:00:06. > :00:14.Time for Newswatch, questions asked about the pictures used of the
:00:14. > :00:17.balloon accident in Egypt. Hello, welcome to Newswatch. The
:00:17. > :00:21.drama, the dresses the dreadful acceptance speeches, but no prizes
:00:21. > :00:26.from some viewers for the BBC's Oscars coverage.
:00:26. > :00:32.It was a great scrum of journalists from all over the world wanting to
:00:32. > :00:36.get a word, any word, just to talk to camera. And really there was
:00:36. > :00:39.nothing substantive said. Others tell us that reporting of the
:00:39. > :00:44.allegations against Lord Rennard had something of the Savile witch-
:00:44. > :00:48.hunt about it. And we hear reaction to the hot air balloon accident in
:00:48. > :00:54.Egypt, with objections to the footage used of the balloon
:00:54. > :01:00.exploding and falling towards the ground.
:01:00. > :01:03.First, was Argo really the best film of the past year, did Anne
:01:03. > :01:08.Hathaway outshine Jennifer Lawrence on the red carpet. And did
:01:08. > :01:13.Breakfast viewers want live updates frequently from the aftershow party.
:01:13. > :01:17.Those who contacted us did not. We asked one of them, Andrew Gold to
:01:17. > :01:23.explain why. Tough job Tim, you are doing it this morning. Bring us up-
:01:24. > :01:31.to-date with the winners and who have you seen so far? Well, as I
:01:31. > :01:36.speak Eddie Redmayne...On Monday morning I was watching Breakfast TV
:01:36. > :01:46.and became increasingly frustrated by the diving away from real news
:01:46. > :01:52.to go across to the Vanity Fair party post-Oscar awards. Breaking
:01:52. > :02:00.from real news, like the loss of our triple-A credit rating, to Tim
:02:00. > :02:03.Muffet trying to get celebrities to pass meaningful comment on an
:02:03. > :02:07.awards ceremony that the BBC doesn't cover, and miserably
:02:07. > :02:15.failing, not his fault. By that time most people are either tired
:02:15. > :02:19.or emotional or both and want to get to the party. It is not just
:02:20. > :02:25.about the triviality of it. But also it seems to me not appropriate,
:02:25. > :02:31.as a live feed. Given the BBC can't cover the actual ceremony live,
:02:31. > :02:36.which is afterall the most news worthy part, that everybody's best
:02:36. > :02:44.interests would be served by recording the post, what they can
:02:44. > :02:52.get at, the post awards party, editing it and putting that out in
:02:52. > :02:56.a nicely defined slot. A two-and-a- half year low against the dollar.
:02:56. > :03:00.We have to go back to Hollywood, Tim as Anne Hathaway with him.
:03:00. > :03:05.think it moved people, and there is just something about the music of
:03:05. > :03:15.this that opens people up, and a lot of people chose Togni on the
:03:15. > :03:18.journey. And your screen type was pretty small. It was disrespectful
:03:18. > :03:21.to have content interrupted by something that isn't news. There is
:03:21. > :03:25.a balance issue there. The BBC needs to think seriously about
:03:25. > :03:29.whether or not the Breakfast programme is more about
:03:29. > :03:32.entertainment than it is about news. Thanks to viewer Andrew Gold for
:03:32. > :03:42.his thoughts there. Breakfast told us nobody was available to discuss
:03:42. > :04:03.
:04:03. > :04:09.this on the programme. But, we were On Thursday Pope Benedict XVI left
:04:09. > :04:19.office, his departure was followed step-by-step by the news channel,
:04:19. > :04:44.
:04:44. > :04:49.dominating that output. This had Innuendo was a word used by some in
:04:49. > :04:56.relation to this story. Nick Clegg admits he was aware of
:04:56. > :05:00.indirect concerns about the behaviour of a senior Lib Dem. Lord
:05:00. > :05:05.Rennard denies claims of sexual harassment. Mr Clegg says his party
:05:05. > :05:15.had nothing to hide. Sam was one of a number of viewers who reacted to
:05:15. > :05:35.
:05:35. > :05:39.On Tuesday evening pictures emerged of that morning's hot air balloon
:05:39. > :05:43.crash in Egypt which killed 19 people. The video was filmed by a
:05:43. > :05:46.tourist in another balloon, and started with this image. News
:05:46. > :05:51.bulletins then went on to show the moment of explosion and the
:05:51. > :06:01.deflated balloon starting to fall to the ground. That footage proved
:06:01. > :06:07.
:06:07. > :06:11.controversial with viewers such who We asked BBC News to discuss the
:06:11. > :06:21.issue on the programme. We were told no-one was available. We were
:06:21. > :06:35.
