20/11/2015 Newswatch

tighter checks entering the Schengen zone. At 10pm the Fiona Bruce will

be up with a -- with headlines but News Watch.

Welcome To News Watch. Coming Up. The Horror Of Paris Attacks What

Challenges Did Bbc News Face In Conveying The Drama And The Facts Of

What Happened Last Friday Night? We Be Hearing What Questions You Had

About The Coverage And How The Bbc Decided What To Show On Its

Bulletins. It was at around 9pm last Friday evening that reports began to

emerge of what proved to be the most complex and fast moving operation

BBC News has faced this year. Tim Wilcox was presenting on the News

Channel at that time. We start now with breaking news. Reports are

coming in of an attack, or possibly several attacks in Paris. Reports

are talking out -- about a burst of gunfire. With meets to discuss the

programme about this coverage is the BBC controller Gavin Allen and we

will also be hearing from one of the viewers who's been in touch with us

over the past few days, Richard Callan who's in Oxford. Gavin, can

you tell us about the priorities that the BBC had any major aftermath

of these attacks. It was a remarkably confused picture

initially. Obviously, the key priority is to tell people what we

know and what has happened to the best of our knowledge at that stage

and it was unfolding as each hour and minute went on. But also what we

didn't know, because you leak to lots of conclusions. And different

attacks. The priority was getting people who were there and getting

our own people to Paris and making sure that anyone we did get to Paris

was entirely safe, knew the risks and we had back-up. Where the big

issues now is fitted. A lot of mobile phone British get uploaded

onto social media, and there's also the concern about showing disturbing

imagery without warning. How did you deal with this? It's not unique to

Paris. So many people witnessed so many events. We need verification

and assessing it. When are we broadcasting? Is it appropriate is

it required? Does it help us understand what's happening? Lets

get some reactions from our viewers. Some of you said, congratulations,

who e-mailed. Others had their reservations and here are some

selections of your thoughts. Paris is on a knife edge. A city where a

silent vigil suddenly transforms into a screaming stampede. There's

been no doubting the sense of fear. Extensive portrayal of that fear

over many hours of airtime could have had a negative effect. It may

be gratifying to terrorists to see how much beer they've done it. Not

just directly to the victims, but how much they are impacting on a

wider society. That would have given them a great deal of satisfaction is

and deal their actions were worthwhile. That's the sort of

impact they want to have. This man had other concerns. Events in Paris

have been horrific and I don't want in any way to diminish or belittle

that. My concern is that there seems to be a morbid curiosity of

reporters pursuing witnesses immediately afterwards about their

emotions. What must you be going through? I think that could be left

for some time afterwards. Is no surprise that the story this size

received worldwide airtime, but there were discussions about suicide

bombings in Lebanon getting lost. Richard, can you tell us what your

concern was the tone of the coverage? I think I agreed with

several of the comments there and I'm concerned that the quantity of

coverage suggests that Western lives lost our more important the lives

lost in other parts of the world. I'm thinking of Pakistan, Nigeria.

Places which have greater resonance for some of the communities most at

risk of radicalisation in this country, and that amount of coverage

can then reinforce ids within those communities that Muslim lives are

not valued as much, which then actually increases the risk of

radicalisation. So, I think we have to be careful to be proportionate in

our reporting of loss of life around the world. Cabin. . It's a difficult

balance. You can't conduct your news on different countries. It has TB a

judgment based on the impact of any given incident.

a knock-on effect. Not just in families in Paris but migration

policy, intelligence failures, and a whole host of other areas to

explore. It doesn't mean we wouldn't cover other disasters or tragedies.

Richard, did you worry about fear and panic and the amount of coverage

was given? If very little was said in a Western media is about these

events, then I could imagine that the leadership of IES Mack -- Isis

would be disappointed. They rely on it to recruit by spreading fear and

terror. Absolutely, I think we have to be careful we don't do their job

for them. Gavin, lots were concerned about the idea that

some of the timing of the coverage focused on there, and there could be

seen to fuel the panic. I think at the end of this, an incident in

which 120 people are killed in the middle of the capital city, it's not

the coverage of that is going to lead to fear increasing, it's the

attacks themselves. I think we've got to be responsible restrained in

how we tell these stories, how we tell the background, the impact to

what happened, and hear eyewitness accounts. It's reflecting the fact

that there is fear, not creating fear. Lets get a taste of some of

the coverage and different reactions to aspects of it. It's been a week

of high emotions and BBC News conveyed the strength of feelings in

a number of ways such as this montage showing on Monday morning.

Another impact concern me, the use of a montage with some very morbid

piano music. It sounded more like a dreadful soap for the real events

that had happened. Reporting has been demanding emotionally and

sometimes the effect on BBC staff was clear. And the grief and anger

of Parisien 's was on display to the regrets. Much more factual reporting

a less impact on how it had affected very individuals could have been

better. And it would have been kinder to those individuals. I do

question as to how much focusing on those raw emotions will of made it

worse for them. Richard, can we talk about these views on how emotion was

covered in news and sentimentality. We heard that clip from the

breakfast News montage. What are your thoughts about this kind of

coverage? There's a danger of the invasion of privacy at this time is

when you are looking for people's reactions and immediate emotions,

and then I think that can easily move on to making it into a drama,

and something that becomes, for some people, entertainment. It becomes

gripping. They want to watch it. It looks a little bit like some of the

dramas we might watch on television anyway. And I think we need to avoid

sensationalising, or making news such as this into an appealing drama

that people are going to have some sort of morbid interest in. Morbid

interest. That music blog overlays images! I take the points about it

becomes entertaining or drama. I think it was compelling, and I don't

think it is necessarily a bad thing that is compelling. It's the chance

to reflect on individuals. The danger is of that we talk of

geopolitics, instead of individuals who have been injured or killed. By

speaking to people who are there at the same, or families of those who

have died, I think you get a greater picture of the sense of the tragedy,

actually. Because it has impacted on real, individual people. Lex end

with one will clip featuring a letter written by the husband of one

of the victims. He read out his letter to a BBC camera on Wednesday

leading to a large response on Twitter. On Friday night you stole

away the life of a acceptable being. The love of my life, the mother of

my son. Of course, I am devastated with grief, I give you that tidy

victory, but it will be a short-term grief. I know we will join us every

day. And I will find her a game in Paradise a free souls which you will

never have access to. -- again. That's all we have time for. Do call

us with your news and views on a number above.

In Sportsday we hear from Eddie Jones.