:00:04. > :00:14.That is the news. It is now time for BBC News watch. What
:00:14. > :00:25.
:00:25. > :00:27.implications could be let us an Welcome to Newswatch. Since the
:00:27. > :00:34.phone-hacking scandal emerged earlier this year, addressing
:00:34. > :00:38.journalists has plummeted. In response to the revelations, the
:00:38. > :00:44.Prime Minister has set to the left as an inquiry into media ethics
:00:44. > :00:49.which this week heard witnesses. Although from St by behaviour from
:00:49. > :00:59.the tabloid press, the inquiry is set to impinge on journalism as a
:00:59. > :01:04.I cannot think of any conceivable source except those voice messages
:01:04. > :01:11.on my mobile telephone. It just felt like such an intrusion into a
:01:11. > :01:14.really, really private grief. The parade of celebrities and other
:01:14. > :01:19.victims of phone hacking all bore testimony of widespread intrusion
:01:20. > :01:24.into people's private lives. It was too much for some viewers, who
:01:24. > :01:29.wrote SVRs, certainly for me the dialler's family, it is disgusting.
:01:29. > :01:33.But that is on a personal level. The media likes stories about their
:01:33. > :01:43.own industry. This inquiry is not main news and the media need to
:01:43. > :02:13.
:02:13. > :02:16.stop acting as if it is the story Where blame should be attached is
:02:16. > :02:21.just one of the questions the Lord Justice will be facing over the
:02:21. > :02:25.next few months. His other considerations about the limits and
:02:25. > :02:30.responsibilities of investigative journalism, how the media should be
:02:30. > :02:33.policed and how to restore public confidence. These could have
:02:33. > :02:40.ramifications for many organisations, including the BBC.
:02:40. > :02:44.To discuss these, and joined the BBC's editor of political standards.
:02:44. > :02:48.The chair of the media standards trusts and the journalist and chief
:02:48. > :02:52.Executive of Index On censorship. First of all, are you worried that
:02:52. > :03:00.there might be some negative implications flowing from this
:03:00. > :03:04.inquiry that might affect BBC journalism? Yes. This inquiry is
:03:04. > :03:09.entirely right and these facts of bullying and illegality by tabloid
:03:09. > :03:13.newspapers needs to be looked at and looked out of very hard. But
:03:13. > :03:17.there is another type of journalism and my constant complaint about
:03:17. > :03:23.journalism over many years is not this kind of journalism. It is not
:03:23. > :03:27.that it is too strong, it is that it is two weeks. If you look back
:03:27. > :03:32.at the big issues of the last five or 10 years. The bankers, weapons
:03:32. > :03:37.of mass destruction. These are journalistic, not political points.
:03:37. > :03:40.Did journalists find out too much or too little?
:03:40. > :03:47.Is there a danger that BBC journalism could be made even
:03:47. > :03:52.weaker as a result? I like the unbiased way in which
:03:52. > :03:58.she asked that question. I would not accept that the BBC's
:03:58. > :04:02.journalism is weak at the moment. We can always be better. It is very
:04:03. > :04:08.difficult to disprove that. Where I sit, I do not get the impression
:04:09. > :04:12.that there is a lack of rigour to the BBC's journalism. Can we do
:04:12. > :04:18.better? Should we have done better with the bankers? Yes, I would
:04:18. > :04:21.agree with John. You are interested as a
:04:21. > :04:25.documentary-maker and a journalist as higher media standards. Are you
:04:25. > :04:28.worried that there could be on for seen consequences for investigative
:04:28. > :04:34.journalism arising out of something at this?
:04:34. > :04:37.The unforeseen consequences in this case might be good. If he actually
:04:37. > :04:41.manages to cod defied the law on privacy and libel laws and the laws
:04:41. > :04:45.of confidence, which is the one we use for super injunctions, then
:04:45. > :04:50.that would be a good thing for us. The one thing that I could see that
:04:50. > :04:54.would be negative would be that the cost of investigations remains high
:04:54. > :04:59.but legal threats remain very expensive and as the cuts for the
:05:00. > :05:05.next couple of years after 2013 - I gather there is another set of cuts
:05:05. > :05:10.expected - it becomes a vulnerable target. Good investigations are
:05:10. > :05:15.open-ended. You do not know how much it will cost.
:05:15. > :05:19.I think Roger makes a very important point. There should be a
:05:19. > :05:22.reaction that goes beyond what is necessary to solve the problems
:05:22. > :05:27.that it is addressing and has a chilling effect on those people who
:05:28. > :05:30.are doing investigated journalism in the public interest.
