:00:29. > :00:39.And later in the programme - a slice of chocolate cake goes down
:00:39. > :00:41.
:00:41. > :00:51.very nicely but should news the news? There was a lot of
:00:51. > :00:54.
:00:54. > :00:59.complaint about the coverage of Whitney Houston coverage.
:00:59. > :01:04.The build-up to the funeral took almost an hour and it was clear the
:01:04. > :01:12.servers would not be a brief one. Already the complaints were coming
:01:12. > :01:18.in. Barry Smith wrote, I'm very sad but not something a news channel
:01:19. > :01:28.should spend so much time on. A very poor decision on your editor's
:01:28. > :01:34.part. As the hours went on, the BBC stayed with the funeral. One viewer
:01:34. > :01:38.thought we were pandering to the popular glossy magazine culture.
:01:38. > :01:43.You should have a redirected viewers who wanted to see this to a
:01:43. > :01:53.live strain on your website and a debate into coverage every now and
:01:53. > :01:54.
:01:54. > :01:59.then. Just before the non-stop coverage hit the four-hour mark,
:01:59. > :02:09.the channel decided enough was enough but that upset her a couple
:02:09. > :02:12.
:02:12. > :02:17.who e-mailed: It was unfailing, unthinking and disrespectful.
:02:17. > :02:27.Especially to the minister. To answer those 0.5 and joined by the
:02:27. > :02:29.
:02:29. > :02:36.editor responsible. And another viewer who got in touch with us.
:02:36. > :02:41.was as sad and as anyone to hear about Whitney Houston's death. She
:02:41. > :02:46.was successful and a great artist bar when I switched the news
:02:46. > :02:51.channel on on Saturday evening to watch the news, I was astounded. I
:02:51. > :02:57.sat there for over an hour with the firm belief that any moment it
:02:57. > :03:02.would cut away to the actual news. It did not happen. I would like to
:03:02. > :03:08.ask why he thought it was necessary to continue with the coverage of
:03:08. > :03:14.this funeral which was clearly not serious news? These are decisions
:03:14. > :03:20.are quite difficult. The actual service was a significant news
:03:20. > :03:25.event, a live news event. Once you are in it, te in it, tpart of the
:03:25. > :03:35.audience that wants to stay with it. The decisions are quite complicated.
:03:35. > :03:42.In terms of the coverage, the news and Channel had BBC One are running
:03:42. > :03:47.a normal news range of stories. The wet side also had a range of
:03:47. > :03:52.stories and they were radio bulletins. Unless there was a
:03:52. > :03:57.significant big breaking news, you are committed to a live event. You
:03:57. > :04:02.wanna completely in control of the duration. The moment you pull away
:04:02. > :04:08.from it, there will be plenty of people in the audience offended by
:04:08. > :04:14.that. People on the desks, they were watching it quite closely and
:04:14. > :04:18.stuck with it for good editorial reasons. Imagine for the moment --
:04:18. > :04:27.imagine for the moment you were the editor, what kind of coverage
:04:27. > :04:34.should you have offered? It should have been edited highlights. There
:04:34. > :04:40.were plenty of channelof channel websites which could have been used
:04:40. > :04:46.to string it life. I do not think it was worthy of BBC international
:04:46. > :04:52.news channel. Four hours non-stop, that is
:04:52. > :04:58.bordering on the ridiculous? four hours was not something we
:04:58. > :05:01.envisaged. But he knew it had to be a live event. We were there to
:05:01. > :05:06.cover live in years. A live news event. There were other stories
:05:06. > :05:10.going on but there was nothing competing. If you look get the
:05:10. > :05:20.coverage across all of the channels, you will find that all the channels
:05:20. > :05:21.
:05:21. > :05:25.decision. We do not get everything the point you're making. There are
:05:25. > :05:30.people like Gareth who are frustrated. But on the night itself,
:05:30. > :05:33.about one million people were watching between 5 and 630. Those
:05:33. > :05:41.people thought it was the right decisions are we have to balance
:05:41. > :05:46.the app. What about the view that the BBC is too obsessed with
:05:46. > :05:53.celebrities, particularly US celebrities. That they should cover
:05:53. > :05:58.more stories from a Europe of rather than America? With respect,
:05:58. > :06:03.that is the point and have a bit of a dispute with. If you look at the
:06:03. > :06:08.coverage on the news channel, you will find we are not obsessed by
:06:08. > :06:14.celebrities or entertainment. The agenda is incredibly wide. We had
:06:14. > :06:21.done a lot out of Syria. In terms of the BBC just, I would recommend
:06:21. > :06:25.that people look at the BBC Trust website. There was a report in
:06:25. > :06:32.terms of news channel and what we're doing and what audiences
:06:32. > :06:42.thing. You will find that our agenda there could be a pretty
:06:42. > :06:44.
:06:44. > :06:49.the viewer, do you think the BBC is to celebrity obsessed? Yes. It is
:06:50. > :06:54.the same when the award season comes around. The BBC seems
:06:54. > :07:00.obsessed about telling us all about the parties. The oldest argument,
:07:00. > :07:05.it is not really news. The time is really pressures and there are a
:07:05. > :07:10.lot of stories going on. People are affected by certain events would be
:07:10. > :07:15.delighted to see a couple of minutes's coverage for their
:07:15. > :07:23.courses. Things that never get talked about at will. It is a place
:07:23. > :07:30.for news about celebrities but it is not on the news channel. Thank
:07:30. > :07:37.you both for coming into the studio. Over the course of the week, Syria
:07:37. > :07:43.featured prominently particularly which the death of the Sunday Times
:07:43. > :07:51.journalist married Col von. She had spoken earlier tours. Just today,
:07:51. > :07:57.shelling started. I counted 14 shells in the civilian area. Within
:07:57. > :08:01.30 seconds. There was at a clinic, if you could call it a clinic - it
:08:01. > :08:09.is an apartment, I watched a little baby died today. Absolutely
:08:09. > :08:15.horrific. The pictures that followed, though partly pixelated,
:08:15. > :08:23.upset several viewers. Have you wrote: I was sickened to watch a
:08:23. > :08:27.fatally injured child in its fatal moments. Surely the description
:08:27. > :08:35.given was realistic enough. This apparently voyeuristic scene should
:08:35. > :08:44.have been a private moment. Also causing concern was a newspaper
:08:44. > :08:52.review on the last Sunday's broke first. Losing weight. An
:08:52. > :09:02.astonishing story. She has lost eight stones in a year on a lighter
:09:02. > :09:06.
:09:06. > :09:16.life died. She just has great Umar. -- light and life diet. Credit with
:09:16. > :09:36.
:09:36. > :09:46.helping the woman with losing We asked breakfast for a response
:09:46. > :10:16.
:10:16. > :10:26.We featured last week the on screen star of two presenters. On Tuesday,
:10:26. > :10:38.
:10:38. > :10:48.viewers were divided. Tracey, I am going to bring the floor manager on.
:10:48. > :10:51.
:10:51. > :10:59.My favourite chocolate. They chocolate cake. Send you so much.
:10:59. > :11:09.- thank you so much. It looks tasty but on a series of news and
:11:09. > :11:28.