BBC TV News outlets will also report the stories of the Games, but we are restricted in the amount of footage we can use to illustrate reports and interviews and our TV crews have limited access to the Olympic Park. The sports news bulletins on the BBC News Channel will be presented live from our studio overlooking the Park, bringing the latest interviews and reaction.

Online, the 2012 portal will pool the best of the BBC's digital offerings across News, Sport and Regions. There will be dedicated Paralympics sections on our web and mobile sites, with the latest news, results, medals table, schedule and photo galleries, and a live text commentary page. And the team from the Ouch! disability blog will provide reports from the various venues, for their own blog and for the News website.

You can read more about the BBC's coverage of the Paralympic Games in this blog from BBC Sport's head of major events Dave Gordon, and this from 5 live deputy controller Jonathan Wall.

Kevin Bakhurst is deputy head of the BBC Newsroom and controller of the News Channel

It may seem like re-stating the obvious but looking in our rear-view mirror back along the road of technological change shows just how news has changed: typewriters out, computers in; newspaper cuttings libraries closed as the internet opened access to information; mobile phones rather than messages at hotel receptions; satellite technology to feed material rather than tapes put on planes and so on.

 

Powered by these changes, news has become 24 hours a day; immediate; available on new platforms; mobile. And now the latest powerful tool to change news - social media.

As we'll hear from my colleagues here later, all big news organisations are plunging into the world of social media, looking at its extraordinary newsgathering potential; its potential as a new tool to engage the audience; and as a way of distributing our news.

The BBC, as an early presence on the web, also spotted the possibilities of social media quickly and it has become a highly important and fast-moving part of our multimedia newsroom, as I will outline shortly.

The other area I will also touch on is the range of new challenges and questions that social media poses for the established news providers - like the BBC, CNN, Sky and al-Jazeera.

First, the practical role and influence of social media in the BBC's multimedia newsroom and for BBC News as a whole.

For BBC News, social media currently has three key, highly valuable roles in our journalism:

• newsgathering - it helps us gather more, and sometimes better, material; we can find a wider ranges of voices, ideas and eyewitnesses quickly

• audience engagement - how we listen to and talk to our audiences, and allowing us to speak to different audiences - and

• a platform for our content - it's a way of us getting our journalism out there, in short form or as a tool to take people to our journalism on the website, TV or radio. It allows us to engage different and younger audiences.

 

The BBC already has a fair track record of inviting the audience to get involved in our journalism - web forums; debates; blogs and comments, and most recently incorporating comment within our website story pages, particularly on the live pages.

We are proud of the standards we have set in processing, sifting and verifying material sent to us and sourced through social newsgathering, giving us a new dimension when telling some of the major stories of recent times - the Japan tsunami; the Arab Spring; the Burma uprisings; the Norway shootings; the riots in England.

The team we have allows us to fully engage in using this material, and reinforce the BBC values that our audience expects, in particular accuracy. So we managed to avoid, for example, use of the photo-shopped Bin Laden body photo after his killing.

Many of our leading journalists and presenters now incorporate social media platforms into their work: Tim Willcox; Lyse Doucet; Robert Peston and until recently Laura Kuenssberg (who has now been joined by her Twitter followers, with our blessing, at ITV News).

We've innovated, experimenting with branded hashtags to curate coverage; visualising Royal Wedding day tweets on our website; and work is under way to seamlessly integrate field despatches from our correspondents and reporters into our core news services and social media output.

And like many established news providers, we have created an open and modern set of guidance to help our staff engage, gather news and spread their journalism, working within the BBC's editorial values that are at the core of our journalism.

Here's a short video we've just made to illustrate briefly the role of social media right now in the BBC Newsroom.

However, now I'd like to add just a little context to the growth of social media for the audiences of BBC News.

Since its launch Twitter has obviously seen rapid growth.

 

Look at the @BBCBreaking account which has increased its number of followers very rapidly even in the last 12 months.

It looks impressive, and it is, but compare that with consumption via the website, which has also grown very rapidly, now attracting an average 9m users a day.

 

And still the home of our biggest audiences by a country mile is TV News with the BBC News Channel's average weekly audience up 50% in the last year, and the BBC1 TV bulletins reaching 17.5 million viewers in a week.

Social media has strong growth and huge potential - it's a great tool for our journalism, as we've seen, but for the BBC, still draws relatively small numbers. I would say a "small" but highly engaged, dedicated and vociferous part of our audience.

