From the editor's desktop

Pete Clifton, the editor of the BBC News website, takes a frank look back at the ups and down of life in the newsroom this week - and handles some of your trickier questions.

SIMPSON STARS

Excellent news - we have another big name signed up to write a weekly column for this site... step forward John Simpson, the BBC's world affairs editor.

One of our longest-running missions on the site has been to engage the efforts of the BBC's many well-known and very well-informed correspondents to write for us.

Star signing

Easier said than done in an organisation the size of the BBC - nation may speak unto nation, but getting office to speak unto office can sometimes be a much grander challenge.

For that reason, we have a small team here that is charged with ringing up TV and radio correspondents out in the field, and persuading, charming, bullying and pleading with them to write colour pieces, background and analysis for the site.

When pieces appear it is often down to them. And now, one of their greatest triumphs. Simpson, the veteran of conflicts and kerfuffles in every corner, will start writing a weekly column for us from this Monday.

Simpson, by his own admission, thought the whole online thing was a bit of an oddity when it kicked off here seven years ago, but now he's a regular user of the site and I'm really excited about having him on board.

So come back on Monday, and let me know what you think.

Send me a comment

FRANK UPDATE

Speaking of correspondents, and taking a question slightly early, Stuart Smith from Auckland, New Zealand, writes: "When will Frank Gardner be back? We miss his Middle East insight. Please pass on our best wishes for a speedy recovery and return to the Beeb."

Frank recalled the horrendous attack on him and cameraman Simon Cumbers in Saudi Arabia in his article 'I looked into the face of the gunman' towards the end of last year.

The good news for all the followers of Frank's well-informed, incisive reporting is the BBC is hoping he will return to work around the middle of April, probably on a part-time basis at first.

SPILLCHUCKER

Thank you to everyone for writing this week to a) offer their services as a sub-editor in the fight against spelling mistakes and grammatical horrors and b) recommend the benefits of spellcheckers.

Well, we do have a spellchecker on our content production system, and the journalists are encouraged to use it. A useful friend, or maybe that should say fiend - you can get to rely on it far too heavily, and there is still nothing to beat someone sitting down and reading through copy before it is published.

If you do rely on spellcheck too heavily, and keep approving the alternatives, it can be problematic, especially with names. Alastair can become alligator, Khomeini can be chimney, and you can have that well-known human rights campaigner Bianca Jigger. And don't ask me how we've discovered all that.

Of course, if you have toe-curling examples of what spellchecker can do, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Amid all those agreeing that our spelling wasn't good enough (and we are working on this as mentioned last week), one different view arrived.

Sonny Winston, Leatherhead: "OK, what is the 'deal' with all the people out there that get so very, VERY annoyed with trivial spelling mistakes and/or grammatical errors? Am I the only one that sees errors like these as proof that those who work for the BBC news online website are just regular people trying to do their job as quickly as possible so we get all the best news in the most timely fashion. I'm sure if all your stories were 20 minutes behind everyone else's, and people noticed, the excuse "well our spelling and grammar just can't be beat" would not cut the mustard.

BIG BUDGET

Budget time in the UK on Wednesday, and a really big set piece for the site. We throw a lot of effort at it, the results appearing here: Budget 2005.

So what came out on top in the page impressions for us? The Key Points is always the winner, picking up 873,009 clicks. And PDFs continue to bowl us over - 654,607 downloads of the Budget report in full. What better way to spend a Wednesday night?

YOU WERE SAYING

Thanks for the hundreds of e-mails last week. I printed them off in a very low-tech, environmentally unfriendly way, and read them all on the train home. From this week, there will be a link at the bottom of this page where you can see a selection of the comments if you have a quiet weekend ahead.

Last week I lamented that "From the Editor's Desktop" was not the hottest title on the block and asked for alternatives. An avalanche of suggestions followed, many of them helping to make clear that "From the Editor's Desktop" wasn't such a bad idea after all.

To name but a few..
Ed Said - Jo, Guildford, UK
The editor's hot potatoes - Basia H, UK
On Me Ed - Paul Dixon, Falkirk, Scotland
McFling flaarg and the flootie floot keyboard donces - Paul K Jamieson, Canada
Ediwhimsical - Christine Burns, Manchester, UK
Pete's Pet Peeves - Steve, London, UK
The Editor's Dilemma - Ted Lochbihler, Ontario, Canada
Cybertorial - Melanie Kumar, Bangalore, India
The Editor Fights Back - Steffen M Poulsen, Denmark
From the engine room - Richard, Abingdon, UK
Views from the Top - Aaron Martinez, London, UK
The Editor's E-Week That Was - Victor Kenyon Brown, Hollywood, US
The Editor's Cut - Robert van B, Bristol, UK

Not sure about the last one. Could refer to the Christmas party, or the outcome of the BBC's current budget reductions. And Paul K Jamieson... is there a doctor in the house?

By far the largest chunk of the e-mailbag was in response to the "our dilemma over gruesome images" discussion, and thanks to those who suggested it was referring to the picture of me.

About 95% were in favour of us being bold with the disturbing images we publish, and using some of the more graphic elements of the evidence at the Michael Jackson trial. Many warned against the dangers of sanitising the grimmer aspects of the news agenda and some felt we didn't go far enough (looking back, I think that's probably true). But some were appalled by the images - and the editor.

Kyle Clark, Boston, US - "Over here in America, only local tragedies win air time (on local news). Everything national is candy coated. I turn to the BBC to get the full story. Please continue to deliver the news candidly. The majority benefit when content is not censored for the prudish few. This is real life you're reporting, not some fairy tale."

