Interview: Peter Horrocks, BBC TV News (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
The BBC's new head of TV news has a view about journalists who ask difficult questions. "They are some of the most troublesome, argumentative, bloodyminded , intensely irritating, in-your-face individuals you would ever want to work with, or rather not want to work with," Peter Horrocks confides, safely out of sight of any passing newsroom hacks. "And they're a nightmare to manage. I completely celebrate that and want more of them."
Just days after the New Statesman accused Mark Thompson of "muzzling" journalists to keep ministers happy, the man responsible for BBC1's bulletins - plus Newsnight and News 24 - insists that the reverse is the case. "You've got to have troublemakers, and plenty of them," Horrocks, 46, says in the White City news centre where last month he replaced Roger Mosey. "I can understand why, after Hutton, people keep coming back to this notion that the BBC is cowed. But Hutton is a folk memory, and that's not how people here feel, certainly not how I feel. My job is to make sure journalists here don't believe the rubbish journalists outside write about it."
There is no truth, he says, in John Kampfner's New Statesman claims about BBC executives' editorial "loss of nerve", leading to coverage intended to placate ministers. "I've got no idea where he got that from," he says. Still, other commentators have suggested that BBC reports are excessively cautious where they might embarrass the Government.
"I agree there's that perception out there, but it's plain wrong," Horrocks says. "Look at John Ware's investigation into the run-up to the Iraq war; [or] the Ten O'Clock News leading last week on Charles Clarke backtracking on his anti-terrorism proposals; or the story of George Bush and his supposed comments about being guided by God. If we're reporting things that are uncomfortable for the most powerful person in the world, the charge that we're cowed or overdeferential doesn't ring true."
Didn't Newsnight, Today and other BBC outlets play down the Bush story, even though it emanated from a BBC2 documentary? Reports suggested that was because the US administration challenged the claim. "That's not right. News 24 and World, Today, Five Live - all ran it prominently." His flat expression curls into minor frustration. "Because there's a canard out there that the BBC is lily-livered, every time there's a story like that everyone believes it, and every time we do other things that show we're strongly capable of asking tough questions of people in authority, people tend to ignore it."
Horrocks has certainly served his time on the inside. After joining from Cambridge as a news trainee in 1981, he has worked his way steadily upwards, running Newsnight, Panorama, a couple of election specials and, most recently, the current affairs department. Focused and quietly intense - he monitors a mute Six O'Clock News for much of the interview - his natural shyness may have impeded faster progress through the corporation's brutal internal politics. But now that he finally runs TV news, he is determined to show that he can raise its editorial ambitions.
"There's been a sense around that it's not appropriate for the BBC to be competitive as it's paid for by public money," he says. "Well, that's rubbish. I've [previously] been competitive about us improving the BBC's record on investigations, and now we need to be competitive in serving the public with information and getting it first. The most important things for me are breaking stories, getting the organisation to be cohesive, driving original journalism, and, editorially, for us to be confident."
Mark Popescu, editorial director of News 24, pops his head round the door to confirm that the BBC has scooped Sky News on bird flu spreading to Greece. Horrocks is visibly pleased. Sky, which relaunches next Monday, has long characterised News 24 as slow, unimaginative and lacking bite. Horrocks appears intent on proving otherwise. "Sky is putting a lot of money into presenters, graphics and whizz-bang, but our challenge will be absolutely on breaking original stories and more [journalistic] firepower. There's a whole list of recent stories where we've been first over Sky [those he cites include George Davis's departure from Marks & Spencer and Foreign Office concern over Iran's role in Iraq]. Being first, and being right. You probably saw where Sky was first and wrong last week, when it reported that Harold Pinter had died as opposed to getting the Nobel prize."
Ah, but won't the BBC's new emphasis on speed risk similar instant misjudgments? "We don't just bung things on air," he replies. "A couple of weekends ago, both Sky and the ITV News channel reported that an al Qaeda website said two US marines had been taken hostage. We spoke to our correspondents in the field who gave it no credibility - since when there's been no substantiated information of American hostages. We made the right call."
Nick Pollard, head of Sky News, is not impressed. "Peter Horrocks's comments demonstrate yet again that, eight years into News 24's existence, it still has to raise its game to Sky's level," he says dismissively. "As Sky News' share during the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina showed, viewers resolutely turn to Sky for breaking news. As with every aspect of broadcasting, the BBC's view is that there are only two ways of doing things - the BBC way and the wrong way. Viewers seem to think otherwise."
As for ITV, didn't it score the year's big scoop, the leaked report into the Stockwell Tube shooting? "It fell into their laps," Horrocks says, a little grudgingly. "They were given it rather than it coming through direct journalistic enterprise. Look, I'm happy that there's strong competition around, it keeps us on our toes. But I'm very keen to correct the idea that the BBC isn't in the business of breaking news or exclusives."
Horrocks has certainly been willing to take risks. Among his projects was Adam Curtis's controversial documentary on al Qaeda - The Power of Nightmares - which, despite criticism from within the BBC, Horrocks still stands by as "a provocative bit of thinking".
Yet some who have worked under him mutter that his willingness to please the bosses may place ratings above editorial priorities. When he ran current affairs last year, a leaked internal document suggested that Panorama was "too distant, demanding, difficult and didactic" and needed a softer, more "touch it, reach it, feel it" approach. The memo was enthusiastic about younger, telegenic presenters, but failed to mention more experienced reporters such as John Ware.
Horrocks quickly points out that this was merely a discussion document, and that he would be surprised to find that the flagship programme had adopted a more "touchy-feely" presentation style. "But what it has done, rightly, is make sure the relevance of its stories for a mainstream BBC1 audience is increased - stories such as care for the elderly in hospitals that have both relevance and warmth in terms of an audience's emotional appreciation. It still has firepower."
Yet whatever difference he hopes to make on screen, Horrocks's first battle will be to change the newsroom culture. Already he has complained in an internal memo about his colleagues' "excessive internal competition, secrecy and a lack of respect", and has taken the radical step of making programmes share their running orders.
The trouble, he says, is that "the BBC is a little world in itself ", with too many staff suffering the "delusion" that the real competition is along the corridor rather than at Sky or ITN. "With news audiences declining and fragmenting, my whole job is to make sure people look outside," he says. "You can have troublemaking, competitive people, but you need to focus their energies where it adds value for the audience."
(Evening Standard, October 19 2005)
. . . AND READ MORE MEDIA INTERVIEWS HERE . . .
The BBC's new head of TV news has a view about journalists who ask difficult questions. "They are some of the most troublesome, argumentative, bloodyminded , intensely irritating, in-your-face individuals you would ever want to work with, or rather not want to work with," Peter Horrocks confides, safely out of sight of any passing newsroom hacks. "And they're a nightmare to manage. I completely celebrate that and want more of them."
Just days after the New Statesman accused Mark Thompson of "muzzling" journalists to keep ministers happy, the man responsible for BBC1's bulletins - plus Newsnight and News 24 - insists that the reverse is the case. "You've got to have troublemakers, and plenty of them," Horrocks, 46, says in the White City news centre where last month he replaced Roger Mosey. "I can understand why, after Hutton, people keep coming back to this notion that the BBC is cowed. But Hutton is a folk memory, and that's not how people here feel, certainly not how I feel. My job is to make sure journalists here don't believe the rubbish journalists outside write about it."
There is no truth, he says, in John Kampfner's New Statesman claims about BBC executives' editorial "loss of nerve", leading to coverage intended to placate ministers. "I've got no idea where he got that from," he says. Still, other commentators have suggested that BBC reports are excessively cautious where they might embarrass the Government.
"I agree there's that perception out there, but it's plain wrong," Horrocks says. "Look at John Ware's investigation into the run-up to the Iraq war; [or] the Ten O'Clock News leading last week on Charles Clarke backtracking on his anti-terrorism proposals; or the story of George Bush and his supposed comments about being guided by God. If we're reporting things that are uncomfortable for the most powerful person in the world, the charge that we're cowed or overdeferential doesn't ring true."
Didn't Newsnight, Today and other BBC outlets play down the Bush story, even though it emanated from a BBC2 documentary? Reports suggested that was because the US administration challenged the claim. "That's not right. News 24 and World, Today, Five Live - all ran it prominently." His flat expression curls into minor frustration. "Because there's a canard out there that the BBC is lily-livered, every time there's a story like that everyone believes it, and every time we do other things that show we're strongly capable of asking tough questions of people in authority, people tend to ignore it."
Horrocks has certainly served his time on the inside. After joining from Cambridge as a news trainee in 1981, he has worked his way steadily upwards, running Newsnight, Panorama, a couple of election specials and, most recently, the current affairs department. Focused and quietly intense - he monitors a mute Six O'Clock News for much of the interview - his natural shyness may have impeded faster progress through the corporation's brutal internal politics. But now that he finally runs TV news, he is determined to show that he can raise its editorial ambitions.
"There's been a sense around that it's not appropriate for the BBC to be competitive as it's paid for by public money," he says. "Well, that's rubbish. I've [previously] been competitive about us improving the BBC's record on investigations, and now we need to be competitive in serving the public with information and getting it first. The most important things for me are breaking stories, getting the organisation to be cohesive, driving original journalism, and, editorially, for us to be confident."
Mark Popescu, editorial director of News 24, pops his head round the door to confirm that the BBC has scooped Sky News on bird flu spreading to Greece. Horrocks is visibly pleased. Sky, which relaunches next Monday, has long characterised News 24 as slow, unimaginative and lacking bite. Horrocks appears intent on proving otherwise. "Sky is putting a lot of money into presenters, graphics and whizz-bang, but our challenge will be absolutely on breaking original stories and more [journalistic] firepower. There's a whole list of recent stories where we've been first over Sky [those he cites include George Davis's departure from Marks & Spencer and Foreign Office concern over Iran's role in Iraq]. Being first, and being right. You probably saw where Sky was first and wrong last week, when it reported that Harold Pinter had died as opposed to getting the Nobel prize."
Ah, but won't the BBC's new emphasis on speed risk similar instant misjudgments? "We don't just bung things on air," he replies. "A couple of weekends ago, both Sky and the ITV News channel reported that an al Qaeda website said two US marines had been taken hostage. We spoke to our correspondents in the field who gave it no credibility - since when there's been no substantiated information of American hostages. We made the right call."
Nick Pollard, head of Sky News, is not impressed. "Peter Horrocks's comments demonstrate yet again that, eight years into News 24's existence, it still has to raise its game to Sky's level," he says dismissively. "As Sky News' share during the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina showed, viewers resolutely turn to Sky for breaking news. As with every aspect of broadcasting, the BBC's view is that there are only two ways of doing things - the BBC way and the wrong way. Viewers seem to think otherwise."
As for ITV, didn't it score the year's big scoop, the leaked report into the Stockwell Tube shooting? "It fell into their laps," Horrocks says, a little grudgingly. "They were given it rather than it coming through direct journalistic enterprise. Look, I'm happy that there's strong competition around, it keeps us on our toes. But I'm very keen to correct the idea that the BBC isn't in the business of breaking news or exclusives."
Horrocks has certainly been willing to take risks. Among his projects was Adam Curtis's controversial documentary on al Qaeda - The Power of Nightmares - which, despite criticism from within the BBC, Horrocks still stands by as "a provocative bit of thinking".
Yet some who have worked under him mutter that his willingness to please the bosses may place ratings above editorial priorities. When he ran current affairs last year, a leaked internal document suggested that Panorama was "too distant, demanding, difficult and didactic" and needed a softer, more "touch it, reach it, feel it" approach. The memo was enthusiastic about younger, telegenic presenters, but failed to mention more experienced reporters such as John Ware.
Horrocks quickly points out that this was merely a discussion document, and that he would be surprised to find that the flagship programme had adopted a more "touchy-feely" presentation style. "But what it has done, rightly, is make sure the relevance of its stories for a mainstream BBC1 audience is increased - stories such as care for the elderly in hospitals that have both relevance and warmth in terms of an audience's emotional appreciation. It still has firepower."
Yet whatever difference he hopes to make on screen, Horrocks's first battle will be to change the newsroom culture. Already he has complained in an internal memo about his colleagues' "excessive internal competition, secrecy and a lack of respect", and has taken the radical step of making programmes share their running orders.
The trouble, he says, is that "the BBC is a little world in itself ", with too many staff suffering the "delusion" that the real competition is along the corridor rather than at Sky or ITN. "With news audiences declining and fragmenting, my whole job is to make sure people look outside," he says. "You can have troublemaking, competitive people, but you need to focus their energies where it adds value for the audience."
(Evening Standard, October 19 2005)
. . . AND READ MORE MEDIA INTERVIEWS HERE . . .
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, October 19, 2005
<< Home