And that leads me on to the second main area I would like to address - and those are the wider challenges presented to so-called "traditional" media by social media.

For good or for ill - and sometimes it is for good, and sometimes not, social media has trashed many of the foundations on which "traditional" media stands. And in all honesty I can raise questions about this but I don't think we yet have all the answers:

• Privacy. In particular privacy of the individual, where are the boundaries? Are there any areas off limits? It seems we can all discuss pregnancies, affairs, ethics, finances, abilities, families. It's out there on Twitter and Facebook and there's no real protection for what, until now, has been largely personal or private.

It leaves traditional media in a very different universe. We mitigate this via very clear guidelines to our staff, which states that although content placed on social media or other websites "may be considered to have been placed in the public domain, re-use by the BBC will usually bring it to a much wider audience". They go on to say that: "We should consider the impact of our re-use, particularly when in connection with tragic or distressing events."

• Anonymity. Many people joining the debate or discussion or sometimes accusing, or attacking, have no name and no face and therefore no seeming personal responsibility for the impact or truth or validity of what they publicly say. Professional journalists, like ours, encouraged to engage in social media spaces but held to account for their views and values, often find themselves engaged in a wholly uneven discussion on coverage or stories with an invisible opponent.

• Ethics. Most of us work within an ethical framework. We won't report the death of a loved one until the family know; we won't just steal material from others; we try to establish facts before pushing a story out there. These are all fundamental and long cherished principles of the way BBC News operates. But not the ground rules of many using social media.

• The Rule of Law. We work within the laws of our land - we avoid libel; or contempt of court; or revealing the names of young victims or juveniles accused of crimes. We don't break court injunctions. Some social media users do many of these things.

Sometimes it has been argued they show up the failings of the laws of the land, and they may do, but often it is done in ignorance of the law, or simply on the assumption that it doesn't matter. And that can leave traditional media looking slow or stick-in-the mud or somehow part of an "establishment" that doesn't tell the whole truth. Look at the case of Ryan Giggs.

• The role of traditional media. Some of our role is probably gone. Will we be "First with the Breaking News"? Probably not in many cases. Someone on Twitter will be. Will we have the first still of a hero or victim? Facebook probably will have it. Will we get the first video out of Syria or Burma? YouTube will almost certainly have it posted first, although we'll often be one of the first to verify it's genuine (or not).

• Audience interaction. This can be a great way of hearing what your audience has to say, and answering questions or engaging. We have sophisticated ways of measuring what our audiences consume, and we keep an eye on what's being said to us and about our content, all of which we consider in our editorial discussions.

However there's a real danger lurking here - namely that we mistake the squalls on Twitter or the views of ten or 20 vociferous tweeters for the view of the audience as a whole. It may be that it is, but it often isn't, and we shouldn't necessarily be swayed in our editorial judgements by a noisy but small row on Twitter.

These are some of the challenges we face with social media and we grapple with them every day.

But you can take those challenges and say that the uncertainties they introduce can actually underline the strengths that established news organisations have, for a very large part of the audience.

In the sea of many voices and stories of claims and general noise, we know there remains an appetite for a journalism that is based on the values that news audiences of "traditional" organisations' like the BBC value most highly of all : truth; accuracy; integrity; verification; independence; and yes, speed. The new environment we are all living in can underline in the audience's mind the values of our journalism.

Lastly, social media shines a powerful light on all that we do. It can be uncomfortable at times but it is ultimately a great thing. It will help keep us all honest. Those traditional organisations who abandon those core values and aspirations will be found out - there is unrelenting examination of all we do - and those who don't live up to their values will quickly surrender their value to audiences in this new world.

Kevin Bakhurst is deputy head of the BBC Newsroom

I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.

I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.

Mr McIntyre says during the interview that "personally he sees himself equal to anyone else" and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position. Comments more than welcome.

Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom. As per normal practice, this post is now closed to new comments.

Disability affairs specialist Peter White

Access All Areas week includes themed coverage on TV, online and radio and our colleagues at 5 live will also be discussing the issues.

We hope the week will challenge assumptions, air the views and concerns of people with disabilities, tell some extraordinary stories, look at some of the changing attitudes towards people with disability and reveal some areas where it is argued that attitudes need to be changed. We also look at the financial costs of living with disability - for disabled people themselves and for businesses and government.

