:00:26. > :00:31.Welcome to Newswatch. Later in the programme - Jeremy Paxman is known
:00:31. > :00:36.as a combat if the interviewer but has he gone too far? That is what
:00:36. > :00:40.we see to use for the credibility... Is this some sort of joke? With
:00:40. > :00:45.have almost become used to a state of political turmoil in countries
:00:45. > :00:50.such as Egypt, Libya and Syria since the first spark of revolution
:00:50. > :00:56.at the end of 2010. The Arab Spring, this series of popular uprisings
:00:56. > :01:01.has proved a uniquely difficult time for broadcasters to cover.
:01:01. > :01:05.Nobody saw it coming on quite the scale. The unpredictability has
:01:05. > :01:09.been one challenge. Events have been moving so quickly in different
:01:09. > :01:14.locations. Another difficulty has been safety. Have to get close
:01:14. > :01:20.enough to the story without putting yourself in danger. Correspondence
:01:20. > :01:26.have taken significant risks to get the report out, such as this report
:01:26. > :01:31.a's piece from Homs in Syria and the dispatches from Ian panel in
:01:31. > :01:35.Syria. The risks, logistical and editorial challenges, will clearly
:01:35. > :01:41.remain for a while, but has the BBC given as full and ballast a picture
:01:41. > :01:46.as possible of the Arab Spring? On Monday the BBC Trust published a
:01:46. > :01:52.review of the coverage of the Arab Spring followed by a report written
:01:52. > :01:56.by a Middle East expert. The overseer of the report joins the
:01:56. > :02:01.now. What did the trust fund as a result of this research in this
:02:01. > :02:05.report? I think the overwhelming. The trustees want to make in the
:02:05. > :02:09.first instance is that the coverage is remarkable. The BBC were
:02:09. > :02:14.covering of random events happening in a huge geographical area and
:02:14. > :02:18.volunteers were going in from the BBC into great places of danger and
:02:18. > :02:24.risking their lives. These are interesting countries because full
:02:24. > :02:29.uprisings did not happen. Why? Jordan, Morocco. There are other
:02:29. > :02:34.big countries, like Saudi Arabia, where it is very difficult to get
:02:34. > :02:38.in. Did it get the coverage it deserves? And then you look at the
:02:38. > :02:42.countries where there were uprisings like Egypt. What happened
:02:42. > :02:50.between the spring and the awesome? Some would say that they could have
:02:50. > :02:53.been done more to explain what was going on. So when a fence -- events
:02:53. > :02:57.flared up in Devon there again people knew why. Is there a danger
:02:57. > :03:02.that journalists go off chasing the next begin courses story and
:03:02. > :03:07.sometimes forget the last one? There is always a risk when there
:03:07. > :03:14.are dramatic events and there are great pictures. Audiences love
:03:14. > :03:18.dramatic pictures and they like getting engaged with real events. I
:03:18. > :03:23.think everybody recognises the need to do the more dull events and that
:03:23. > :03:26.is one other finding of the report. It could be helpful if the news
:03:26. > :03:31.division can sound back and take issue strategic look and check that
:03:31. > :03:35.gaps are not an emerging. Is there a problem of that historically the
:03:35. > :03:40.BBC has believed its editors of individual programmes should have
:03:40. > :03:43.the freedom to edit and there is an obvious tension between that
:03:43. > :03:48.freedom to edit and the executive standing back and sometimes
:03:48. > :03:55.interfering? I think that is a genuine problem. BBC management
:03:55. > :03:57.recognise it. You really want editors to have the freedom to
:03:57. > :04:00.express the individuality of their own programme on behalf of their
:04:00. > :04:04.own audiences and yet if everybody is doing the amazing protest that
:04:04. > :04:07.is happening today in the streets of Syria, but not a single one of
:04:07. > :04:10.them is saying who was making up the opposition in Syria and are
:04:10. > :04:13.they arming themselves and are they part of the violence, these trends
:04:13. > :04:20.emerge but did they emerge early enough? That is one of the
:04:20. > :04:24.questions. That is why you would expect the stand back look by the
:04:24. > :04:29.management with the editors, of course, and the Middle East Editor
:04:29. > :04:34.having a look and saying, there is something missing. That should be a
:04:34. > :04:38.continuing process. In a way, editorial advice from senior
:04:38. > :04:44.executives? I think it will affect not just the Arab Spring but will
:04:44. > :04:54.impact on all the big stories. Thank you Crowe. Many of the points
:04:54. > :04:56.
:04:56. > :05:00.raised in the review have a bin -- echoing in with the comments by
:05:00. > :05:08.Newswatch viewers. At the height of the coverage of Libya last autumn,
:05:08. > :05:12.Paul Smith e-mailed with some sarcasm. Viewers have complained of
:05:12. > :05:22.insufficient reporting over the last 18 months, such as Bahrain.
:05:22. > :05:42.
:05:42. > :05:48.With me to discuss this is the BBC's deputy director of news,
:05:48. > :05:51.Steve Mitchell. We have heard from Fran O'Brien that the BBC Trust
:05:51. > :05:53.completely admires the remarkable coverage of the Arab Spring, says
:05:53. > :05:56.it was largely impartial and salutes the courage of BBC
:05:57. > :06:00.journalists in getting it but they say it can be improved and one
:06:00. > :06:03.complaint is that there was a tendency to go from one big story
:06:03. > :06:13.to another and forgetting maybe what has happened in some of the
:06:13. > :06:16.
