:00:17. > :00:22.Welcome to a new series of Newswatch. This week allegations
:00:23. > :00:25.are made on an ITV documentary of sexual abuse by the late Sir Jimmy
:00:25. > :00:30.Savile, but why didn't the BBC air its own investigation into the
:00:30. > :00:34.subject a year ago? And has the corporation been keeping a bit too
:00:34. > :00:38.quiet about claims it must find deeply uncomfortable? Also on the
:00:39. > :00:44.programme, how do reporters sent to cover lengthy live events fill the
:00:44. > :00:54.air time, with I nain questioning according to some viewers. And how
:00:54. > :00:58.come an offensive swear word came to be broadcast on Breakfast.
:00:58. > :01:00.(BLEEP) First, back in the 1970s Sir Jimmy Savile was one of the
:01:00. > :01:04.best known television personalities in Britain and this week, his
:01:04. > :01:09.reputation is in taters, after a stream of allegations that he
:01:09. > :01:12.sexually abused teenage girls. The BBC's reputation is also under
:01:12. > :01:15.question, partly because some of the offences are said to have taken
:01:15. > :01:22.place on its premises and partly because of the charge that it's
:01:22. > :01:25.been slow to report on the accusations. The BBC has said :
:01:25. > :01:29.It's horrified by allegation that's anything of this sort could have
:01:29. > :01:33.happened at the BBC and added that it's working closely with the
:01:33. > :01:37.relevant authorities." This week's headline sprang from a documentary
:01:37. > :01:41.shown on ITV in which five women said they were sex lay salted by
:01:41. > :01:43.Savile as teenagers. It's emerged that Newsnight was pursuing its own
:01:43. > :01:48.investigation last year into the case against the presenter, but
:01:48. > :01:50.that report was dropped. Some news watch viewers detected a lack of
:01:50. > :02:00.enthusiasm on the part of the BBC enthusiasm on the part of the BBC
:02:00. > :02:14.
:02:14. > :02:20.In a moment I'll speak to the BBC's director of editorial policy and
:02:20. > :02:24.standards. First let's hear from another viewer who contacted us.
:02:25. > :02:31.Can you sum up your concern. Did you feel the BBC was covering the
:02:31. > :02:35.story as fully as they should?, I felt when it hit the news on ITV
:02:35. > :02:39.on News At Ten it was the main headlines. At the time the BBC had
:02:39. > :02:44.no news about it at all, which I thought very odd, which also made
:02:44. > :02:48.it very uncomfortable. Immediately, one thought there was some form of
:02:48. > :02:52.cover up because it wasn't, it was a big thing, though it wasn't
:02:52. > :02:56.presented as a big thing, hence me writing to the BBC and saying
:02:56. > :03:00.exactly that, that I thought that maybe there's some form of cover up
:03:00. > :03:04.because it was not broadcast. is your feeling about the fact that
:03:04. > :03:09.there was a Newsnight investigation being done a year ago thand it got
:03:09. > :03:15.dropped? I found that -- find that very odd and strange. I I that --
:03:15. > :03:19.think that the BBC should have been the first to react to anything like
:03:19. > :03:22.that to make their name clear, put themselves in the forefront of the
:03:22. > :03:27.investigations, whatever they're going to do. You felt that because
:03:27. > :03:30.this was a BBC presenter the allegations were about the BBC's
:03:30. > :03:34.role was to have been at the forefront rather than reacting.