It's important for the BBC to reflect all aspects of life in the UK and this week gives us a chance to highlight and explore a range of topics related to disability issues. Although we've been making progress in many areas reflecting the lives, the abilities and the challenges of people with disabilities, this is still something we hope to build on.

The guidance of some members of our teams who have disabilities and have experience in this area has been crucial. We have arranged the content around five themes:

Changing attitudes: Forty years since the first disability act, disability affairs specialist Peter White looks through the archives to see how language and attitudes towards disabilities have changed and interviews the man who designed the first legislation, Alf Morris. A survey examines the shift in attitudes and we explore what life is like for people living with disabilities around the world.

Employment: Political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue explores issues around employment and age and disability correspondent Geoff Adams-Spink looks at how many people with disabilities fall through the net on education and provision of benefits and services.

Sport: We look at sports funding and ways to make sport accessible for children with disabilities. Newsnight's Jonathan Bell describes how sport helped him when returning from his army service and how it is used to support those coming back from Afghanistan with life-changing injuries.

Technology: Technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones looks at how technology can transform the lives of people with disabilities and Gary O'Donoghue talks about the big and small changes in technology which have developed in his lifetime and transformed how he lives.

Invisible disability: We explore less visible disabilities and the arts and culture surrounding disabled people, as well as their portrayal in the media. Scotland correspondent James Cook finds out how a company in Scotland was created specifically to open up employment opportunities for people with autism.

I hope you'll find our coverage engaging and thought-provoking; personally, I hope it'll play a role in putting some of the issues at the heart of discussion, debate and daily coverage. Yesterday Peter White explored what has been done to end disability discrimination during the past 40 years and today Gary O'Donoghue looks at the challenges faced by disabled job-seekers. If you miss some of the coverage, you can find the key online features by searching for "Access All Areas" on the News site.

Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.

This year has seen many major news stories, including the UK general election, the Haiti earthquake, the Pakistan floods, the shootings in Cumbria and the Chilean miners. During events like these, some traumatic and some complex, many people turn to the BBC. In the year so far, 9.6 million people have watched the channel each week: a 24% increase on 2009, when the average was 7.7 million.

The highest reach recorded for a UK news channel and for the BBC News Channel (7.4m) was on 11 May, the day that Gordon Brown resigned and David Cameron became prime minister. This was closely followed by 7 May, the day after the general election, when 7m watched and 13 October when 6.9m watched the rescue of the Chilean miners.

The channel is also watched live on the BBC News website by a large and growing number, often as part of the site's live pages on major stories.

The day after the election, there were more than 5.5m requests for the live page and there were around 3m requests for the live page on the day the Chilean miners were rescued.

Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.

 

It was Halloween. A good chance, we thought, to explore the background to paganism. I would simply suggest that the decision to cover some aspects of paganism on one day indicates an interest in the fact there is in the UK a range of faiths - and among some a lack of faith. Our reporting should be seen in the context of BBC News's wider coverage of religion and religious events where stories, as ever, are based on topicality and editorial merit. And Christianity - being the country's main religion - still remains the faith with the most coverage.

The idea yesterday was to look at a range of beliefs - outside the majority faiths - which have been on the increase around the UK. Interestingly, as Robert Pigott reported, druidry has just been recognized by the Charities Commission.

Only a few weeks ago, there was debate about the BBC's coverage of the Pope's visit to Britain, with some arguing that we reported too much on the visit. This included much discussion on the role of the Catholic Church, Christianity and the values of modern Britain.

We will continue to explore and explain the background to the events that our audiences celebrate - no matter what their religion might be - and will do so without downplaying anyone's personal beliefs.

Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.

The BBC's Budget programme was watched on BBC2 by an audience that peaked at 1.3m and was also simulcast on the BBC News Channel. What stood out to us, though, was that the programme was also watched 500,000 times via the BBC News website.

And this isn't a first - it looks like a growing trend. The BBC's coverage of President Obama's inauguration was watched by a huge audience on BBC One, peaking at 6.9m. It was watched live via the website 700,000 times.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the online figures seem bigger when lots of people are in their offices and places of work and want to keep up with major events - but they are also growing strongly at weekends.

The BBC News Channel has been streamed permanently on the website for some time and now regularly receives around 350,000 visits a week online - with big news stories obviously driving the figures much higher. On the main day of the UK snowfall, the News Channel was watched across the day by 5.24m viewers (3 min reach) on TV - with an extra 200,000 online views. Figures for streamed coverage of the Madrid air crash reached around 400,000. And during the G20 summit and protests in London on April 1st, the BBC News Channel was used 364,000 times online.