:06:35. > :06:38.We are joined by another viewer who contacted us. What was your
:06:38. > :06:42.instinctive reaction on seeing that footage? I had been watching the
:06:42. > :06:46.story throughout the day. It was only later on in the day that the
:06:46. > :06:50.images came through. I just looked in absolute horror of I couldn't
:06:50. > :06:54.believe that someone had been so intensive as to broadcast the full
:06:54. > :06:57.video. I think the video is very clear, whether it is from a
:06:57. > :07:02.distance or not, you can tell exactly what's happening. You don't
:07:02. > :07:07.know if you are watching the people perIrish. It was very unnerving to
:07:07. > :07:11.see. The BBC says two things, they fade to black and you don't see the
:07:11. > :07:16.descent. They said it was crucial to the story that this footage was
:07:16. > :07:19.there? I would disagree, the viewers need to be given a certain
:07:19. > :07:23.level of intellect and can co- relate to seeing a balloon on fire
:07:23. > :07:26.to the aftermath. I don't think showing the inbetween was vital. It
:07:26. > :07:31.was very intensive, given that people had just died hours earlier,
:07:31. > :07:34.to show the entire footage. Completely unnecessary. People can
:07:34. > :07:38.assume what happened. If perhaps everybody had survived, then there
:07:38. > :07:42.would have been a perfectly acceptability to show it. That
:07:42. > :07:47.wasn't the case. Given that virtually everybody died, it was
:07:47. > :07:50.very insensitive and quite in poor taste and bad judgment to show the
:07:50. > :07:53.entire footage. One of the other stories that has been emerging over
:07:53. > :07:58.the course of the end of the week has been the killing of a taxi
:07:58. > :08:02.driver in South Africa. And his assault of filmed and that has been
:08:02. > :08:06.broadcast. That is distressing footage of an individual being
:08:06. > :08:10.mistreated, we know we subsequently died, what is your feelings on
:08:10. > :08:14.that? Having seen the footage earlier it is grainy. For one it is
:08:14. > :08:17.not as clear as the balloon. And two, it is showing an issue of
:08:17. > :08:21.police brutality as it appears. So I think there is a journalistic
:08:21. > :08:25.need to show something like that, and highlight these issues. Showing
:08:25. > :08:30.a balloon falling to earth with people you know ultimately die I
:08:30. > :08:36.don't think it really appropriate. Because it is not highlighting an
:08:36. > :08:39.issue like that. I don't think it is beneficial. It is clearly at
:08:39. > :08:43.that point where there is a dispute between what is journalistically
:08:43. > :08:46.necessary to tell a story properly to an audience on television and a
:08:46. > :08:50.taste issue. What is the right solution. Would it have been to
:08:50. > :08:54.show a sequence of stills only of that balloon? That could have been
:08:54. > :08:57.an option if they wanted to use the full footage. It is very clear. You
:08:57. > :09:01.can see exactly what is happening, unlike the one in South Africa, as
:09:01. > :09:04.you mentioned. It isn't as clear what is happening. I think
:09:04. > :09:08.personally I think just showing the balloon on fire and going into the
:09:08. > :09:13.report about the aftermath, showing the wreckage on the ground would
:09:13. > :09:19.have been sufficient. I don't think perhaps even the stills would be a
:09:19. > :09:25.bit graphic. Finally, perhaps the report that
:09:25. > :09:31.made the biggest impact on viewers this week, came from Ian Pannell on
:09:31. > :09:35.Monday's news bulletins. He found victims of the conflict in Syria
:09:35. > :09:38.living underground. There in the gloom were seven small boys in
:09:38. > :09:44.hiding. Their father had been killed in the fighting. Their
:09:44. > :09:52.mother had gone looking for food. But that was hours ago. And the
:09:52. > :09:57.boys were still waiting, cold, hungry and scared.
:09:57. > :10:02.TRANSLATION: It is bad here, we are afraid of the bombing and shelling.
:10:02. > :10:06.That's why we are staying here. boys asked when their mum would be
:10:06. > :10:13.coming back? It was an impossible question to answer. As we left,
:10:13. > :10:23.they sat staring at the entrance, waiting.
:10:23. > :10:53.
:10:53. > :10:56.We have been in touch with Ian Pannell, he told us it is not the
:10:56. > :11:00.journalists' role to directly intervene in what they witness,
:11:00. > :11:03.even if it is incredibly difficult. But to report events as honestly
:11:03. > :11:06.and candidly as they K he and his team asked those in the area to
:11:06. > :11:09.look after those until their mother returned, and they have tried to
:11:09. > :11:13.find out what happened after they left. But have not yet received a
:11:13. > :11:17.reply. That's all from us. Thank you for
:11:17. > :11:21.all your comments this week. If you want to share your opinions on BBC
:11:21. > :11:30.News and current affairs, or appear on the programme you can call us on
:11:30. > :11:35.the number or e-mail us. Find us on Twitter and have a look