:03:34. > :03:38.Indeed, yes. What do you think of the BBC now given the coverage that
:03:38. > :03:42.you've seen? I think they're moving forward. I think they're actually
:03:42. > :03:46.woken up to the fact that this is quite a serious matter and all the
:03:46. > :03:51.people have come forward so far, to date, have something to say and if
:03:51. > :03:57.there are allegations, the BBC must delve into that and go back and
:03:57. > :04:01.find out what they knew and to bring these things to prove or
:04:01. > :04:05.disprove. Thank you. We have David Jordan here, representing the BBC's
:04:05. > :04:08.perspective. You have done a lot of interviews on this issue. The
:04:08. > :04:13.question remains the BBC's attitude to the story looks suspicious, you
:04:13. > :04:19.haven't really answered that? deal with what Terry said that we
:04:19. > :04:23.were slow to pick the story up. The ITV news at 10.30pm led with the
:04:23. > :04:27.story. They don't tell us they're going to do that. It's impossible
:04:27. > :04:31.to reflect that in earlier news bulletins. To be fair, it's the
:04:31. > :04:36.sense that the BBC was slower than newspaper s and other outlets to
:04:36. > :04:40.cover this story. I think you'll find that the story's featured in
:04:40. > :04:45.all of our television and news bulletins since then and I know it
:04:45. > :04:47.has and it's been near the top of the agenda. It's been a big story
:04:47. > :04:51.for ITV. Newsnight was investigating Sir Jimmy Savile a
:04:51. > :04:55.year ago. The decision to drop that investigation looks very odd.
:04:55. > :04:58.I've explained elsewhere and the editor of Newsnight has explained,
:04:58. > :05:02.what they were looking at was in particular the way in which the
:05:02. > :05:07.Surrey Police had investigated Sir Jimmy Savile in 2007 and indeed
:05:07. > :05:12.interviewed Sir Jimmy Savile under caution in relation to that
:05:13. > :05:17.investigation. ITV got three million viewers for the story.
:05:17. > :05:22.Peter Rippon's blog says they were investigating Sir Jimmy Savile.
:05:22. > :05:25.They discovered that Surrey Police had done a perfectly decent
:05:25. > :05:27.investigation and made recommendations to the Crown
:05:27. > :05:32.Prosecution Service. Subsequently it was dropped because they thought
:05:32. > :05:36.there was a lack of evidence. can argue about the fact - Whether
:05:36. > :05:40.we would have taken... You look at that ITV documentary and you think,
:05:40. > :05:45.what a story and now everyone else is reporting it. If nothing else it
:05:45. > :05:48.looks like the BBC wasn't very good of news gathering. With the benefit
:05:48. > :05:53.of hindsight you might say. That but the editor has to take a
:05:53. > :05:56.decision at the time. We weren't there at the time. He made an
:05:56. > :06:01.honest decision. He came to the decision on the basis of the facts
:06:01. > :06:05.before and decided that wasn't the angle he wanted Newsnight to pursue.
:06:05. > :06:09.Was that a mistake? It's difficult to say. Given that I wasn't there
:06:09. > :06:14.and you weren't there. Somebody else might have made a different
:06:14. > :06:18.decision. ITV made a different decision. Why not running it now,
:06:18. > :06:22.because they were filming interviews? Newsnight run a story
:06:22. > :06:26.now, but given the story is out there, there's a limited point.
:06:26. > :06:30.witnesss are coming forward every day and the BBC is encouraging
:06:30. > :06:35.people to do so. Why not show the programme now? The fundamentals of
:06:35. > :06:40.the story are now well established. We know that a number of women were
:06:40. > :06:45.sex lay buelzed by Sir Jimmy Savile sometimes on BBC premised in the
:06:45. > :06:49.1960s and 70s. There say big concern about the damage to the
:06:49. > :06:53.BBC's reputation. The major concern we ought to have is not about the
:06:53. > :06:58.BBC's reputation. There's no suggestion the BBC was complicit in
:06:58. > :07:01.what Sir Jimmy Savile was doing. His reputation has taken a huge hit.
:07:01. > :07:05.The main concern should be for the women abused in this way and make
:07:05. > :07:08.sure they have an opportunity to get it out in the open, be believed
:07:08. > :07:13.and finally to put it behind them. Are you satisfied that the BBC's
:07:13. > :07:18.done everything it can now? I think it needs to look at the situation
:07:18. > :07:22.are by not about the women who allegedly have been abused but
:07:22. > :07:26.about the people who were working at the BBC - colleagues and friends
:07:26. > :07:30.and other presenters and so forth, who to me, going by what I saw, it
:07:30. > :07:35.was a bit blatant and I'm sure, other people must have seen things
:07:35. > :07:39.going on who never come forward. For whatever reason, maybe their
:07:39. > :07:43.job security, who knows. But it's been kept quiet. It's pushed under
:07:43. > :07:46.the table. You want the BBC to be investigating within... Yes not
:07:46. > :07:49.perhaps for the police to look at, but for the staff to come forward
:07:50. > :07:54.and say yes, there was something, I did see something to corroborate
:07:54. > :08:00.the stories of these aldgeed women. Thank you very much Terry and David
:08:00. > :08:04.Jordan for coming to speak to us about this.
