:00:06. > :00:15.Now, Newswatch. Did that BBC News give the oxygen of publicity to the
:00:15. > :00:19.Woolwich attackers? Welcome to Newswatch. Did the BBC
:00:19. > :00:24.allow its bulletins to be used by the attackers in Woolwich to spread
:00:24. > :00:29.their message? Worthy images of the attacks shown on BBC Two graphic and
:00:30. > :00:39.insensitive? And were some of the voices heard discussing the incident
:00:40. > :00:41.
:00:41. > :00:44.Wednesday saw the unprecedented street murder by Islamic radicals of
:00:44. > :00:49.Durmmer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. The response of BBC News over the next
:00:49. > :00:53.few hours raised several questions in the minds of viewers. Some news
:00:53. > :00:56.has come in and it is from the Metropolitan Police, from Scotland
:00:56. > :01:00.Yard, conforming officers have responded to an incident in John
:01:00. > :01:03.Wilson Street in Woolwich dot. the strongest reaction concerned
:01:03. > :01:07.footage of one of the suspects attempting to explain the reasons
:01:07. > :01:17.behind the attack which was filmed on a mobile phone. Stuart Pearce was
:01:17. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:33.one of several hundred with this Robinson made this comment on the
:01:33. > :01:39.news at six. Senior Whitehall sources have told me, and I cannot
:01:39. > :01:44.confirm this, that the police now believe that the attackers were of
:01:44. > :01:51.Moslem appearance, that they filmed their attack, and they shouted, and
:01:51. > :02:01.owl Akbar. He later apologised for the use of that phrase, of Moslem
:02:01. > :02:11.
:02:11. > :02:15.appearance, which attracted the ire choice of guest discussing the
:02:15. > :02:21.attack. Concerns over a news channel interview with a man from the Muslim
:02:21. > :02:24.public cares -- affairs committee. And Anjem Choudary. For others the
:02:24. > :02:34.objection was to the images described here by Joan Jarvis. --
:02:34. > :02:52.
:02:52. > :02:58.from viewers. With me to discuss them as -- is the head of the BBC
:02:58. > :03:04.News. Talk about the bushels, the images the BBC showed. What was your
:03:04. > :03:09.concern? My concern was this was a murderer with the blood of his
:03:09. > :03:14.victim on his hands. Immediately in the aftermath of carrying out the
:03:14. > :03:18.crime, is one of the e-mail said, the with the glimpse of the body in
:03:18. > :03:22.the background, and to me that was inappropriate. It wasn't the right
:03:22. > :03:26.place or time to show that footage, and I don't feel that footage should
:03:26. > :03:35.have been shown on mainstream TV at all. That is a very specific
:03:35. > :03:39.concern. A lot of viewers were concerned about that. Seeing the
:03:39. > :03:44.blood and the suspect. This was a very challenging day in the newsroom
:03:44. > :03:50.and other newsrooms, too. Really shocking events. On the folding
:03:50. > :03:54.quite quickly, and then this flow of material that begins to appear, we
:03:54. > :03:59.look very hard at this material coming in and we thought really
:03:59. > :04:04.carefully about what to use because we knew how upsetting those images
:04:04. > :04:10.where. -- those images were. We decided to use some of the footage
:04:10. > :04:15.and earlier in the day and obviously particularly before the watershed,
:04:15. > :04:21.we were very careful to give clear warnings. Later in the evening, the
:04:21. > :04:26.audience is different. We flag with the language and which is to be very
:04:26. > :04:33.clear about what is coming up. about the video? We heard what this
:04:33. > :04:36.man had to second what he wanted people to hear. I just feel that
:04:36. > :04:41.this is an absolute watershed moment in broadcasting. This has never
:04:41. > :04:45.happened before and you responded to it very quickly. The difference
:04:45. > :04:49.between this content being on our TV channels and on the Internet is an
:04:49. > :04:53.editorial one. If people want to go to the Internet, they can see what
:04:53. > :04:57.ever they want to see. But you have to draw the line on what is moral
:04:57. > :05:01.and decent. To show a murderer with blood on his hands to me is
:05:01. > :05:07.completely crossing that line. If he had attacked a woman or child, would
:05:07. > :05:11.you have still shown that footage? Did the context of the possible
:05:11. > :05:17.terrorist attack justify it? I don't think it did. To go back to the
:05:17. > :05:23.second point, to allow him to speak and to voice the reason he had for
:05:23. > :05:28.carrying out this awful attack. It showed him triumphant after he had
:05:28. > :05:35.murdered a human being, whose relatives, like you say, could have
:05:35. > :05:41.been watching. Or soldiers that could've been watching from his
:05:41. > :05:46.barracks. I don't feel that... Giving a platform, allowing those
