02/06/2012 Newswatch

Welcome to the programme. Later - showed images showing the full

horror of last Friday's massacre in Syria be broadcast? Before that, it

has been a week with the BBC's selection of images in several

stories has come under scrutiny. Amnesty International has accused

the UN of failing to show courage matching that of the protesters in

Syria. They say the UN Security Council has been exposed as

redundant in the face of crimes against humanity being perpetrated

in the country. The problem was that that logo does not actually

represent the UN Security Council, but actually a body called the UN

Space Command. It is an entirely fictional part of a video game

series. One dealer was sympathetic. The BBC apologised for the error

and replaced the image in metropolitans. Another case of

mistaken identity was to follow. On Sunday, the corporation's website

carried a powerful photograph of a row of bodies attributed to an

actor best to illustrate a story about the massacre of more than 100

people in Houla. The picture was actually taken almost a decade ago

in Iraq. One dealer pronounced The BBC's social media editor has

published a journal about his writing. The picture was first

There were more general concerns about the coverage of the killings

in Houla. They centred on the use of pictures and are reticulated

We are going to show an example of the coverage from a report last

weekend. As you would expect, it contains some distressing images.

The people of Houla buried their dead, they quickly dubbed mass

grave as the community absorbs the brutality and shock. Distress,

disbelief, anger, video too gruesome to show in four. Women,

children, everyone in the path of Syrian troops was a target, they

say. Although some thought it was judged

too gruesome to show, what was broadcast was too much for one

With me now is a senior editor in the BBC newsroom. What do you have

to say to viewers who say the BBC has abandoned respect and

compassion? There is a process around using pictures. It is not a

case of just simply putting them out there. What I would say in the

context of these particular pictures is that some pictures are

exceptional. These pictures conveyed something of the conflict

in Syria that was absolutely exceptional, but raise lots of

questions, and if you look at the coverage this week, the

international condemnation raised after this story shows a very

strong editorial justification. what extent can you tell the story

without bringing dead bodies into people's living rooms? Television

news is about pictures as much as anything else. I understand the

sensitivities about dead bodies and we do not gratuitously put them on

air. But at the same time, in reporting a conflict, the pictures

were exceptional. Are warnings important and if so what is your

policy? Sometimes there is a warning on the first time,

sometimes not a warning. Dealers do not know what to expect. I would

worry about that as well. Warnings are absolutely important. Warnings

are integral. We should also not be casual about warnings just because

they are used sparingly. We also need to be quite careful about time

of day, the audience concerned. There is a responsibility at 6pm

and that might change in terms of the treatment at 10pm. The warning

is part and parcel with the story itself. People said it decades ago,

the BBC would God have shown such images. But would not say the

criteria has changed. The process that we have is all the same as it

has always been. I think what the viewers are experiencing is the

fact that there are a lot more images out there than they used to

be. There is a lot more material. Do we look at that material and

think, oh it is out there, should we use it? No. The idea that things

have changed in that respect, I do not think that is the case.

there a problem once the new story is over of using these pictures as

casual wallpaper over and over again? Just because it has been

sanctioned for use in an immediate news story, it does not mean that

it should be used 72 hours later in a way that just becomes

desensitised all people are using it as wallpaper or background. We

need to have people always looking at that image and thinking if they

are able to use it.!. -- thank you. What else has been

bothering BBC viewers this week? Ministers backtrack on some of the

controversial budget plans. Plans to impose VAT on hot pasties and

sausage rolls will be withdrawn. Tory MPs are relieved. It is very

good news. It will actually save money at the end of the day. The

previous proposal would have cost thousands of jobs. Plans to impose

VAT on static caravans have also changed.

Clear enough, but crop up again in the report, telling a rather

different story. The other U-turn tonight is the VAT

on static caravans. It is very good news. It is common sense. It will

actually save money at the end of the day. The previous proposal

would have cost thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, it is some of those

languages six -- loose language usage that bother did this the

Finally, there has been more big- name and drama at the Levison

inquiry this week, with Jeremy Hunt's appearance taking up many

hours of the news channel on Thursday. It has kept many of the

Well, Lord Justice Levison is due to report in October, so the answer

is not for a while. Thank you for your comments. Next week we plan to

look at how BBC News covers the Queen's diamond jubilee. Let us