:00:12. > :00:22.Now on BBC News, it's time for Newswatch, with Samira Ahmed.
:00:22. > :00:24.Welcome to The Nolan Show. This week: -- news watch.
:00:25. > :00:32.Why is he talking while she is singing?
:00:32. > :00:36.It is very hard... Did this discussion get out of control?
:00:36. > :00:42.And so cut -- and stuck in the snow, does his reporter not watch the
:00:42. > :00:50.news? Monday saw a big set-piece occasion
:00:50. > :00:55.in Washington, the inauguration of Barack Obama for his second term as
:00:55. > :01:05.President. It was a serious speech without some of the lofty idealism
:01:05. > :01:09.of his original address. He will be dealing dramatically with domestic
:01:09. > :01:12.policy. Scores of view was contacted the BBC object into the
:01:12. > :01:22.commentary and interviews you heard going on during the ceremony. The
:01:22. > :01:39.
:01:39. > :01:44.I am joined by two of the viewers who contacted us. Richard Gerver
:01:44. > :01:48.and Maureen Phillips. Richard, first sum up what you did not like
:01:48. > :01:53.about the coverage? I think the tone was set right at the start. I
:01:53. > :01:58.sat down with my 16-year-old daughter who is really interested
:01:58. > :02:04.in American history at the moment, to watch the inauguration. We were
:02:04. > :02:08.greeted by an interview with a Barack Obama impersonator, which
:02:08. > :02:17.kind of summed up when things were going I think. As the inauguration
:02:18. > :02:21.ceremony began there seemed to be and over a mound of commentary and
:02:22. > :02:25.punditry. It was not about the inauguration and what was happening
:02:25. > :02:31.but more about the challenges Barack Obama would face in his
:02:31. > :02:36.second term and the fact that this punditry was going on over the
:02:36. > :02:40.beautiful sound of a choir, over the introductions from the chair of
:02:40. > :02:43.the inauguration ceremony, and most of what was being said was really
:02:43. > :02:48.repeated commentary from all of the coverage we had heard before the
:02:48. > :02:52.election, during the election and after the election. Maureen, the
:02:52. > :03:02.BBC have said they tried to get a balance between analysis to inform
:03:02. > :03:05.
:03:05. > :03:08.the audience and letting the event it right. The ceremony itself was a
:03:08. > :03:17.relatively small part of all of the coverage and the talking over key
:03:18. > :03:22.events, the choir, James Taylor... It is very interesting. America the
:03:22. > :03:26.beautiful is a very short song and to talk over its seems to miss the
:03:26. > :03:30.point. Absolutely. I would really like to know from the BBC who made
:03:30. > :03:35.the decision that the British viewer was not going to be privy to
:03:35. > :03:40.that celebration. Because I was so dismayed by it and so embarrassed I
:03:40. > :03:46.channel hop to and I found that Sky News were not doing that and, to my
:03:46. > :03:50.horror, when I channel hop and saw that Sky News were taking the
:03:50. > :03:54.viewer into the president's rumour for the signing of the oath, the
:03:54. > :04:00.BBC had not captured that at all which I think is a very important
:04:00. > :04:05.historic occasion. She did not get anything out of the analysis?
:04:05. > :04:09.Richard said, it was repetitive. It was repeating a lot of what had
:04:09. > :04:12.gone on through the election coverage anyway and I think it is
:04:12. > :04:16.important to have the context actually for the moment of the
:04:16. > :04:21.inauguration you should have been allowed to see that in a full, a
:04:21. > :04:25.relatively short ceremony, and I think the contextual punditry, as
:04:25. > :04:30.Richard calls it, should have been confined to moments when generally
:04:30. > :04:33.something - that nothing was going on and it was intrusive and rude.
:04:34. > :04:40.What would you say, Richard, if you can advise the BBC on coverage of
:04:40. > :04:45.events like this in the future? I agree totally with what has just
:04:45. > :04:50.been said. What concerns me most about the BBC's coverage of these
:04:50. > :04:54.kinds of events, I have to say it reminded me a little bit of the
:04:54. > :04:58.criticisms that were levelled at the BBC during the river pageant
:04:59. > :05:03.during the Queen's Jubilee. That does not seem to be enough faith in
:05:03. > :05:08.that history of the moment and the quality of the production of these
:05:08. > :05:13.ceremonies in themselves. Also, I wonder whether they think that the
:05:13. > :05:18.attention span of the viewer, they miscalculate there. They must have
:05:18. > :05:26.quite a patronising perception of the viewers of these moments in
:05:26. > :05:32.history. Thank you very much. There has been a bit of a storm brewing
:05:32. > :05:36.in Northern Ireland over last week's edition of The Nolan Show.
:05:37. > :05:46.It is known for its provocative tome. This particular edition got
:05:46. > :05:56.livelier than most. Do you agree? did not say that. Let me say this,
:05:56. > :06:00.
:06:00. > :06:05.in fairness to you it is very hard... Those are the photographs.
:06:05. > :06:10.I want to get a lot out of this programme tonight. Listen to him.
