:00:03. > :00:13.Right now on BBC News it is time for news watch. This week, coverage
:00:13. > :00:27.
:00:27. > :00:32.of the Oscars is under the Welcome to newswatch. Later, what
:00:32. > :00:36.does speeded-up footage add to news reports? First, it was that time of
:00:36. > :00:42.the year Again, last Sunday night, the Blitz, the frocks, the glamour
:00:42. > :00:46.of the Oscars. Viewers of Breakfast on Monday morning were given a run-
:00:46. > :00:51.down of the result with reports from the red carpet. Comment first
:00:51. > :00:56.was last year's winner of the best actor award and presented Meryl
:00:56. > :01:06.Streep with her award. It be my Streep with her award. It be my
:01:06. > :01:16.mind. The first few frames. Clark was unimpressed. -- June
:01:16. > :01:24.The programme was interrupted again 20 minutes later. This is something
:01:24. > :01:34.special as guest lists go. We have seen Tom Cruise, David Beckham. The
:01:34. > :01:42.
:01:42. > :01:52.At least Tim if it was well positioned to grab celebrity
:01:52. > :01:59.
:01:59. > :02:03.arrivals at the post-show party. A we hope that most of the winners
:02:03. > :02:08.and others will come to the Vanity Fair party to talk to us. So far,
:02:08. > :02:12.of the main winners, only the best supporting actress has arrived, and
:02:12. > :02:16.she walked straight in and didn't talk to anyone, so fingers crossed
:02:16. > :02:21.the other winners will be here before the programme ends at 9:15am.
:02:21. > :02:31.And are later, the search for interviewees was flagging.
:02:31. > :02:47.
:02:47. > :02:57.Pat Chris Stewart is here. -- Patrick Stewart. I am so sorry!
:02:57. > :02:58.
:02:58. > :03:08.A real actor, Ben, but not the actor he thought it was. It was by
:03:08. > :03:26.
:03:26. > :03:30.now a late night in Los Angeles. In the absence of any real surprise
:03:30. > :03:36.results, or much British interest, had the focus on the Oscars been
:03:36. > :03:39.worth it? We asked the programme to respond to these comments. They
:03:39. > :03:49.refused our invitation to be interviewed but gave us this
:03:49. > :04:15.
:04:15. > :04:19.I am joined by another viewer who contacted us after Monday morning's
:04:19. > :04:23.programme. Welcome to Graham Birch in our Salford studio. What did you
:04:23. > :04:28.in our Salford studio. What did you make of the Oscar coverage?
:04:28. > :04:33.thought it was over the top. It is the breakfast news programme, and
:04:33. > :04:39.the word is in, news. I would have been happy to see a reasonable
:04:39. > :04:45.amount of coverage and details of who won and so forth, but the over-
:04:45. > :04:50.the-top coverage, having a presenter presenting, another
:04:50. > :04:55.presenter, and simply giving us who went to which party and so on, I
:04:55. > :05:00.don't think that is used. Was there simply too much of it for your
:05:00. > :05:05.liking? -- a I don't think that is news. I think there was too much.
:05:05. > :05:08.The reply from the BBC has referred to all the news stories going round,
:05:09. > :05:13.but I think the coverage of the Oscars was out of proportion to the
:05:13. > :05:16.importance of the event relative to other stories around on the day.
:05:16. > :05:21.Tim if it is a London-based reporter. Was it right for the BBC
:05:21. > :05:25.to have him standing outside the parties? Absolut the not, I think
:05:25. > :05:29.this is the point that tipped me over to make no comment --
:05:29. > :05:33.absolutely not. There have been many comments on your programme in
:05:33. > :05:40.recent months about having reporters, news anchors, flown out
:05:40. > :05:45.to Egypt, etc, and in those cases, it has been questioned, whether
:05:45. > :05:49.that was necessary and appropriate. For what is still a relatively
:05:49. > :05:56.lightweight news event such as the Oscars, I really can't see the case
:05:56. > :06:00.for jetting in a presented to present at a perfectly, a perfectly
:06:01. > :06:05.experienced presenter who was on the spot. D you think the statement
:06:05. > :06:12.from BBC Breakfast meats or answers the concerns of you and a number of
:06:12. > :06:16.other viewers? -- meets. I do and think it does. -- I don't think it
:06:17. > :06:21.does. It is -- to find its judgment in the way it handled it, but I
:06:22. > :06:27.don't think it is taking on board my views and the views of what
:06:27. > :06:31.appear to be a number of other viewers who have written in to you.
:06:32. > :06:37.Thank you. We have had a rash of complaints or read this year about
:06:38. > :06:44.football stories dominating news bulletins. Last year -- week it was
:06:45. > :06:49.football delaying it. Millions met -- the Carling Cup final going into
:06:49. > :06:59.extra time caused the Schedule to overrun. Other work -- other people
:06:59. > :06:59.
:06:59. > :07:47.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 47 seconds
:07:47. > :07:57.were waiting for the early evening We put those points to BBC One, and
:07:57. > :08:05.
:08:05. > :08:10.There were more rejections last weekend about this story. There are
:08:10. > :08:13.printing more than 3 million copies tonight of Britain's first new
:08:13. > :08:23.Sunday paper for nearly a decade. Oh no Rupert Murdoch was at the
:08:23. > :08:42.
:08:42. > :08:46.printing plant just north of London Meanwhile, the state of the Greek
:08:46. > :08:56.economy continues to exercise economy continues to exercise
:08:56. > :09:26.
:09:26. > :09:31.European leaders and news editors. Before we go, viewer Phil Bolton
:09:31. > :09:37.has a bee in his bonnet about... Here he is to explain. I am getting
:09:37. > :09:45.fed up with the disproportionate use of eye candy on news film, by
:09:45. > :09:55.that, I mean, the sort of, irrelevant, gimmicky, poorly
:09:55. > :09:55.
:09:55. > :10:00.produced bits of film you used to One particular example is this
:10:00. > :10:04.insane use of speeded-up film, and it gets worse when you show some
:10:04. > :10:08.graphics against a background of speeded-up film, because of course
:10:08. > :10:11.the eye follows motion much more, and therefore the speeded-up film
:10:12. > :10:18.distracts you from the graphics and the message we are trying to put
:10:18. > :10:22.across. It is insane. The news is there to portray information. You
:10:22. > :10:26.presumably send correspondence out to report stuff, and you want us to
:10:26. > :10:30.pay attention to the correspondent, not the background, otherwise there
:10:31. > :10:35.is no point in showing the correspondent at all. It's was
:10:35. > :10:39.mainly weak spending here at home. Story is about the economy are
:10:39. > :10:42.generally complex messages to get across, so if you try to make it
:10:42. > :10:48.interesting by distracting people from the story you were trying to
:10:48. > :10:51.convey, I suspect it is counter- productive. Other stories about
:10:51. > :10:57.retailing are often accompanied by pictures of feet walking down the
:10:57. > :11:03.street. Think about the message you are trying to put across, and stop
:11:03. > :11:06.the indiscriminate use of eye candy. Better speed on to the end of the
:11:06. > :11:09.programme. Thanks to Phil Bolton and all of you for your comments