:05:46. > :05:51.words to go out with the video is almost justifying what he did. He
:05:51. > :05:54.did something terrible and he got what he wanted. About the
:05:54. > :06:00.distressing images, we know they are distressing and we know we will have
:06:00. > :06:05.a range of reactions. You are not alone in how you felt. And we do
:06:05. > :06:10.know that. What we try to do is to find the point we feel is
:06:10. > :06:15.appropriate to tell the story, to make sure that for people who do not
:06:15. > :06:21.want to see it that we flag it. We made our judgement about what to
:06:21. > :06:25.use, and there was more we didn't use. On the issue of the audio which
:06:25. > :06:31.is very important and interesting, and one which we thought hard about,
:06:31. > :06:36.we understand, of course, the issue of providing a platform, but our
:06:36. > :06:39.view was that as the story unfolded in those first hours, that we were
:06:39. > :06:47.endeavouring to report what happened, but also to try to
:06:47. > :06:51.illuminate. And one of the issues is motivation. And the audio began to
:06:51. > :06:58.take you to understanding, and this is not about justifying, but perhaps
:06:58. > :07:02.understanding some of what had happened. There were still is and
:07:02. > :07:08.graphic. Would the BBC run their audio footage of somebody did that
:07:08. > :07:15.tomorrow? Our job is to show and explain how this footage existed,
:07:15. > :07:22.that it had happened, people in Woolwich had heard it. But you
:07:22. > :07:26.didn't have to broadcasted. We felt it was valuable in the early stages
:07:26. > :07:30.of telling the story to show it because that's how people best can
:07:30. > :07:35.make their own minds up. We didn't use it in a sort of thoughtless way.
:07:35. > :07:39.And as time went on we used it less and less but in those early stages,
:07:39. > :07:43.it felt part of helping the audience understand what had happened.
:07:43. > :07:46.people have complained about the guest to have been appearing to
:07:46. > :07:53.analyse this story, notably Anjem Choudary. He was on Newsnight on
:07:53. > :07:57.Thursday. A concerned this was adding to an atmosphere, which was
:07:57. > :08:01.not illuminating. Why was the BBC still putting him on air?
:08:01. > :08:06.approach, as with all stories, is to talk to a really wide range of
:08:06. > :08:09.people and to provide a range of reaction, again to serve
:08:09. > :08:19.understanding. Newsnight thought very hard about whether or not to
:08:19. > :08:19.
:08:19. > :08:23.approach and John Cowdrey. -- Anjem Choudary. Not least by the time
:08:23. > :08:27.Newsnight went out, we knew and we had evidence that one of the
:08:27. > :08:31.suspects was an associate of his. Therefore there were legitimate
:08:31. > :08:36.questions to put to him. The other really important point was making
:08:36. > :08:40.sure that Kirsty, but also some of her other guests, were in the studio
:08:40. > :08:47.challenging him extremely hard, as they did, about some of the views he
:08:47. > :08:50.holds. So that is the thinking that went into it. We didn't run many
:08:50. > :08:55.interviews with him, we certainly were not putting him on live on the
:08:55. > :08:59.airwaves. But in the context of Newsnight's journalism, and handled
:08:59. > :09:08.the way we did, it was an appropriate thing to do. We will
:09:08. > :09:14.have to leave it there but thank you Please letters know your thoughts on
:09:14. > :09:18.those issues or any other aspects of BBC News. Stage and for how to
:09:18. > :09:22.contact us. Time for a couple of other topics, starting with the
:09:22. > :09:32.tornado which hit Oklahoma. Tony Pearson raised a question in this
:09:32. > :09:55.
:09:55. > :10:00.our inbox this week. After he had been confronted by protesters in an
:10:00. > :10:03.Edinburgh pub but before he had walked out of BBC Scotland radio
:10:03. > :10:08.interview, Gavin Esler on the news channel interviewed the party's
:10:08. > :10:13.economy spokesman. You know him very well and he has got this reputation
:10:13. > :10:18.as a bloke in a saloon bar and so on, but you think it is telling on
:10:18. > :10:22.him? He works very hard. Perhaps he smokes and drinks too much as well?
:10:22. > :10:25.Well, he's never pretended to be a priest and if you don't mind me
:10:25. > :10:32.suggesting, I regard that as an impertinent remark! How dare you
:10:32. > :10:36.suggest he should smoke... What the hell has it got to do with you? !
:10:36. > :10:38.apologise if you take it that way. He wasn't the only one to take
:10:38. > :10:48.umbrage about that line of questioning. We received this
:10:48. > :11:03.
:11:03. > :11:07.week. If you want to share your opinions on BBC News and current
:11:07. > :11:17.affairs or even appear on the programme, you can call us or e-mail
:11:17. > :11:24.