05/10/2012 Newswatch


05/10/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Welcome to a new series of Newswatch. This week allegations

:00:17.:00:22.

are made on an ITV documentary of sexual abuse by the late Sir Jimmy

:00:23.:00:25.

Savile, but why didn't the BBC air its own investigation into the

:00:25.:00:30.

subject a year ago? And has the corporation been keeping a bit too

:00:30.:00:34.

quiet about claims it must find deeply uncomfortable? Also on the

:00:34.:00:38.

programme, how do reporters sent to cover lengthy live events fill the

:00:39.:00:44.

air time, with I nain questioning according to some viewers. And how

:00:44.:00:54.

come an offensive swear word came to be broadcast on Breakfast.

:00:54.:00:58.

(BLEEP) First, back in the 1970s Sir Jimmy Savile was one of the

:00:58.:01:00.

best known television personalities in Britain and this week, his

:01:00.:01:04.

reputation is in taters, after a stream of allegations that he

:01:04.:01:09.

sexually abused teenage girls. The BBC's reputation is also under

:01:09.:01:12.

question, partly because some of the offences are said to have taken

:01:12.:01:15.

place on its premises and partly because of the charge that it's

:01:15.:01:22.

been slow to report on the accusations. The BBC has said :

:01:22.:01:25.

It's horrified by allegation that's anything of this sort could have

:01:25.:01:29.

happened at the BBC and added that it's working closely with the

:01:29.:01:33.

relevant authorities." This week's headline sprang from a documentary

:01:33.:01:37.

shown on ITV in which five women said they were sex lay salted by

:01:37.:01:41.

Savile as teenagers. It's emerged that Newsnight was pursuing its own

:01:41.:01:43.

investigation last year into the case against the presenter, but

:01:43.:01:48.

that report was dropped. Some news watch viewers detected a lack of

:01:48.:01:50.

enthusiasm on the part of the BBC enthusiasm on the part of the BBC

:01:50.:02:00.
:02:00.:02:14.

In a moment I'll speak to the BBC's director of editorial policy and

:02:14.:02:20.

standards. First let's hear from another viewer who contacted us.

:02:20.:02:24.

Can you sum up your concern. Did you feel the BBC was covering the

:02:25.:02:31.

story as fully as they should?, I felt when it hit the news on ITV

:02:31.:02:35.

on News At Ten it was the main headlines. At the time the BBC had

:02:35.:02:39.

no news about it at all, which I thought very odd, which also made

:02:39.:02:44.

it very uncomfortable. Immediately, one thought there was some form of

:02:44.:02:48.

cover up because it wasn't, it was a big thing, though it wasn't

:02:48.:02:52.

presented as a big thing, hence me writing to the BBC and saying

:02:52.:02:56.

exactly that, that I thought that maybe there's some form of cover up

:02:56.:03:00.

because it was not broadcast. is your feeling about the fact that

:03:00.:03:04.

there was a Newsnight investigation being done a year ago thand it got

:03:04.:03:09.

dropped? I found that -- find that very odd and strange. I I that --

:03:09.:03:15.

think that the BBC should have been the first to react to anything like

:03:15.:03:19.

that to make their name clear, put themselves in the forefront of the

:03:19.:03:22.

investigations, whatever they're going to do. You felt that because

:03:22.:03:27.

this was a BBC presenter the allegations were about the BBC's

:03:27.:03:30.

role was to have been at the forefront rather than reacting.

:03:30.:03:34.

Indeed, yes. What do you think of the BBC now given the coverage that

:03:34.:03:38.

you've seen? I think they're moving forward. I think they're actually

:03:38.:03:42.

woken up to the fact that this is quite a serious matter and all the

:03:42.:03:46.

people have come forward so far, to date, have something to say and if

:03:46.:03:51.

there are allegations, the BBC must delve into that and go back and

:03:51.:03:57.

find out what they knew and to bring these things to prove or

:03:57.:04:01.

disprove. Thank you. We have David Jordan here, representing the BBC's

:04:01.:04:05.

perspective. You have done a lot of interviews on this issue. The

:04:05.:04:08.

