All sides of the story?
Recent audience research came back with one big message: "We want all sides of the story."
We try to challenge the received wisdom on a daily basis - but one of the most interesting examples of this came in our coverage of the decision to make it illegal to view violent porn.
Teacher Jane Longhurst was killed by a man who was was obsessed with violent pornography (he is in the process of appealing against a murder conviction). The sites show torture, murder, gang rape鈥ou get the picture. There's clearly a market for this kind of stuff, and yesterday Jane's mother .
Our cameraman, correspondent and producer spent the day looking into the story. They discovered that much of the material is faked - though a lot is extremely convincing. As other 成人快手 outlets told the story there was an interesting audience response that challenged the assumption of many that there would be almost universal revulsion.
Rod McKenzie, editor of Radio 1 Newsbeat, sent round an e-mail letting us know the text messages that some of the station's listeners were sending in. They included:
鈥 This is banning S&M
鈥 extreme net porn is staged and consensual why ban it
鈥 You can't say what violence is in porn, where is the line crossed ? Is a porn star who's not really up for it that day being treated violently?
鈥 what happens between consenting adults shouldn't carry the risk of going to court
鈥 there's nothing wrong with sexual experimentation S&M between consenting adults behind closed doors or online
It was a response we hadn't entirely expected - and Denise Mahoney (right) reflected it in her item on the Ten O'Clock News (watch it here).
So, while it was important to give the police and Mrs Longhurst due weight, it was also important to use our position post-watershed to show as much as we could - within the bounds of taste and decency - and raise the questions: can watching this material really trigger murder? If it can't, should we really ban the stuff that is clearly faked and criminalise those who view it?