:06:10. > :06:16.will answer the question. Before I go any further, what ever equality
:06:17. > :06:20.impact was done, that was the audience. The programme, shown only
:06:20. > :06:30.in Northern Ireland, created a volume of reaction, much of it
:06:30. > :06:35.
:06:35. > :06:40.along the lines of this e-mail we To discuss this I am joined from
:06:40. > :06:43.Belfast by Jeremy Adams, editor of their programme and head of current
:06:43. > :06:48.affairs at BBC Northern Ireland. What happened, it clearly went
:06:48. > :06:53.wrong and you had an audience that were overwhelmingly Unionist and
:06:53. > :06:57.quite disruptive. Absolutely and from a media watch point of view
:06:57. > :07:01.the thing is important to say and others disappointed you did not say
:07:01. > :07:05.was that what happened here is that we had a very large demonstration
:07:05. > :07:10.outside the BBC. A lot of people did not feel able to come in
:07:10. > :07:12.because they were deterred by the protesters outside. We had known
:07:12. > :07:17.beforehand there would be a demonstration and we knew some
:07:17. > :07:20.people did not want the debate to go ahead. But you'd made the
:07:20. > :07:25.decision to let the programme go ahead when you had an audience that
:07:25. > :07:31.was biased and you have their knowledge that. No, I am sorry, let
:07:31. > :07:34.me finish, I did not acknowledge the audience was biased. What I
:07:34. > :07:39.acknowledged was that the normal audience for the programme was
:07:39. > :07:42.organised and people came to the programme and there was a balanced
:07:42. > :07:46.panel to discuss this but unfortunately people were
:07:46. > :07:50.organising a demonstration outside which deterred a set number of
:07:50. > :07:53.people from coming in. What we achieved in this programme, and it
:07:53. > :07:57.is important to understand this, is that we took the dispute that is
:07:57. > :08:02.taking place on the streets, which has been spilling over into
:08:02. > :08:08.violence, we took it into the studio and for all the shouting in
:08:09. > :08:18.the clip, what happened is that we change the wall to talk. That has
:08:19. > :08:23.
:08:23. > :08:25.had a salmon packed a lot of people. People complained and we know that
:08:25. > :08:28.have felt intimidated and B Platt aim could have felt intimidated.
:08:28. > :08:32.Why did you not rethink the decision to go ahead with the
:08:32. > :08:37.audience when people were intimidated from walking into the
:08:37. > :08:39.studio. The question I asked was could be safely go ahead with a
:08:39. > :08:43.discussion to discuss these issues and they would be discussed in a
:08:43. > :08:46.way that people could hear the issues rather than allowing
:08:46. > :08:54.demonstrations and violence to stop the discussion. I concluded we
:08:54. > :08:57.could do and we could do so safely. The key question is a whether the
:08:57. > :09:02.tone of the programme is appropriate for an issue like this,
:09:02. > :09:10.given the violence that was going on in the streets, the Nolan show
:09:10. > :09:14.is known for being provocative and it sets itself up as somewhere with
:09:14. > :09:19.a bit of argy-bargy and perhaps it was wrong to go ahead with what she
:09:19. > :09:23.did. I think that all the evidence is a, and it was set the following
:09:23. > :09:28.day by a number of commentators, that the programme acts as a bit of
:09:28. > :09:31.a safety valve. They did not escalate into violence. It would be
:09:31. > :09:35.wrong, you are talking about the atmosphere of the programme, nobody
:09:35. > :09:39.has been interviewed as much -- interrupted as much as you are
:09:39. > :09:44.interrupting me! It was a discussion in which people felt
:09:44. > :09:50.very strongly. The question was did we stop the debate or have the
:09:50. > :09:53.debate? We had the debate and there has been an exchange of views but
:09:53. > :09:59.the programme had a huge audience amongst the people of Northern
:09:59. > :10:02.Ireland and almost half of the television audience washed it and
:10:02. > :10:07.the vast majority of them, according to our figures, in terms
:10:07. > :10:12.of their appreciation of the programme, the appreciation was
:10:12. > :10:16.high. Tunnel for speaking to us. Finally, viewers sometimes complain
:10:16. > :10:21.about irresponsible reporters take risks when covering severe weather.
:10:21. > :10:24.This week Jon Kay got into a pickle. When reporting on heavy snow in
:10:24. > :10:29.Bristol he and his crew got stuck there for the night and they were
:10:30. > :10:36.put up by a local family the we spoke to the next morning.
:10:36. > :10:41.Good morning, did you not hear the forecast? That so for sounds very
:10:41. > :10:45.comfortable this morning. Be honest, what do you think of idiots like us
:10:45. > :10:49.who get stuck and make foolish mistakes like this and you have to
:10:49. > :10:55.help them out? I suppose it is your job but, if you don't need to
:10:55. > :11:05.travel, it is quite mad, really. Jeremy Bolton was equally
:11:05. > :11:14.
:11:14. > :11:21.Thank you for all of your comments this week. If you want to share