question remains the BBC's attitude to the story looks suspicious, you

:04:08.:04:13.

haven't really answered that? deal with what Terry said that we

:04:13.:04:19.

were slow to pick the story up. The ITV news at 10.30pm led with the

:04:19.:04:23.

story. They don't tell us they're going to do that. It's impossible

:04:23.:04:27.

to reflect that in earlier news bulletins. To be fair, it's the

:04:27.:04:31.

sense that the BBC was slower than newspaper s and other outlets to

:04:31.:04:36.

cover this story. I think you'll find that the story's featured in

:04:36.:04:40.

all of our television and news bulletins since then and I know it

:04:40.:04:45.

has and it's been near the top of the agenda. It's been a big story

:04:45.:04:47.

for ITV. Newsnight was investigating Sir Jimmy Savile a

:04:47.:04:51.

year ago. The decision to drop that investigation looks very odd.

:04:51.:04:55.

I've explained elsewhere and the editor of Newsnight has explained,

:04:55.:04:58.

what they were looking at was in particular the way in which the

:04:58.:05:02.

Surrey Police had investigated Sir Jimmy Savile in 2007 and indeed

:05:02.:05:07.

interviewed Sir Jimmy Savile under caution in relation to that

:05:07.:05:12.

investigation. ITV got three million viewers for the story.

:05:13.:05:17.

Peter Rippon's blog says they were investigating Sir Jimmy Savile.

:05:17.:05:22.

They discovered that Surrey Police had done a perfectly decent

:05:22.:05:25.

investigation and made recommendations to the Crown

:05:25.:05:27.

Prosecution Service. Subsequently it was dropped because they thought

:05:27.:05:32.

there was a lack of evidence. can argue about the fact - Whether

:05:32.:05:36.

we would have taken... You look at that ITV documentary and you think,

:05:36.:05:40.

what a story and now everyone else is reporting it. If nothing else it

:05:40.:05:45.

looks like the BBC wasn't very good of news gathering. With the benefit

:05:45.:05:48.

of hindsight you might say. That but the editor has to take a

:05:48.:05:53.

decision at the time. We weren't there at the time. He made an

:05:53.:05:56.

honest decision. He came to the decision on the basis of the facts

:05:56.:06:01.

before and decided that wasn't the angle he wanted Newsnight to pursue.

:06:01.:06:05.

Was that a mistake? It's difficult to say. Given that I wasn't there

:06:05.:06:09.

and you weren't there. Somebody else might have made a different

:06:09.:06:14.

decision. ITV made a different decision. Why not running it now,

:06:14.:06:18.

because they were filming interviews? Newsnight run a story

:06:18.:06:22.

now, but given the story is out there, there's a limited point.

:06:22.:06:26.

witnesss are coming forward every day and the BBC is encouraging

:06:26.:06:30.

people to do so. Why not show the programme now? The fundamentals of

:06:30.:06:35.

the story are now well established. We know that a number of women were

:06:35.:06:40.

sex lay buelzed by Sir Jimmy Savile sometimes on BBC premised in the

:06:40.:06:45.

1960s and 70s. There say big concern about the damage to the

:06:45.:06:49.

BBC's reputation. The major concern we ought to have is not about the

:06:49.:06:53.

BBC's reputation. There's no suggestion the BBC was complicit in

:06:53.:06:58.

what Sir Jimmy Savile was doing. His reputation has taken a huge hit.

:06:58.:07:01.

The main concern should be for the women abused in this way and make

:07:01.:07:05.

sure they have an opportunity to get it out in the open, be believed

:07:05.:07:08.

and finally to put it behind them. Are you satisfied that the BBC's

:07:08.:07:13.

done everything it can now? I think it needs to look at the situation

:07:13.:07:18.

are by not about the women who allegedly have been abused but

:07:18.:07:22.

about the people who were working at the BBC - colleagues and friends

:07:22.:07:26.

and other presenters and so forth, who to me, going by what I saw, it

:07:26.:07:30.

was a bit blatant and I'm sure, other people must have seen things

:07:30.:07:35.

going on who never come forward. For whatever reason, maybe their

:07:35.:07:39.

job security, who knows. But it's been kept quiet. It's pushed under

:07:39.:07:43.

the table. You want the BBC to be investigating within... Yes not

:07:43.:07:46.

perhaps for the police to look at, but for the staff to come forward

:07:46.:07:49.

and say yes, there was something, I did see something to corroborate

:07:50.:07:54.

the stories of these aldgeed women. Thank you very much Terry and David

:07:54.:08:00.