Ammok, Newcastle Under Lyme, UK - "'My judgment was'... says it all. Sod the public who are forced to fund you. Then again, perhaps the BBC Sun would be more appropriate."

Robert Cran, Cape Town, South Africa - "I challenge your judgment. What I find worrying in your reply is that you make not a hint of any self-doubt on the issue. "

Jim Brimble, Sutton, UK - "I think you are absolutely right. You have given adequate warnings, the material isn't actually that offensive, and it is important that news stories are not overly-sanitised to appease a scarily outspoken moral minority. Good show."

Oh dear. Having a pop at Henry Pfister last week was a step too far for some of you. I thought it was fair enough to poke a little fun at someone who chose to ridicule the quality of the site in an e-mail riddled with errors.

Jordan, New York, US - "I think it's a little stupid of you to effectively discredit comments about your editing and proof-reading by posting comments that happen to contain several spelling errors themselves. Obviously they were written on the fly; to hold them up and say, 'look you're no better!' is rather pathetic. Or is this the famed British humour? Spare me. "

James Reid, Barcelona, Spain - "Henry Pfister, Bangkok may not be saying much, but your sarcastic response reflects badly on you."

James Davies, Aberdeen, Scotland - "The only thing I haven't enjoyed are the cheap shots taken at people who have sent in comments. It's easy to select badly written comments to poke fun, but it takes up space that could be used to address real issues, generates a poor impression of you and turns me off what you are trying to say."

Many others enjoyed the exchange, so I will reserve the right to take the gloves off occasionally. It also makes typing much easier.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

It seems to me that answering your questions could be one of the more useful functions of this McFling flaarg. So please keep them coming - in the meantime, a selection from the past week with the kind of opinionated answers that will really irritate Robert Cran.

Question - Robert Lawrence, Nottingham, UK - "Why do you not include links within the body of your stories, instead listing them at the side and thus losing all context? Hyperlinking is fundamental to the World Wide Web and you choose not to use it. "

Answer: Sorry, I think this is a distraction in our news reporting. I think we should offer links to other news sites, to relevant organisations and to other reports and background pieces we have written, but I'd rather the body of the report stuck to telling that particular piece of news.

Q: John Elfed Hughes, North Wales - "Why isn't there ever the journalist's name on a story?"

A: Well, we do put bylines on plenty of our features pieces, analysis, notable pieces of original journalism, backgrounders etc. But I think you can overdo it. I see them as a reward for special pieces of work, or when we need to make clear who is providing the analysis. If you put them on every straight news story we wrote, they'd become meaningless.

Q: John Ghobadian, London, UK - "Could you introduce a customisable home page feature and call it 'My BBC News'? "

A: Yes. We seem to have mentioned some kind of personalisation for the site at the start of every year since we started forward-slashing at the BBC. I think we are a bit behind on this, and the bold aim is that this year will be different. So keep watching.

Q: Tom, Surrey, UK - "As a 25-year-old of reasonable intelligence and education I am sometimes struck by the gaping holes left in my knowledge. I, and I'm sure many others, would find it useful to have links which explain the basic historical facts and occurrences behind a story."

A: Fair point and we are often reminded that we are so close to events that we forget that most people don't know the background or understand the terminology we use. One way we are trying to address this is with "quick guides" - pop-ups that offer a concise catch-up on what the subject is all about. You can see an example within this report: Pakistan 'lost' Bin Laden trail. We are building up a range of these over time.

Q: Adam Sutch, Bristol, UK - "I have responded to dozens of "Have Your Say" issues. Why is it that my opinions are never published? Is it that you are censoring anybody who is anti-Bush, pro-Arab and thinks that Blair lies as a matter of course?"

A: I'd rather close Have Your Say than adopt that approach. As I mentioned last week, I'm afraid the reality is we get a huge amount of feedback from users and we are currently manually selecting comments from a bulging inbox. Not ideal, not very scientific, but certainly no censorship. I hope the money we are spending on new software to help us deal with feedback will help us open up more later in the year.

Q: John Buza, Hobart, Australia - "The link to other international web news sites for another perspective is an excellent concept, but this seems to be intermittently provided. Are these sites chosen randomly?"

A: The journalist writing a particular story will decide if we should include a "newstracker" on the right hand side. And we should be putting them on a good cross-section of our main stories every day.

Once the journalist decides to use one, our system heads off and interrogates 4,000 separate news feeds and comes up with a range of suggestions. The journalist then includes it on the story, and the newstracker will continue to update the links for a couple of days before disappearing automatically.

Q: Ben Simkins, Vevey, Switzerland - "I know I'm probably an ultra-minority audience on this point, but I'd love to know how your site works - technically, but also from the information/editorial management point of view."

A: So would I. As a Northampton Town supporter I have no problem with ultra-minority audiences. So in the next few weeks I will give a bit of a rundown on how our editorial day goes, the meetings we have, who knows what is going on, who has the good ideas that I can later claim as my own etc. Technically? I might have to ask someone else.

David Stafford, Northern Colorado, US - "You're the Captain of a mighty enterprise which touches the world in a way all of its own. There are millions out here who depend on the BBC for the truth, looking upon your stories with an almost religious trust. How do you handle that obligation?"

A: I rely on excellent journalists and then take all the credit. Maybe the rundown I've promised Ben Simkins in the next few weeks will shine a light on how we take the job seriously. And if the going gets really tough, I can always turn to this "advice of the week"...

Derick FD Mclaughlin, "Upper Canada" - "Try singing that old ditty 'I first met Annie 'awkins down the Old Kent Road'. Good for your morale old chap.

A: Thanks Derick. No relation to Paul K Jamieson?

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.

Click here to read a selection of your comments

Terms & Conditions