09/11/2012 Newswatch

Welcome to Newswatch. There was then election across the pond, and

many have you thought we saw too much of it. Which one is the break?

What could go wrong? Things did go wrong. Do steering a bus and been

live on camera go well together? A common criticism of the American

system is that President can spend half of their term campaigning for

re-election. Similar criticism has been made of BBC News. On Tuesday

nights, but finally -- the moment finally came. An election for our

times, sealed with a tweet. BBC presenters and correspondents were

sent out in force to Washington and across the United States to

supplement US-based staff. It may comprehensive coverage too much for

There were objections to be tone of the reporting, with one particular

viewer noticing one particular phrase. It has been too close to

call. It is too close to call. turned out to be not that close

There is much to discuss and to do so I am joined by two of our view

was. Jane Robinson and Karen McManus. Also here is the BBC's

World news editor. Can you sum up your concern about this excess of

BBC coverage of the US presidential elections? It was the number of

reporters from the UK that was sent out to supplement the US reporting

team. I could not understand why there was a need to do this, given

the strength of the team in the US. Plus the current financial

situation - how much did it cost to send these people out? How could

the BBC justify sending out people from the UK when there is a robust

reporting team? The main coverage was done out of Our Washington

studio. Huw Edwards, Dimbleby and others who could have done the sent

out of a UK studio. Was it justified sending all those

reporters? We actually sent 20 % less. What is that in figures?

terms of reporters and presenters, we are talking less than 20,

between a dozen and 20. That is not a lot of people. This is one of the

key events of the year. On Wednesday, the BBC website had its

biggest day of the year, so it shows there is an audience appetite

for this kind of story, and it was done cheaper than we did four years

ago. I don't think that is a valid justification. My analogy would be

the way the BBC tanagers people such as bankers and business people

about the money they spend, money that has been provided to them by

the public, and when you have got such a good team in the US and

correspondents who don't get the airtime, is that not the

opportunity to develop these individuals to do so so that you

don't have to send people from the UK to do this? On election night,

David Dimbleby is the face of the BBC. We did want election programme

across the domestic and global audiences. We did one election

programme on Radio, the World Service and Radio 4, precisely for

the reasons you identified. We are aware this is public money and we

need to demonstrate we are spending it wisely.

Would the BBC really excessive in comparison to other channels?

think it was. I think it seemed as if you were going to spend a set

amount of time on the election. I am interested to hear about the

election, but I did feel there was a lot of irrelevant reporting going

on. There were a lot of interviews with American citizens, there was a

lot of analysis of the opinion polls, which proved to be false. It

just seemed excessive and I found it a bit of a turn-off, really.

was struck by the number of interviews with punters in bars.

Was the result really too close to call? I think it was. In certain

areas there was only 80 % difference. Because of the way the

electoral college works, it appears less. The why not then just give

the result? America is a key player in the world. Today, we are in

China reporting on the transition... But you build it up for weeks and

months in advance. There is a difference. The primaries begin in

January and there is a competition as to who will be the challenger to

the President. We have an obligation to report that. When I

come on this programme time after time, but thing people say to me is

we don't provide the context or we dip into stories and don't follow

them through. Starting at the beginning and finishing at their

end is not about where to go about our business. I know there is a

bigger concern for you about BBC coverage of America and I think

Hurricane Sandy coverage concerned you as well. Yes. We heard nothing

about the Caribbean. I have seen nothing of the devastation they had

been through. I feel we are obsessed with the USA, to the

exclusion of other world news. might surprise Jane by St I agree

with her and that is why we went out of a way to report from Cuba.

Will grant was in Cuba went Hurricane Sandy struck. But there

were over-excited reporters or over the east coast reporting on

Hurricane Sandy. I would not say they were over-excited. I am

sympathetic with Jane's comments, but like it or not, what happens in

the United States is significant. I think there is a legitimate sense

of reporting those events. I am grateful to both Jane and Karen for

their comments. Thank you all for coming in. Just time for want of a

topic that has caught your attention - an item on Tuesday

morning's breakfast show. The programme sent its correspondent

out on the buses to illustrate a story about more funding for the

industry. After a couple of minutes struggling, eventually she got the

bus started. Right, give me 10 more seconds. It is meant to work

perfectly on TV, isn't it? Here we go. Both hands on the wheel. They

short journey did not go quite as planned. Which one is the break?

have hit the bollards! They are dispensable, people aren't! Move

away from the bus. She hasn't stopped. She is still going. Well,

some viewers were less than amused. Derek Cooper from the Institute of

Transport Administration had Well, we did ask the programme for

Thank you for all your comments. If you want to share your opinions on

BBC News current affairs, or put your point in person on the program

to get in touch. You can phone us or e-mail us. You can also find us