Of course, the majority of the audience still watches live coverage conventionally on the TV, but a rapidly growing and significant part of our audience is now watching live BBC News coverage online.

Firstly some facts: even now as we move into the third week since Madeleine's disappearance, the story is still resulting in very high news audiences. This isn't always the decisive measure but it does seem to represent a high level of interest from the audience. Secondly, the number of complaints to the audience log at the BBC over the amount of coverage are still at a low level: yesterday, there were ten complaints. I personally have a number of e-mails complaining about the coverage, but they are all from one person.

In the Guardian today, Simon Jenkins takes up the theme complaining that the coverage has been "absurdly over the top" and is surprised that we sent out a presenter to back up "at least two other on-screen reporters in place".

I have the highest respect for Mr Jenkins and his record in print journalism but I'm sure he would also recognise that in order to provide coverage around the clock for Breakfast, BBC World, BBC News 24, the One, Six and Ten O'Clock News and Newsnight, as well as to gather news and report from at least two locations in the Algarve, that TV News needs rather more than the three people he outlines.

Mr Jenkins also asserts that the coverage of Madeleine led the Six O'Clock News ahead of Gordon Brown's leadership bid. This is just wrong. Gordon Brown winning the leadership led the Six O'Clock News on Thursday night. So far this week, the search for Madeleine has led the Six O'Clock News on one evening, though it has obviously been given prominent coverage elsewhere in the bulletin.

We have been particularly careful to avoid entering into a round of speculation and rumour, though this has surfaced in some other media. And we have tried to satisfy the genuine interest among a huge portion of our audience and strike the right tone. There have been days - such as when Tony Blair announced his departure and when power was restored to the Northern Ireland assembly - when we have done very little coverage.

Last weekend, we specifically decided that we should cover many other stories while giving the search for Madeleine appropriate prominence. But we decided not to do rolling coverage all day when there were really no news developments and it would - in my view - almost have seemed exploitative.

I'm sorry if some viewers feel - as Mr Jenkins and one or two other commentators do - that we have done too much. I'm also sorry if others feel we haven't done enough. But we have tried to tread this difficult line.

News 24's Jane Hill has been in the Algarve since Saturday morning as part of a sizeable BBC team and we have strived to try to get the tone right as well as the amount of coverage. Both in the Algarve and here in the UK, we have liaised closely with Madeleine's family and the British authorities on the wishes of the family and the facts and tone of the reporting. Early on, both ITV and Sky joined an informal pool operation in the Algarve around the family where we only showed Madeleine's parents and family by consent so as to try to avoid intrusion. The BBC helped to organise the televised statement by Mrs McCann which was pooled to British and Portuguese TV stations. Even in these difficult circumstances, the McCann's know that publicity for Madeleine is important as the search goes on.

We have called Madeleine by her full name (not Maddy), at the request of the family because it is what they call her. We passed on the accurate details of Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's initial description. For several days there were many developments that we reported as they unfolded and large audiences watched News 24 over the Bank Holiday weekend, concerned for Madeleine. For the last couple of days, there have been fewer concrete developments (at time of writing) and the temptation for some seems to have been to report unsubstantiated rumours of which there are many to try to keep the story going - particularly when there is self-evidently high audience interest in the story itself. We have looked into many of these rumours on the ground and that is all they have so far turned out to be.

We all sincerely hope that there is a positive outcome for Madeleine and the McCanns and we will continue to try to provide the high volume of coverage and updates that the audience obviously wants, whilst respecting the family's privacy and needs and whilst striving to separate real developments from rumours.

The BBC - like Sky and ITV News - treat these sad events very seriously and we try to cover them in an appropriate tone and with the prominence and time they deserve. Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence denied the broadcasters access to film the arrival ourselves and instead provided their own recorded footage soon after the event. This seems to be an increasing trend at the Ministry to try to control what is filmed at sensitive events.

There is no dispute over the quality of the footage, which was fine and we still devoted considerable time to the ceremony. However, we would have liked to cover it more fully as it happened and we have done this in the past. The Ministry of Defence says that they wanted to do it in this way to safeguard the privacy of the families. However, in the past we have always respected the wishes of the families absolutely at this desperately difficult time.