:05:31. > :05:38.This is really good stuff. The public interest issue is something
:05:38. > :05:42.we hope the inquiry will introduce into the next round of legislation.
:05:42. > :05:46.A proper definition of what the public interest is would help
:05:46. > :05:53.everybody. At the risk of sounding too
:05:53. > :05:56.concerned sure, we have been leading the libel reform. The state
:05:56. > :06:00.of the English defamation what is shocking. It has chilled freedom of
:06:00. > :06:06.speech for many years, not just for people in the UK but for people
:06:06. > :06:09.around the world - London has become a town called Sue. We have a
:06:09. > :06:15.small subsection of the media that his side of control, chasing people
:06:15. > :06:19.on motorbikes, rusting and haranguing. My real concern, and
:06:19. > :06:23.particularly at the BBC, there is a web of compliance. There are all
:06:23. > :06:26.these points that have come out of various mistakes in the past. I do
:06:26. > :06:32.just worried that apart from programmes like Panorama, which are
:06:32. > :06:35.correctly held up, and there is a risk for the BBC. There is no
:06:36. > :06:40.career progression for causing trouble.
:06:40. > :06:45.Is there a danger that that is true and that after this, it might get
:06:45. > :06:49.worse? It is a curious time to be
:06:49. > :06:52.criticising a web of compliance at a moment when there is a complete
:06:52. > :06:58.lack of compliance that has got the tabloid newspapers and other
:06:58. > :07:03.outlets into the situation where there having to be investigated. In
:07:03. > :07:06.those areas, we have those things broadly right. I obviously await
:07:06. > :07:10.the result of this investigation. The bill be recommendations for
:07:10. > :07:15.broadcasters which we may want to take into account. Where we may
:07:15. > :07:18.have to think about what we do is in relation to the use of private
:07:18. > :07:24.investigators, although we very rarely use them for any
:07:24. > :07:28.investigative purposes. If anybody is doing something on our behalf
:07:28. > :07:33.that they are adhering to the same values when we're doing things on
:07:33. > :07:38.our own behalf. Do you recognise this assertion
:07:38. > :07:42.that there is up a web of compliance that limits the baldness
:07:42. > :07:46.of BBC journalism? Speaking with David, whose
:07:46. > :07:51.department I have worked very closely in a number of quite high
:07:51. > :07:55.risk programmes, I have have to say I have had both experiences. I got
:07:55. > :08:00.tremendous report for a big Panorama specials. Compliance has
:08:00. > :08:03.been terrific. Under previous films about children, fantastic. There
:08:03. > :08:08.are other times when I thought they have been on the cautious side. It
:08:08. > :08:13.is an important point. He under Mick -- younger film-makers need to
:08:13. > :08:21.know what the rules are, where the boundaries are. That is missing.
:08:21. > :08:24.The short deadlines mean that a lot of press releases just get recycled
:08:24. > :08:28.the fight anybody thinking where are the primary sources? Have
:08:28. > :08:31.rechecked this? What are the implications? The combination of
:08:31. > :08:36.the lack of experience under pressure of deadlines and falling
:08:36. > :08:40.budgets, that could harm the future of investigative journalism.
:08:40. > :08:49.There has been some compliance around the stable today! Thank you
:08:49. > :08:59.very much. The name of a nearly die there has
:08:59. > :09:13.
:09:13. > :09:23.been back in the news, which On this theme, there is another
:09:23. > :09:31.
:09:31. > :09:41.See if you can identify the following individuals simply by the
:09:41. > :09:44.
:09:44. > :09:47.descriptive words used by news And the trial of two men accused of
:09:47. > :09:54.murdering Stephen Lawrence also elicited another complaint
:09:54. > :09:58.following an item on the news at six at the end of last week.
:09:58. > :10:03.Dwayne Brooks wept as he recalled how the pair were attacked by a
:10:03. > :10:07.gang who hurled racial abuse at them. He gave evidence despite his
:10:07. > :10:11.father dying last night. This report contains racially offensive
:10:11. > :10:21.language that is used in court. The use of that racially offensive
:10:21. > :10:32.
:10:32. > :10:35.Up Wednesday's breakfast had a couple of guests and to talk about
:10:35. > :10:41.a new TV series. His new series is called the cafe,
:10:41. > :10:44.set and a cafe. All perfectly interesting, but the
:10:44. > :10:50.problem and the opinion of some viewers was revealed at the end of
:10:50. > :11:00.the discussion. You can see them in the Cafe
:11:00. > :11:17.