:08:04. > :08:09.Let us know your thoughts on that or any other aspect of BBC News.
:08:09. > :08:13.Details of how to contact us at the end profit Graeme. Now for some of
:08:13. > :08:19.your other comments -- pro-- at the end of the programme. Now for other
:08:19. > :08:23.comments. In Mid Wales Tim Willcox was following the continued search
:08:23. > :08:26.for five-year-old April Jones, while in Manchester, Ben Brown was
:08:26. > :08:30.reporting from the funeral of PC Nicola Hughes. Both journalists,
:08:30. > :08:37.normally based in London, were on air for mup of the day. Let's speak
:08:37. > :08:40.now to Anwyn Morris who is a local resident. Do you know April's
:08:41. > :08:46.family? I haven't spoke ton them. We're a small community. Everyone
:08:46. > :08:53.knows everyone in this town. I'm sure, my thoughts are with them.
:08:54. > :08:58.Let's talk to somebody who met her and who knew her, BerylCowan, who
:08:58. > :09:01.worked with Nicola Hughes. When you heard the news about her murder and
:09:02. > :09:08.that of Fiona Bone, what was your reaction to that? We were very sad.
:09:08. > :09:11.The whole of the street pastors were very sad. Well viewer Elly
:09:11. > :09:14.Chalmers thought those interviews did little more than fill in time
:09:14. > :09:18.between news conferences and services and not in the most
:09:18. > :09:22.sensitive way. She e. Mailed "I couldn't believe it when he asked a
:09:22. > :09:25.local woman how April's family were bearing up. How does he think they
:09:25. > :09:30.are bearing up. I'm sure I wasn't the only person to shout at the
:09:30. > :09:36.TV." "On to the slain police officers in
:09:36. > :09:41.Manchester, I have just heard a local person asked how PC Nicola
:09:41. > :09:46.Hughes had been killed. I hazard a guess that they weren't jumping for
:09:46. > :09:53.news. These two stories demonstrate that parachuting in presenters to
:09:53. > :09:57.the area shows no nothing to the storys.
:09:57. > :10:02.Mother of a miss of five-year-old breaks down in tears as she appeals
:10:02. > :10:04.for the public to help find her daughter. He wrote, "The mother of
:10:04. > :10:08.a missing five-year-old breaks down in tears, whatever is the point of
:10:08. > :10:12.such a silly statement and why show the poor woman in her grief. This
:10:12. > :10:16.is purely sensational reporter, the sort of journalism we expect from
:10:16. > :10:20.ITV or the red tops." Ellen McNulty had a different point
:10:20. > :10:23.later that day. "You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves to
:10:23. > :10:26.start your News At Ten with the rail news when there is a five-
:10:26. > :10:30.year-old girl missing. Get your priorities right about what this
:10:30. > :10:33.country is interested in." Finally those watching Breakfast
:10:34. > :10:38.shortsly before 9am Wednesday morning got more than they
:10:38. > :10:44.bargained for. An interview began with the conducter John Wilson the
:10:44. > :10:47.voice of a reporter could be heard swearing in terms which upset
:10:47. > :10:52.viewers. "Why was there someone using the F Word in the background.
:10:52. > :10:56.It would be heard clearly. Leanne also heard the phrase and e. Mailed,
:10:56. > :11:01."I do not think that is acceptable." An on-air apology was
:11:01. > :11:07.made. The BBC later said it was reviewing its procedures, blaming
:11:07. > :11:13.the incidents on a radio microphone being inadvertantly left on outside
:11:13. > :11:22.the studios. Police tell us what your reactions are to BBC News. If
:11:22. > :11:25.you would like to appear on the programme call us or e-mail: You