:00:05. > :00:15.Those live pictures coming from the Elysee Palace. Now it is time for
:00:15. > :00:26.
:00:26. > :00:32.Newswatch. This week, the choice of Welcome to Newswatch. Later in the
:00:32. > :00:39.programme - should images show the full horror of last week's massacre
:00:39. > :00:43.in Syria be broadcast? First, there was this. And as the International
:00:43. > :00:49.has accused the United Nations failing to show leadership matching
:00:49. > :00:52.the courage of protesters in Syria. Amnesty says the UN Security
:00:52. > :00:57.Council has been exposed as redundant in the face of crimes
:00:57. > :01:01.against humanity being perpetrated in the country. That a logo does
:01:01. > :01:08.not represent the UN Security Council, but a body called the UN
:01:08. > :01:12.Space Command, formed in the 22nd century, led by Lord Hood. A
:01:12. > :01:22.fictional part of a game series called the halo. One viewer was
:01:22. > :01:33.
:01:33. > :01:38.The BBC apologised for the error and replace the image in later
:01:38. > :01:42.bulletins. But another case of mistaken identity was to follow. On
:01:42. > :01:46.Sunday the website carried a powerful photograph of a row of
:01:46. > :01:50.bodies attributed to an activist. To illustrate a story about the
:01:50. > :01:55.massacre of more than 100 people near the silly and -- Syrian town
:01:55. > :02:05.of Houla. But the picture was taken almost a decade ago by a
:02:05. > :02:23.
:02:23. > :02:33.The BBC's social media editor, Chris Hamilton, has published a
:02:33. > :03:02.
:03:02. > :03:09.There were more general concerns about the coverage of the killings
:03:09. > :03:19.in Houla. Again on the use of pictures and articulated here by
:03:19. > :03:39.
:03:39. > :03:41.We are going to show an example now of the recovery urge from a report
:03:41. > :03:45.of the recovery urge from a report by Humphrey Hawksley last weekend.
:03:45. > :03:51.It does contain some distressing images.
:03:51. > :03:56.The people of Houla buried their dead. They quickly dug mass grave
:03:56. > :04:01.as the community absorbs the brutality and shock. Distress,
:04:01. > :04:08.disbelief and anger. A video too gruesome to show in false. Women,
:04:08. > :04:12.children, everyone in the path of Syrian troops was in the path -- a
:04:12. > :04:22.target they say. What was broadcast was too much for
:04:22. > :04:57.
:04:57. > :05:01.With me now is Jawed Iqbal, a senior editor in the BBC newsroom.
:05:01. > :05:06.What do you say to viewers such as Mary Giles, who says the BBC has
:05:07. > :05:11.abandoned respect and compassion? There is a process around using
:05:11. > :05:16.pictures. It is not a case of gratuitously putting them out there.
:05:16. > :05:20.What I would say in the context of these particular pictures, some are
:05:20. > :05:25.exceptional. They conveyed something of the conflict in Syria
:05:25. > :05:30.that it was exceptional. It raised lots of questions and if you look
:05:30. > :05:33.at the coverage this week, the international condemnation of these
:05:33. > :05:38.images and some of the diplomatic behaviour subsequent to that
:05:38. > :05:43.broadcast, is the way the story has developed and moved. There is a
:05:43. > :05:47.strong editorial justification. what extent can you tell the story
:05:47. > :05:52.and the importance of the story without bringing dead bodies into
:05:52. > :05:57.people's living rooms? Television news is about pictures as much as
:05:57. > :06:03.anything else. I understand the sensitivity of dead bodies and we
:06:03. > :06:05.do not gratuitously put them out, but at the same time in reporting a
:06:05. > :06:10.conflict and reporting this incident, the pictures were
:06:10. > :06:15.exceptional. Our warnings important? If so, what is your
:06:15. > :06:21.policy? Sometimes there is a warning on the first time,
:06:21. > :06:24.sometimes there is under a warning. Viewers don't know what to expect.
:06:24. > :06:29.Warnings are they keep part of the treatment and are important. We
:06:29. > :06:33.would expect with the use of disturbing or harrowing images,
:06:33. > :06:37.viewers should know these images are about to be broadcast. Warnings
:06:37. > :06:41.are integral and we shouldn't be casual about them, just because we
:06:41. > :06:45.use them in the first instance, does not mean 24 hours later we
:06:45. > :06:52.shouldn't use the warning again. We need to be careful about the time
:06:52. > :06:59.of day, the outlook concerns... Children watching? Absolutely. You
:06:59. > :07:04.know there is a responsibility at 6pm. That might change at 10pm.
:07:04. > :07:09.Some say decades ago the BBC wouldn't have shown such pictures.
:07:09. > :07:13.Has your criteria changed and are they influenced by an the internet
:07:14. > :07:19.showing everything, essentially? wouldn't say the criteria has
:07:19. > :07:26.changed. The process we have, the rigour, the process and selection
:07:27. > :07:33.is always the same as it has always been. Viewers are seeing images and
:07:33. > :07:38.there are more images out there than there has been. We still think,
:07:38. > :07:42.what is the justification? What do people expect the BBC to do? The
:07:42. > :07:47.idea things have changed in that respect, I don't think that is the
:07:47. > :07:52.case. Is there a problem when the news story is over, using these
:07:52. > :07:57.pictures as casual wallpaper over and over again? Just because an
:07:57. > :08:03.image has been sanctioned for use in an immediate news story, does
:08:03. > :08:08.not mean 72 hours later the image should be used in a way that has
:08:08. > :08:12.been desensitised or as wallpaper or background. We need to have
:08:12. > :08:17.people and teams are looking at that image and thinking, are we
:08:17. > :08:20.right to use it? Do we need to warn people about it? Is it still
:08:20. > :08:26.justified as part of the storytelling.
:08:26. > :08:30.Jawed Iqbal, thanks very much. What else has been bothering you?
:08:30. > :08:34.News at Ten started with a couple of Government U-turns.
:08:34. > :08:44.Minister has backtracked on some of controversial budget plans. Plans
:08:44. > :08:48.to impose VAT on pasties are to be withdrawn. It is common sense, it
:08:48. > :08:53.will save money at the end of the day. The previous proposal would
:08:53. > :08:57.have cost thousands of jobs. Plans to levy VAT on static caravans have
:08:57. > :09:06.also changed. Clear enough, but the quote from
:09:06. > :09:11.David Davis cropped up again in Nick Robinson's story. The other U-
:09:11. > :09:18.turn is on static holiday caravans. They were going to have to pay 20%
:09:18. > :09:21.VAT, but a new special 5% rate will be levied. The it is very good news.
:09:21. > :09:26.It is common sense, it will actually save money at the end of
:09:26. > :09:36.the day. The previous proposal would have cost thousands of jobs.
:09:36. > :10:04.
:10:04. > :10:14.Peter Heaton-Jones from Swindon Meanwhile, it is some loose
:10:14. > :10:33.
:10:33. > :10:38.language usage that has been Finally, there has been more big
:10:38. > :10:43.names and drama at Leveson Inquiry, with Jeremy Hunt's appearance
:10:43. > :10:53.taking a many hours of the news channel on Thursday. It kept many
:10:53. > :11:14.
:11:14. > :11:19.Well, Lord Justice Leveson is due to report in October. So the answer