last column and maybe the BBC will wisen up that its constant bashing to America is only dooming the BBC."

So a couple more candidates for "editor for the day"... Happily, these comments were outweighed by many expressions of support and offers of cash (I can forward details of my offshore account separately).

And Richard from Newcastle, you, me, Gordon Dixon and Chris Patterson are off for a group hug after you wrote: "What madness... you should be receiving an extra 15% rather than having to hack off bits of your site. I rarely watch television, but regard your site as a fine use of licence money."

Bush House, home of the World Service

Among the many responses, numerous people from abroad wrote offering to pay a subscription for the service, while some in the UK asked why our site's content was supplied to people overseas without charge.

So I should clarify a couple of things. A proportion of the money we receive each year comes from the BBC World Service and is separate from licence fee money. This is "grant in aid" funding from the UK Foreign Office to fund the World Service in its historic role as a free to air, trusted worldwide broadcaster.

This remains an important role for the BBC, and some of that government money goes towards supporting the World Service with English and foreign language news sites unfettered by subscription or advertising - and ours is one of them.

The most expensive service we could potentially provide to overseas users, streaming broadband video, is only currently available in the US - by paying a subscription through a third party.

In the UK, the cost of the News site represents around 0.5% of the total licence fee, and that feels like reasonable value to me.

YOU WERE SAYING...

Paul Wisgerhof, Fairfax, US, writes: "I agree with many other that you shouldn't try to go to a 'My BBC' sort of presentation. Let me do the brainwork and decide what I want to see."

The vast majority of personalisation e-mails were against the idea. Fear not. We are not thinking of turning our service into a madcap "have what you want on the front page service" (unless David McDowell says yes). Maybe just a small box somewhere on the front page where you could choose to have something you like. But we'll do some infamous "user testing", and if they say it's rubbish, we'll bin it.

POOR PARAS

James Jackson of Bristol, UK, writes: "One major gripe I have with the site is the breaking down of all grammatical sensibility by using individual sentences. Whatever happened to the humble paragraph? People are clever enough to read more than one sentence to a line."

It took me a couple of goes to take in that rather lengthy observation.

The idea is that it is easier to absorb material on screen when paragraphs are not too long.

But I agree that sometimes we go too far.

Blocks of text can look unreadable, but there is life after the first full stop. But as the tops of all our news stories are made available for the short text Ceefax TV service, weighty paragraphs are tricky.

TABLOID TRAUMA

The virtual postbag was bulging with comments on whether we should be carrying lighthearted stories on the site, hot on the heels of bumper statistics for "Pork-loving couple say 'pie do'", and "Chewing gum 'can enhance breasts'".

About 75% were in favour of a sensible use of lighter material to give readers an additional option amid the serious stuff that is our trademark. Lucy Jones from Manchester said: "I value the 'frivolous' stories. Keeping up with the news can be a very depressing enterprise, so reading something funny, surprising or just downright heart-warming provides a proper balance."

Thanks Lucy, you can join the group hug. Keep reading, there'll be more frivolity to come.

NO COMMENT

Tom Taylor from Nottingham, UK, says: "When making cuts, please consider removing any audience participation elements of the site first. 'Comment on this story' is nowhere near as valuable as the news itself."

I can't agree with you on this one Tom. Being a fast, reliable source of news is our main priority, but I think it is a fantastic part of this medium that we can allow people to debate issues, and send in additional information, pictures or video. I think user-generated material has a very important role to play in the future of the site. If any of you don't agree, you can, er, send in a comment.

---

Click here to read a selection of your comments

You can send me your comments using the form below. Don't forget, though, that if you want to point out an error or have a complaint you want dealt with, the best place to go will normally be our Feedback page.

Terms & Conditions