We had discussed the way we would handle such a situation a couple of days previously and decided we wouldn't show the pictures without trying to give the families of those held as much notice as we could. We also wouldn't show them if the British captives looked to be in undue distress or injured. The pictures would inevitably become a major part of the story and be shown around the world.

Today we actually had a few hours notice that the pictures were likely to appear as they were trailed by the TV station involved. When we found this out, firstly, we spoke to the Ministry of Defence to ask them to inform the families that this was likely to happen. We also explained the circumstances in which we would use them - and those in which we wouldn't. We liaised with Sky News, who agreed with our thinking.

When the pictures came in, we watched them all and although the British personnel looked strained and were almost certainly acting under duress, they looked in good health and said they had been treated well. The Ministry of Defence said that it hoped that this would be some comfort to the families and Naval colleagues at the moment - a sentiment we share.

They currently get around 845,000 viewers a week on this platform out of their weekly total of 4 million. For us at the BBC, I think this is a double-edged sword.

Sky have already rather given up on viewing figures as BBC News 24 has moved substantially ahead of them (6 million a week versus 4 million). Whereas, a few years ago audience size was their preferred measure of success, it has now been quietly dropped. The move on Freeview will almost certainly be another big blow to their audience size.

I can fully understand why Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB have taken this decision on commercial grounds alone: you can make money out of movies and sport but not easily from news. However, I do think it's a real shame for TV News coverage in the UK.

We are very fortunate to have two thriving 24-hour TV News channels and I firmly believe competition is a good thing for the audience. Sky's decision will be a bad thing for news audiences, particularly those who can't afford subscription services and choose Freeview for that reason. I would just say that for us at BBC News 24, we put immense value on our audiences and their views - and will continue to do so whatever platform they watch us on.

BBC News has kept a constant presence in Iraq this year, despite the safety issues and the cost of doing it, because we judge events there to be such a big and important story. A few days ago, when it seemed that the execution was imminent, world affairs editor John Simpson and Clive Myrie went into Iraq to reinforce the bureau - without knowing exactly how long they would have to stay there.

As it turned out, the execution came rather quicker than many expected. Many of our competitors don't have any permanent presence there and took the decision not to send in anyone to cover this story.

As it became clear that Saddam would probably be killed last night or today, there were several conversations between the senior figures in BBC News about what we would probably show if the execution was televised - which seemed likely. One decision was that we wouldn't show the moment of execution itself - even if it were made available (which it wasn't).

This morning I was in the building as the pictures actually came in from Iraqi television. We showed them on a time delay first on Breakfast to give us the option of cutting out - which we did on first showing.

We quickly reached the decision on Breakfast (and for the early part of the day and evening on BBC One) not to show the noose being put around Saddam's neck as there could be many children on school holiday watching - possibly passively. Even then, we gave a warning ahead of John Simpson's report.

For News 24 and for the late evening bulletin tonight on BBC One, we decided to show all the pictures of the execution as people are choosing actively to watch a news channel - and the late bulletin is on after the watershed.

We have also tried to reflect all the voices and views: Shia and Sunni, Arab world, European and American - although no British government minister wants to comment on camera today, nor does President Bush.

I hope the decisions we have made have allowed us to tell the story properly and well across all the channels whilst respecting the audiences they all have, at this time of year in particular.

The programme's name has been used by the BBC News website for around a year along with 'Have Your Say', 'Your Pics' and so on and this underlines the close relationship with the website - it shows which stories have been most popular online that week; it shows pictures and video clips sent in by our audience; and it asks for ideas for stories we should be covering.

This week we followed up a moving story of one viewer who tried to honour his late wife's request to donate her tissue to research and the obstacles he found at the local hospital.

It's work in progress - and it is Your News - so we would really welcome views, ideas, story ideas and pictures...

The comments were highly charged and Mr Griffin attacked the government, the Crown Prosecution Service and the BBC. They called the BBC "cockroaches".

Of course it's always a risk carrying these live events when they are heated and the individuals have a track-record of controversial and outspoken views, and it's an interesting position for the BBC to be reporting in an impartial way while being attacked like that.

Yet I'm sure it's absolutely right that we were there and carried the comments live. Today's case raised the very current issue of freedom of speech and what is - and isn't - acceptable in today's Britain. Carrying - and testing - a complete range of legal views that represent the various constituencies across the UK is crucially important to the BBC's reputation for fairness.