:06:16. > :06:22.others. Is that fair? We have looked at the report and we
:06:22. > :06:27.probably think that is a fair criticism in part. Edward Mortimer
:06:27. > :06:32.was able to review a lot of our output but not all of our output
:06:32. > :06:36.and we did return to the Egyptian story after the fall of Hosni
:06:36. > :06:40.Mubarak. There was a period of some weeks where you did not? Their way
:06:40. > :06:44.up here is when we did not an especially peeress when what was
:06:44. > :06:48.going on in Egypt did not appear on the main television bulletins.
:06:48. > :06:53.is not to say that it was not been recorded elsewhere but it is true
:06:53. > :07:02.that we were very focused on other, major breaking stories including a
:07:02. > :07:06.war in which we were involved in Libya, a tsunami in Japan. That is
:07:06. > :07:12.our problem, always, of course, to try to get the balance right
:07:12. > :07:19.between major breaking events, which news bulletins by definition
:07:19. > :07:27.have to tell the audience about and returning to stories which reached
:07:27. > :07:29.a peak earlier but up offers the continuing to unfold. Could you, as
:07:29. > :07:32.the Trust implies, perhaps have given more context on the main
:07:32. > :07:39.bulletins, where most people receive the news? Again, the issue
:07:39. > :07:42.is largely about space rather than intent. Our bulletins are
:07:42. > :07:45.distinguished by the amount of context and background that we try
:07:45. > :07:47.to give the audiences but they are of limited duration and the
:07:47. > :07:51.logistics of that means that sometimes we haven't the space to
:07:51. > :07:54.do as much context as we would like but personally I think we probably
:07:54. > :07:57.could have done more to explain some of the more nuanced issues
:07:57. > :08:01.around all of the events in the Middle East and we will learn from
:08:01. > :08:04.what Edward Mortimer has found. Just occasionally perhaps too much
:08:04. > :08:07.enthusiasm from the camp of the rebels, which is understandable
:08:07. > :08:16.because that is where often the reporters were when covering a
:08:16. > :08:20.story? I think by definition there was a lot of enthusiasm on the
:08:20. > :08:24.streets in the Middle East and our reporters on the ground were
:08:24. > :08:28.reflecting and reporting on that but I do not think any of our
:08:28. > :08:32.people were carried away by that and I do not think our journalism
:08:32. > :08:37.as it was edited in London over emphasised that. We will always
:08:37. > :08:41.making it clear of what the fewest were seeing was, the fence in one
:08:41. > :08:45.square in Cairo, but there is a huge country and there with a huge
:08:45. > :08:50.range of opinions -- offence. Looking back says our coverage we
:08:50. > :08:53.were careful to make that point throughout. Do you accept that
:08:53. > :08:56.another suggestion from the Trust, that senior executives such as
:08:56. > :09:00.yourself should have built into the system stand back moments to review,
:09:01. > :09:08.to see whether the context has been properly explained or what? Yes, I
:09:08. > :09:12.do accept that. I can accept it on my own behalf. I think that is part
:09:12. > :09:16.of what I should be doing as I am responsible for a range of
:09:16. > :09:21.programmes which are not all subject to the constraints of space
:09:21. > :09:25.that I have described on the main television bulletins. So probably,
:09:25. > :09:29.someone like me personally should have been saying to some of the
:09:29. > :09:34.programmes or programmes on radio or online, maybe we should go back
:09:34. > :09:40.to these stories and maybe we should do a little more context. It
:09:40. > :09:43.consistent use of the word regime, which few was think can be
:09:43. > :09:51.pejorative. We have agreed to take that word to one side and think
:09:51. > :09:59.about it impact on -- its impact on a different audiences. We need to
:10:00. > :10:02.be quite careful about where we come to with this. Thank you. Time
:10:03. > :10:07.for one more comment and it relates to interview conducted on Tuesday's
:10:07. > :10:09.Newsnight by Jeremy Paxman. The guest, in some people's eyes, the
:10:09. > :10:12.victim, was junior Treasury minister Chloe Smith, there to
:10:12. > :10:16.defend the deferral of the planned rise in fuel duty. You are here to
:10:16. > :10:21.defend a change of policy and you cannot even tell me when you were
:10:21. > :10:25.told what a change of policy was. am not able to give a running
:10:25. > :10:30.commentary. I am not asking for a running commentary. I am asking for
:10:30. > :10:35.a statement of facts. There were told sometime today. Was it before
:10:35. > :10:41.or after lunch? Is it hard for you defend this policy? Which
:10:41. > :10:46.department is going to come from? That figure will progress, now in
:10:46. > :10:50.they few departments. I will not do that. Do you not know? Are you
:10:50. > :11:00.waiting to be told that as well? Te wake up in the morning of thing,
:11:00. > :11:02.what am I go in to be told today? Do you ever think you are
:11:02. > :11:05.incompetent? The Chancellor and Tory party spin doctors were
:11:05. > :11:08.attacked for putting Chloe Smith up front of you put the blame lay
:11:08. > :11:18.elsewhere according to this viewer, who described it as Jeremy Paxman