:00:24. > :00:29.Now on BBC News it is time for Welcome to NewsWatch. Later in the
:00:29. > :00:32.programme, a right royal row over the Royal Pageant. First two of the
:00:32. > :00:36.Jubilee matters and there were plenty of those to choose from over
:00:36. > :00:40.the long weekend. The festivities, though, were not confined to the
:00:40. > :00:46.many special programmes or to BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three or be busy
:00:46. > :00:51.for. Most of the live events were also shown on the BBC News channel.
:00:51. > :00:56.The Queen's visit to the races, the pageant, the concert and the
:00:56. > :01:01.Thanksgiving Service. As for the news bulletins on BBC One, they had
:01:01. > :01:05.a distinctly royal tinge, too. Thousands packed St Paul's
:01:05. > :01:10.Cathedral for a special service to mock the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
:01:10. > :01:14.The other headlines and BBC News... So was BBC News right to join in
:01:14. > :01:20.the Jubilee party audit its output over the weekend lack proportion
:01:20. > :01:22.and objectivity? Unfortunately, BBC News refused our invitation to come
:01:22. > :01:32.on the programme an answer that question but they did give us his
:01:32. > :01:40.
:01:40. > :01:44.I am joined now by two NewsWatch views -- viewers, in our Norwich
:01:44. > :01:48.studio and here. Chris, what did you make of the BBC news coverage?
:01:48. > :01:53.Did they mix up the Royal Jubilee with the news? It was really hard
:01:53. > :01:58.to define between the news cuts -- news programmes covering the
:01:58. > :02:03.Jubilee as a historic event and the actual coverage of the Jubilee. It
:02:04. > :02:09.seemed like the news programmes were a continuation of the coverage.
:02:09. > :02:14.There were not -- it was like a rally for the royal family without
:02:14. > :02:17.a lot of other voices coming through. Was it wrong to broadcast
:02:17. > :02:21.the festivities on the News Channel at the 10th -- at the same time as
:02:21. > :02:28.the same pictures were on BBC One? Absolute Lee. There are showing
:02:28. > :02:35.exactly the same thing. It was the real loss of it being a news item.
:02:35. > :02:39.It felt like a pageant programme. A rock, do you agree? I agree. In
:02:39. > :02:44.effect, we lost the News Channel for four days. It was simply
:02:44. > :02:49.duplicating things which were being shown elsewhere. It was filming a
:02:49. > :02:53.spectacle rather than providing news. I think that the News Channel
:02:53. > :02:57.is there, actually, to provide news. One of the things about news is
:02:57. > :03:00.that it does not actually have to be new but there was not -- it does
:03:01. > :03:04.have to be new but there was nothing new about the Jubilee. We
:03:04. > :03:09.all knew it was going to happen. Given the range of channels that
:03:09. > :03:14.the BBC has, it should have kept the News Channel functioning as a
:03:14. > :03:18.normal, reporting on Jubilee events, but reporting news and not
:03:18. > :03:22.duplicating things which were available elsewhere. The rating
:03:22. > :03:30.figures do suggest a lot of people were interested. It was probably
:03:30. > :03:33.the biggest thing happening in the UK the that weekend. I would also
:03:33. > :03:38.be interested to know what else was happening in the world and what
:03:38. > :03:41.else was happening in this country. I cannot see the rationale that the
:03:41. > :03:45.BBC News Channel stops being a News Channel when Motty de Shereen is
:03:45. > :03:49.available on BBC One. Chris, what about the overall tone of the
:03:49. > :03:53.coverage? Did the BBC get back right in news terms? There was much
:03:53. > :03:57.made of how many millions of people were out on the streets but we did
:03:57. > :04:01.not hear anything about, say, the largest ever Republican protest
:04:01. > :04:05.that happened in this country. be fair, the BBC News channel did
:04:05. > :04:10.covers some of those protests. mentioned it from time to time but
:04:10. > :04:14.they did not reflect, perhaps, the ambivalence people had towards the
:04:14. > :04:17.event. We saw a rallying cry behind the monarchy but that did not
:04:17. > :04:24.necessarily reflect the views of the nation.
:04:24. > :04:30.Thank you. Putting aside the question of whether or not it
:04:30. > :04:34.constitutes news, but what of the BBC's coverage of the major events
:04:34. > :04:39.of the weekend? Apart from the fireworks being cut off early on
:04:39. > :04:46.Monday night, most of it seems to have done pretty well. That could
:04:46. > :04:49.not be said, though of the reject - - river pageant. The broker shown
:04:49. > :04:53.on BBC One and the News Channel on Sunday afternoon has faced an
:04:53. > :04:56.onslaught of criticism this week from editorials in the national
:04:56. > :05:02.newspapers lambasting it, celebrities treating their
:05:02. > :05:07.discussed, anonymous BBC insiders a green and 2,500 this -- viewers
:05:07. > :05:17.boys in their objections. Among hundreds of Commons were those from
:05:17. > :05:26.