Jordan for coming to speak to us about this.

:08:00.:08:04.

Let us know your thoughts on that or any other aspect of BBC News.

:08:04.:08:09.

Details of how to contact us at the end profit Graeme. Now for some of

:08:09.:08:13.

your other comments -- pro-- at the end of the programme. Now for other

:08:13.:08:19.

comments. In Mid Wales Tim Willcox was following the continued search

:08:19.:08:23.

for five-year-old April Jones, while in Manchester, Ben Brown was

:08:23.:08:26.

reporting from the funeral of PC Nicola Hughes. Both journalists,

:08:26.:08:30.

normally based in London, were on air for mup of the day. Let's speak

:08:30.:08:37.

now to Anwyn Morris who is a local resident. Do you know April's

:08:37.:08:40.

family? I haven't spoke ton them. We're a small community. Everyone

:08:41.:08:46.

knows everyone in this town. I'm sure, my thoughts are with them.

:08:46.:08:53.

Let's talk to somebody who met her and who knew her, BerylCowan, who

:08:54.:08:58.

worked with Nicola Hughes. When you heard the news about her murder and

:08:58.:09:01.

that of Fiona Bone, what was your reaction to that? We were very sad.

:09:02.:09:08.

The whole of the street pastors were very sad. Well viewer Elly

:09:08.:09:11.

Chalmers thought those interviews did little more than fill in time

:09:11.:09:14.

between news conferences and services and not in the most

:09:14.:09:18.

sensitive way. She e. Mailed "I couldn't believe it when he asked a

:09:18.:09:22.

local woman how April's family were bearing up. How does he think they

:09:22.:09:25.

are bearing up. I'm sure I wasn't the only person to shout at the

:09:25.:09:30.

TV." "On to the slain police officers in

:09:30.:09:36.

Manchester, I have just heard a local person asked how PC Nicola

:09:36.:09:41.

Hughes had been killed. I hazard a guess that they weren't jumping for

:09:41.:09:46.

news. These two stories demonstrate that parachuting in presenters to

:09:46.:09:53.

the area shows no nothing to the storys.

:09:53.:09:57.

Mother of a miss of five-year-old breaks down in tears as she appeals

:09:57.:10:02.

for the public to help find her daughter. He wrote, "The mother of

:10:02.:10:04.

a missing five-year-old breaks down in tears, whatever is the point of

:10:04.:10:08.

such a silly statement and why show the poor woman in her grief. This

:10:08.:10:12.

is purely sensational reporter, the sort of journalism we expect from

:10:12.:10:16.

ITV or the red tops." Ellen McNulty had a different point

:10:16.:10:20.

later that day. "You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves to

:10:20.:10:23.

start your News At Ten with the rail news when there is a five-

:10:23.:10:26.

year-old girl missing. Get your priorities right about what this

:10:26.:10:30.

country is interested in." Finally those watching Breakfast

:10:30.:10:33.

shortsly before 9am Wednesday morning got more than they

:10:34.:10:38.

bargained for. An interview began with the conducter John Wilson the

:10:38.:10:44.

voice of a reporter could be heard swearing in terms which upset

:10:44.:10:47.

viewers. "Why was there someone using the F Word in the background.

:10:47.:10:52.

It would be heard clearly. Leanne also heard the phrase and e. Mailed,

:10:52.:10:56.

"I do not think that is acceptable." An on-air apology was

:10:56.:11:01.

made. The BBC later said it was reviewing its procedures, blaming

:11:01.:11:07.

the incidents on a radio microphone being inadvertantly left on outside

:11:07.:11:13.

the studios. Police tell us what your reactions are to BBC News. If

:11:13.:11:22.

you would like to appear on the programme call us or e-mail: You

:11:22.:11:25.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS