08/02/2013 Newswatch

That's the business for now. Now, it is time for NewsWatch, with

Samira Ahmed. Welcome to the programme. Some breaking news from

Southwark Crown Court... Hang on a minute, I was watching that!

Interrupting that press conference there, but should things be

interrupted like that? Shouldn't the word marriage be spelt

correctly? And what about Stafford hospital - is anything actually

happening there? First, it may have been a few hundred years in the

making, but for many people, the hot news on Monday morning was the

revelation that a Skrtel at -- that a skeleton found under a car park

had been at that of Richard III. The announcement was made in a

press conference given by experts from the University of Leicester,

broadcast live on the BBC News Channel. In contrast with things

found on other sites, it was very irregular in shape. There was no

evidence of a coffin, in the form of impressions or nails, nor was

there any evidence of a shroud. Let's leave that press conference,

for some breaking news from Southwark Crown Court - Chris Huhne

has just pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice

over claims that his ex-wife took speeding points for him a decade

ago. After that interruption, lasting six minutes, the News

Channel did return to the press conference in Leicester, only to

break into it again seven minutes later to reiterate the news about

Chris Huhne, before cutting back in again for the rest of the news

conference. It left those hooked on the Richard III announcement very

frustrated. This programme has been told that nobody was available

tonight, but we were given this Two viewers who were watching on

Monday morning join me now. First of all, Ian Finnigan, what was your

experience of watching that news conference? Very frustrating. I

think this is one of the biggest historical stories of my lifetime,

comparable perhaps with the raising of the Mary rose. We were eager to

be informed as to how the scientists had arrived at their

conclusions, and we felt that it was a very, very interesting

presentation that there were putting forward. And suddenly, we

were interrupted for a news story which, to be quite frank, we felt

was of not particular importance. It was a story about a backbench MP

who had changed his plea. We were interested in a story about someone

who wore the imperial crown in England, who has been at the

forefront of No, education for 500 years. Let me bring Christine in.

News management say it is hard to make a decision, when you have got

two breaking stories. Chris Huhne led for the rest of the day, and

that was their call... Well, I think it was the wrong call. It

showed a lack of respect for the hundreds of people involved in his

huge historical event. In my lifetime, I do not think there will

be such an exciting event as this. I felt very move to be part of it

because it was a live broadcast, and it was completely destroyed

every time you interrupted it with what Ian Finnigan has described

quite rightly as historically, an insignificant political moment,

which will be forgotten next week. Obviously, it was felt that the

Chris Huhne story was important, and some people would argue it was

the biggest story of the day, but you do not think so? Of course not.

It was a political moment, but I have very little importance in the

long term. This man will be forgotten in not too great a

distance, whereas Richard III is part of this country's story. It

was just very, very bad judgment to interrupt what was such an exciting

moment. Ian Finnigan, was it a case of the BBC being too Westminster

based? That is a view that I hold. When push comes to shove, Chris

Huhne will be a footnote in some historical document in the future,

whereas we are talking about a man who was the king of England for a

short time. A very controversial but nonetheless interesting figure.

What about how things could have been done better? What would have

been satisfactory for you? It is a breaking news channel, after all.

They could have just had that as rolling news along the bottom of

the screen for political addicts. It was not necessary to break up

that very important live broadcast. It was not going to go on for three

hours. It was just and necessary at that point to interrupt the

broadcast. It was showing a lack of Do let us know your thoughts on

that or on any other aspect of BBC News. Now, for some of your other

concerns this week. The question of whether same-sex couples should be

allowed to marry has been a political hot potato, and it has

proved a tricky subject this week for the BBC. David Cameron is

facing a further challenge... Before Monday's vote in the House

of Commons, the topic had had a considerable airing, so you might

have thought that Sunday's early- evening news would have been

prepared. But that is not how you spell marriage, is it? Mike Ahearne

was astonished to see it spelt But it was the other part of the

phrase gay marriage which annoyed The publication of a damning report

on failings at Stafford hospital was also reported widely this week.

And that meant health correspondent Dominic Hughes spending some time

on their standing outside the hospital, giving rise to a

complaint of a kind familiar to our viewers, articulated here by Dr

Some viewers have been in touch with us with a query which is

We have been trying to find out the answer to that question, and have

been given this statement by BBC Finally, one of the journalists

cover the use of English, sloppy language or Grammar, their own

usage is bound to come under scrutiny. So, Danny Savage was in

dangerous waters when he reported on slang and local dialect phrase

is being used in schools. spoken word is on the agenda here,

too. A letter has been sent home with A-lister phrases teachers do

not want to hear any more, along with the correct way of

articulating the thought. Here is a few of them... JRL Taylor thought