:05:26. > :05:35.What were they complaining about? Well, the sort of thing. I have got
:05:35. > :05:44.my belt, my Union Jack underwear. Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth
:05:44. > :05:54.II. We have had some additions to our Jubilee baby board. Santiago is
:05:54. > :05:58.
:05:59. > :06:08.over here. And the Duchess of Cambridge is wearing... May item
:06:08. > :06:13.three Dame Test -- I nightie for services working in the rain.
:06:13. > :06:19.until the last ice age, Europe was one dined landmass and the water
:06:20. > :06:23.from the Thames flowed into the river Rhine. In the BBC's defence,
:06:23. > :06:27.the director general, Mark Thompson, pronounced himself very proud of
:06:27. > :06:31.the weekend's programming, pointing to a substantial audience on Sunday
:06:31. > :06:36.afternoon of over 10 million and the audience appreciation breaking
:06:36. > :06:40.up 82 %. After criticism of the corporation's remit of the Royal
:06:40. > :06:46.Wedding last year, with some accounts calling it to dry and
:06:46. > :06:51.formal, La to tone -- lighter tone was adopted for the Jubilee. Was
:06:51. > :06:57.that the right strategy? The BBC were again unable to join us to
:06:57. > :07:05.discuss this that I am joined by its two more viewers. Diane, what
:07:05. > :07:09.did you make of the padding coverage? Absolutely appalling.
:07:09. > :07:15.the pageant coverage. Fortunately we had sky and we were able to
:07:15. > :07:19.watch a more serious production with serious commentators. I was
:07:19. > :07:25.appalled by the celebrity culture on the BBC. Where were Andrew Marr
:07:25. > :07:30.and Peter Snow, people who reported news, not celebrity? A lot of the
:07:30. > :07:33.news events were missed by the BBC. What about the view that perhaps
:07:33. > :07:38.they were trying to make it a little lighter, a little bit more
:07:38. > :07:43.inclusive? Was that an error in judgment? I think it was an
:07:43. > :07:47.appalling misjudgment because the actual or parchment was the fun. It
:07:47. > :07:51.was not up to the commentators to make it fun or light-hearted. It
:07:51. > :07:54.did not need to be treated like a funeral but I think the thing that
:07:54. > :07:59.angered me most of all is the arrogance and complacency of the
:07:59. > :08:03.BBC. They say 60% of the people watched it. Everyone I spoke to
:08:03. > :08:09.said it was appalling and when asked, did you watch it aunt Sky,
:08:09. > :08:14.they said, no, we do not have sky. So the 60% figure is a farce.
:08:14. > :08:19.you agree? Generally I agree. I am less worried about the celebrity
:08:19. > :08:23.issue. For me there were two things. First, technically, and I know it
:08:23. > :08:27.was a challenging technical event but it is cleverly possible to have
:08:28. > :08:32.normal broadcasting in those conditions so I think the weather
:08:32. > :08:35.as an excuse... For the British Broadcasting Corporation not to be
:08:35. > :08:38.prepared for British weather was one thing but on top of that,
:08:38. > :08:43.whether they are celebrities or not is not the issue. The issue is
:08:44. > :08:47.research. There was clearly no research done at all. I am actually
:08:47. > :08:51.in principle a Republican. You would expect me not to want to
:08:51. > :08:54.enjoy this event but it would be churlish to think that this was not
:08:54. > :08:59.an event that could bring the country together and have some
:09:00. > :09:04.great community spirit. I wanted to learn something. I learnt nothing.
:09:04. > :09:10.The most ridiculous farcical thing was what they called horrible
:09:10. > :09:14.histories. That was just laughable. It was puerile. It is a bit like
:09:14. > :09:20.watching the World Cup final with England in it in the football World
:09:20. > :09:27.Cup final and having the BBC used a gave -- use a game of so BDO do
:09:27. > :09:31.explain what was going on. boats were going up and down the
:09:31. > :09:36.River Thames for four hours. That could be a bit tedious. Could it
:09:36. > :09:40.have been done a bit better? We got a tedious, exactly right, because
:09:40. > :09:47.nobody was talking about the background, the context. There were
:09:47. > :09:52.boats their involved in Dunkirk. I was watching it with my elderly
:09:52. > :09:55.parents. I will not embarrass them by saying how old they are but
:09:55. > :10:02.there were few beers. They will not -- for they wanted to know about
:10:03. > :10:09.the history, and similarly my nephews. -- they were furious. So
:10:09. > :10:15.1000 boats going down the river could be dull but the colour behind
:10:15. > :10:22.them would be fascinating. They did not even know who was steering the
:10:22. > :10:26.royal barge. Lessons for the BBC next time? Obviously not the next
:10:26. > :10:30.Diamond Jubilee but the next important occasion? It is not the
:10:30. > :10:34.celebrities themselves but the fact they did not have any historical
:10:34. > :10:41.knowledge or interest and were not primed. And I would also love to
:10:41. > :10:46.see an apology from the BBC to say, yes, in B are the audience
:10:46. > :10:52.complaining, perhaps we will look into it. -- In view of the audience
:10:52. > :11:02.complaining. Thank you. Let's end animal constructive note. He it is
:11:02. > :11:17.