Nik Gowing, Presenter, BBC World

His is one of the most familiar faces on television news. Nik Gowing has been Principal Anchor for the 90-minute weekday news programme on BBC, ‘The World Today’, and its predecessor, ‘News Desk’, where he served from 1996 to 2000. He was a founding presenter of ‘Europe Direct’ and has been a guest anchor on both ‘Hard Talk’ and ‘Simpson’s World’. Gowing has extensive reporting experience for over two decades in diplomacy, defence and international security. He has been a principal programme anchor for much of BBC World’s extended and continuous coverage of major international crises including Kosovo in 1999. In the 2003 Iraq war, he anchored coverage for BBC News from near the Central Command in Qatar.

Gowing was on air for six hours shortly after the twin towers were hit in New York on September 11, 2001. BBC World’s coverage of the terrorist attack on the US won the 2002 ‘Hotbird Award’ as the best news channel. To his credit also goes the coverage of the unfolding drama of Princess Diana’s accident in Paris in August 1997 and making the announcement of her death to a global audience estimated at half a billion. He also anchors special location coverage of major international events such as elections, and chairs BBC World Debates at the World Economic Forum in Davos and the annual Nobel Awards in Stockholm.

Before joining BBC, Gowing was a foreign affairs specialist and presenter at ITN for 18 years. From 1989-1996 he was Diplomatic Editor for the one-hour nightly news analysis programme, Channel Four News, from ITN in London.

Over a candid conversation with Rummana Ahmed of exchange4media, Gowing shares his views on different facets of journalism in the electronic media, the present day media scenario, and the role BBC plays in covering Indo-Pak bilateral relationship and lots more. Excerpts:

Q. How do you plan to penetrate the Indian market? Do you have any India specific programming in mind?

I cannot give you the sales perspective but our job is to provide a global information agenda. We do not claim we are reporting India like any other Indian paper or channel. We provide supplementary, complementary and also quite often the primary source of information because people want an international outlook.

Our job is not to undermine Indian journalism and Indian media organisations. Our job is to be there as strongly as all other media organisations. People in this vast matrix of information have a choice; they have their favourite stations and their favourite channels that they go back to frequently because they feel comfortable with it.

Q. How would you define objectivity and subjectivity in reporting as far as the electronic media is concerned?

We all aspire to achieve objectivity but it’s not easy; being objective is about being balanced. When we get a flash, based on one report how can we say how objective, how subjective, how distorted it is. Therefore, we wait for the second report and see if both the reports by and large correspond to each other. We try to get another report from a BBC correspondent; within the first few minutes we try to be as objective as possible by giving the best view.

In moments of crisis, eyewitnesses are quite often emotionally overcome and assume the worst and their reports may not always be correct.

Subjectivity in journalism is opinionated. We at BBC try to be as accurate and impartial as possible. We might report something that is factually accurate but one side could see it as partial because it doesn’t suit their political agenda. Here we are talking about audience perceptions that dictate what people say.

Q. Would you say that the electronic media is intrusive?

It’s not just journalism that is intrusive, it is the transparent view created by technology that is intrusive. There are the cameras, the mobile phones and videos coming from websites, there is a lot of propagandist stuff that we get. Our job is to check and find out whether it is credible.

Our challenge as journalists at BBC World is to act as gatekeepers and filters by checking and rechecking all the stuff we get. We don’t always have to be the first but we always have to be right.

Q. What is your take on the Indo-Pak conflict?

At the moment it is moving very positively. Things have changed significantly since the Agra Summit. I was here for the summit; it was a badly conceived summit since nothing had been planned in advance. Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf had a very difficult day based on the images that we saw after the breakfast meeting. Look how things have changed now. In terms of confidence building measures, there is a dialogue going on now.

There is lot of anger and bitterness between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue. Particularly after so many tens and thousands of soldiers have been up there from both sides and obviously because of the insurgents and the security challenge. If you are looking for a sign of hope, surely it is in the dialogue that is taking place at an official level and we are reporting that. It’s not dramatic but it’s happening. All this is leading to confidence building measures. What you are going through is perhaps the beginning of a very long process to end the conflict.

Q. Would you say that BBC’s coverage of the Indo-Pak conflict is objective or is it diplomatic?

It is straight down the road. This is a common complaint here. We are deeply sensitive to both sides. India and Pakistan cannot live separately. They have got to live and trade with each other. We got to have freedom of movement within guaranteed security. A lot has changed in the past four or five years and a lot is changing. It’s a very sensitive and delicate time and we are reporting it. When there is an incident we cannot ignore it. It may not be politically helpful but we cannot ignore it like the Indian press can. Two years ago the situation was different but now the talks are moving forward positively.

Q. What role does the media play during a conflict?

During conflict, the Government wants the media to help it maintain public support. There is a political side to every conflict and obviously there are political decisions but our job is to report. Our job is to challenge and question and not to believe blindly the facts that are given to us. If the Government wants to make claims, then they better be right. Our job is to make the Government feel that if we are not told the truth factually and the facts are distorted, then they will be caught soon. If the Government decides to seize the propaganda high ground for a few hours or a few days and the information is not accurate, then also they will be caught.

Many feel that American journalism is becoming unchallenging and was misrepresenting facts during the Iraq war. Fox News in America can say that they pursue journalism of the right wing agenda but we at BBC cannot do that. In Iraq, we unashamedly did our job, for example, in the Jessica Lynch case and for the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) case. If we are being criticised from both sides, then that means at least we are trying to do our job.

Q. What has been your most challenging coverage?

It’s a difficult question to answer because I am at a time of my career where I have seen so much. I was a Diplomatic Editor and I went to war. You feel like you have seen everything and it’s only when 9/11 happens that you say to yourself, there are levels of evil which you thought you would not see, and the fact that human beings are prepared to do such things to each other, and you say to yourself what next.