:00:23. > :00:32.Welcome to Newswatch. There was then election across the pond, and
:00:32. > :00:42.many have you thought we saw too much of it. Which one is the break?
:00:42. > :00:43.
:00:43. > :00:51.What could go wrong? Things did go wrong. Do steering a bus and been
:00:51. > :00:55.live on camera go well together? A common criticism of the American
:00:55. > :01:05.system is that President can spend half of their term campaigning for
:01:05. > :01:05.
:01:05. > :01:15.re-election. Similar criticism has been made of BBC News. On Tuesday
:01:15. > :01:25.nights, but finally -- the moment finally came. An election for our
:01:25. > :01:29.times, sealed with a tweet. BBC presenters and correspondents were
:01:29. > :01:39.sent out in force to Washington and across the United States to
:01:39. > :01:39.
:01:39. > :01:49.supplement US-based staff. It may comprehensive coverage too much for
:01:49. > :02:08.
:02:08. > :02:15.There were objections to be tone of the reporting, with one particular
:02:15. > :02:22.viewer noticing one particular phrase. It has been too close to
:02:22. > :02:32.call. It is too close to call. turned out to be not that close
:02:32. > :03:05.
:03:05. > :03:13.There is much to discuss and to do so I am joined by two of our view
:03:13. > :03:19.was. Jane Robinson and Karen McManus. Also here is the BBC's
:03:19. > :03:24.World news editor. Can you sum up your concern about this excess of
:03:24. > :03:28.BBC coverage of the US presidential elections? It was the number of
:03:28. > :03:33.reporters from the UK that was sent out to supplement the US reporting
:03:33. > :03:41.team. I could not understand why there was a need to do this, given
:03:41. > :03:46.the strength of the team in the US. Plus the current financial
:03:46. > :03:53.situation - how much did it cost to send these people out? How could
:03:53. > :03:59.the BBC justify sending out people from the UK when there is a robust
:03:59. > :04:09.reporting team? The main coverage was done out of Our Washington
:04:09. > :04:11.
:04:11. > :04:21.studio. Huw Edwards, Dimbleby and others who could have done the sent
:04:21. > :04:21.
:04:21. > :04:30.out of a UK studio. Was it justified sending all those
:04:30. > :04:36.reporters? We actually sent 20 % less. What is that in figures?
:04:36. > :04:41.terms of reporters and presenters, we are talking less than 20,
:04:41. > :04:46.between a dozen and 20. That is not a lot of people. This is one of the
:04:46. > :04:50.key events of the year. On Wednesday, the BBC website had its
:04:50. > :04:54.biggest day of the year, so it shows there is an audience appetite
:04:54. > :05:03.for this kind of story, and it was done cheaper than we did four years
:05:03. > :05:07.ago. I don't think that is a valid justification. My analogy would be
:05:07. > :05:11.the way the BBC tanagers people such as bankers and business people
:05:11. > :05:18.about the money they spend, money that has been provided to them by
:05:18. > :05:22.the public, and when you have got such a good team in the US and
:05:22. > :05:26.correspondents who don't get the airtime, is that not the
:05:26. > :05:33.opportunity to develop these individuals to do so so that you
:05:33. > :05:38.don't have to send people from the UK to do this? On election night,
:05:38. > :05:43.David Dimbleby is the face of the BBC. We did want election programme
:05:43. > :05:48.across the domestic and global audiences. We did one election
:05:48. > :05:53.programme on Radio, the World Service and Radio 4, precisely for
:05:53. > :06:01.the reasons you identified. We are aware this is public money and we
:06:01. > :06:06.need to demonstrate we are spending it wisely.
:06:06. > :06:15.Would the BBC really excessive in comparison to other channels?
:06:15. > :06:19.think it was. I think it seemed as if you were going to spend a set
:06:19. > :06:25.amount of time on the election. I am interested to hear about the
:06:25. > :06:31.election, but I did feel there was a lot of irrelevant reporting going
:06:31. > :06:36.on. There were a lot of interviews with American citizens, there was a
:06:36. > :06:41.lot of analysis of the opinion polls, which proved to be false. It
:06:41. > :06:51.just seemed excessive and I found it a bit of a turn-off, really.
:06:51. > :07:01.was struck by the number of interviews with punters in bars.
:07:01. > :07:07.Was the result really too close to call? I think it was. In certain
:07:07. > :07:13.areas there was only 80 % difference. Because of the way the
:07:13. > :07:20.electoral college works, it appears less. The why not then just give
:07:20. > :07:24.the result? America is a key player in the world. Today, we are in
:07:24. > :07:30.China reporting on the transition... But you build it up for weeks and
:07:30. > :07:33.months in advance. There is a difference. The primaries begin in
:07:33. > :07:38.January and there is a competition as to who will be the challenger to
:07:38. > :07:42.the President. We have an obligation to report that. When I
:07:42. > :07:47.come on this programme time after time, but thing people say to me is
:07:47. > :07:49.we don't provide the context or we dip into stories and don't follow
:07:49. > :07:54.them through. Starting at the beginning and finishing at their
:07:54. > :07:58.end is not about where to go about our business. I know there is a
:07:58. > :08:05.bigger concern for you about BBC coverage of America and I think
:08:05. > :08:10.Hurricane Sandy coverage concerned you as well. Yes. We heard nothing
:08:10. > :08:16.about the Caribbean. I have seen nothing of the devastation they had
:08:16. > :08:22.been through. I feel we are obsessed with the USA, to the
:08:22. > :08:27.exclusion of other world news. might surprise Jane by St I agree
:08:28. > :08:37.with her and that is why we went out of a way to report from Cuba.
:08:38. > :08:41.
:08:41. > :08:46.Will grant was in Cuba went Hurricane Sandy struck. But there
:08:46. > :08:50.were over-excited reporters or over the east coast reporting on
:08:50. > :08:57.Hurricane Sandy. I would not say they were over-excited. I am
:08:57. > :09:01.sympathetic with Jane's comments, but like it or not, what happens in
:09:01. > :09:07.the United States is significant. I think there is a legitimate sense
:09:07. > :09:17.of reporting those events. I am grateful to both Jane and Karen for
:09:17. > :09:18.
:09:18. > :09:24.their comments. Thank you all for coming in. Just time for want of a
:09:24. > :09:30.topic that has caught your attention - an item on Tuesday
:09:30. > :09:33.morning's breakfast show. The programme sent its correspondent
:09:33. > :09:38.out on the buses to illustrate a story about more funding for the
:09:38. > :09:43.industry. After a couple of minutes struggling, eventually she got the
:09:43. > :09:50.bus started. Right, give me 10 more seconds. It is meant to work
:09:50. > :09:57.perfectly on TV, isn't it? Here we go. Both hands on the wheel. They
:09:57. > :10:06.short journey did not go quite as planned. Which one is the break?
:10:06. > :10:13.have hit the bollards! They are dispensable, people aren't! Move
:10:13. > :10:23.away from the bus. She hasn't stopped. She is still going. Well,
:10:23. > :10:24.
:10:24. > :10:34.some viewers were less than amused. Derek Cooper from the Institute of
:10:34. > :10:47.
:10:47. > :10:57.Transport Administration had Well, we did ask the programme for
:10:57. > :11:11.
:11:11. > :11:16.Thank you for all your comments. If you want to share your opinions on
:11:16. > :11:23.BBC News current affairs, or put your point in person on the program
:11:23. > :11:32.to get in touch. You can phone us or e-mail us. You can also find us