Ian Richardson, former Bush House and World TV editor, has contributed a provocative article to UK Press Gazette, suggesting BBC journalism is better today than it has ever been.
This is Ian's article:

There are some broadcasting types who are convinced that nothing is ever as good as it used to be. To them the past was brilliant and the present and future are crap. They are the sort of people who would still like their cars to leak around the windscreen, have punctures every few weeks and require a full service every thousand miles. They are what might be termed people from a Golden Age.

I don't much believe in Golden Ages - certainly not when it comes to the old days of television news. Ollie Wilson (Press Gazette, 1 February) seems to be a Golden Age Man, fretting that the BBC's star correspondents are indulging in 'punditage' - a blend of punditry and reportage - confusing and misleading viewers. He longs for the days when reporters stuck strictly to the facts and kept all but the blandest, carefully balanced, carefully sourced observations to themselves.

Not me. In my view, BBC television news has never been better. I first worked in BBC television news in 1980 when Kate Adie was beginning to carve out a name as a reporter and Angela Rippon was still the talk of Britain for revealing her legs on Morecambe and Wise. News bulletins were national events, presided over by Rippon - then one of the few journalists on the news presenting team - plus Richard Baker, Kenneth Kendall, Robert Dougall, Peter Woods and Jan Leeming.

They were great times and we were proud of what we produced. But we were constantly reminded that television was almost always less immediate than radio, and frequently lagged behind daily newspapers. Most foreign picture stories were at least a day old, and even a major news event in London could take hours to get on air. Satellite links were very expensive and had to be used sparingly. Graphics were handmade, dull and static. Scripts were competent, but unexciting. There were no interviews and no explanations: these were judged to be the province of current affairs, which lived in intellectual isolation down the road at Lime Grove.

About 10 years later, I was back at Television Centre and much had changed. Videotape had replaced film, satellite links were routine, computers were generating many of the graphics and television was no longer the slowest to report a story. It was fun and it was exciting. But still, it lacked something.

That 'something' was the rounded telling of a story. We dispensed the facts and only the facts - always giving even-handed coverage to both sides of an argument - and often leaving the viewer none the wiser. It was soft-option journalism. But we congratulated ourselves that we had fulfilled our journalistic duties as public broadcasters.

Take Northern Ireland, as an example. Week after week, month after month, year after tedious year, the facts were gravely trotted out. But what did they ultimately tell the viewer? Almost nothing that really mattered. And heaven forbid the correspondent tempted to say 'forget the facts for a moment and let me tell you what I think is really going on'.

Wilson seems to be saying that this sorry state of affairs is to be applauded. 'Let the viewers make up their own minds,' he asserts. But how can they if they are given 'facts', but no context?

Of course, I need the 'facts', but what use are they if I never learn what is happening away from the gaze of Joe Public? Two opposing points of view, given equal prominence, is not just inadequate journalism, it may even be misleading if, say, one of those views is held by someone of no consequence. By all means give minority points of view, but let's also be told whether this view is ever likely to change a thing.

No longer with the BBC, I now watch with admiration and envy the Ten O'Clock News with its clever and informative graphics, its instant access to the world via satellite links and videophones, and its array of star correspondents doing their darnedest to give me the answers to that most basic of questions: what is going on? The rise of the star correspondent has been a gradual process. After all, John Simpson, with his distinctive brand of Boy's Own adventure journalism, was there long before Andrew Marr, but it is Marr who so dramatically led the way with a new style of reporting. Overnight, BBC political coverage was transformed. Here was a man enthused by his specialism and bursting to explain British politics with clarity and humour; a reporter not frightened to tell us what, in his best judgement, the story was all about. Hurrah!

Economics coverage has been brought alive by Evan Davis, the new economics editor, replacing the overpaid, pompous, impenetrable and, thankfully, rarely seen Peter Jay. At the same time, business editor Jeff Randall is beginning to get to grips with explaining the business world after a decidedly iffy start. Abroad, there is a whole array of thrusting, intelligent and thoughtful young correspondents.

Wilson attacks the Washington correspondent Stephen Sackur for resorting to describing the body language of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Why not? A politician's body language is often more truthful and informative than the words they utter.

Wilson further complains about the failure to always source the information. But does it necessarily matter, if the correspondent is accurately telling the story? Better that than resorting to the blatant fakery of 'sources close to the chairman' (often the chairman himself) and 'as one taxi driver/soldier/backbench MP put it' (a quote made up on the way to the office). And pray tell, what is wrong with Marr observing that politics is better than the alternative (war) or social affairs editor Niall Dickson warning that 'we ignore these bugs at our peril'?

There are, of course, attendant dangers with the star system. Stars have egos and this can lead to excess. Look no further than the 'liberation' of Kabul by Simpson. And a recent piece-to-camera in which Marr walked off the screen to illustrate a point about Tony Blair was more Tomorrow's World than Ten O'Clock News.

There are dangers, too, from the growing practice of correspondents going into print. A recent Sunday Telegraph column by Randall indulged in such heavy euro bashing that it compromised his position as a detached BBC observer. 'Only the most partisan euro-warriors could argue that Britain needs the single currency', he said in part. This is unacceptable, just as it would be if Marr said "Vote New Labour" or Dickson advertised BUPA.

These are relatively small and rare excesses in the overall big picture. Better to make the occasional misjudgment than take no risks at all. It's a price I'm prepared to pay as a viewer because when I now watch TV each evening, I feel that I am being better informed and better engaged than I ever was. Perhaps there is a Golden Age. This could be it.      

Ian's article can been seen on the UKPG Web site.  And this is the original article that inspired Ian to write.

Ian makes a good case.  I would break it down a bit:

The technology, particularly communications technology,  is vastly better than it used to be.

As a result of that, there is vastly more actuality than ever.

This usually helps to illustrate the story but sometimes it gets in the way of reporting.

The prevalence of the two-way means journalists have to be good at answering questions, as well as asking them.

As a result of that, many of today's journalists are extremely well informed about their subject and good at communicating it.

In many cases, as a result of the decline in the teaching of English, they do not have a good command of the language.  The older correspondents, generally, write better.

Martin Bell's piece was an interesting contrast to my own article. But I don't understand why he and others in the industry get so agitated about TV journalists being presentable on screen. It is a visual medium, and it is surely only reasonable to expect on-screen performers to know how to use the medium to the best of their abilities and not be a distraction to the viewers. What would we say if radio news was littered with people with no microphone skills and who spluttered and stammered their way through their reports?
Ian Richardson

I agree with much of what Ian Richardson says, but - there's always a but isn't there? - I would add several points. Investigative reporting has got better, the English used has got worse. Do foreign correspondents still occasionally have the Reuter's story read over to them so they can voice it back ten minutes later or do they just get the Reuter version up on their lap tops?
The presentation has got worse - why do the reporters always have to begin their pieces with "Well Anna, or "George" depending on who the newscaster/reader is? They should be broadcasting to us(the viewers or listeners) for God sake. They also end their pieces with George or Anna. What's wrong with" back to the studio" or informing the studio of the out words?
And why oh why do we have to go back to the reporter on the spot immediately his report has finished? On most of these occasions, the reporter, like Oliver Hardy, has "nothing to say".
I could go on, but I realise this is a separate debate I am starting.....................

Tony and Luke are looking at news from the point of view of professionals. They want the facts -- the raw material, if you will -- so that they can make their own judgements. But the punters don't approach the news that way. They expect not just to get the facts, but to have them explained in a digestible form.

I think it is interesting that the past decade has seen the World Service audience jump by at least 50% to around 150million -- at a time when there is a proliferation of choices. Why? I think it is largely because there is no longer an artificial division between news and current affairs and because World Service has become so much better at reporting events.

Ian Richardson

As often in the past I find myself agreeing with Alan Ashton - even the dimmest of viewers/listeners do not need to be told everything three times in one item and the "Anna/John" exchanges are as irritating as "thank you for that".

World Service audiences include the language services and have increased partly because of rebroadcasting replacing shortwave and, I suspect, because it is now possible to carry out research in more countries.

Greville Havenhand

As one who sat through the changes in TV News from 1972 to 1993 I can only say that the journalism I witnessed was always lucid and informative.  I also spent many hours off-duty defending the political neutrality of my colleagues and the scrupulous sub-editing of scripts to weed out bias. But...

and there was bound to be a 'but'...

with the closure of Lime Grove and the introduction of Current affairs into News there was, to me and many of my friends, a dilution of the authority of the news.  Once Comment, Opinion and the dreaded 'Bexpo' were introduced the essential truthful core of TV News was damaged.  We have many well-informed and literate correspondents who do tell us about the facts with great clarity and knowledge of their subjects, but their opinions about the situations they report on are just that...opinions from an individual.  Some may want this style of broadcast news mingled with comment but the truth about the facts becomes buried and for me at least I would rather watch Newsnight, Panorama, On the Record or the Money Programme for informative comment, opinion and analysis.

an ex-TV News and Current Affairs director