24/05/2013 Newswatch

Now, Newswatch. Did that BBC News give the oxygen of publicity to the

Woolwich attackers? Welcome to Newswatch. Did the BBC

allow its bulletins to be used by the attackers in Woolwich to spread

their message? Worthy images of the attacks shown on BBC Two graphic and

insensitive? And were some of the voices heard discussing the incident

Wednesday saw the unprecedented street murder by Islamic radicals of

Durmmer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. The response of BBC News over the next

few hours raised several questions in the minds of viewers. Some news

has come in and it is from the Metropolitan Police, from Scotland

Yard, conforming officers have responded to an incident in John

Wilson Street in Woolwich dot. the strongest reaction concerned

footage of one of the suspects attempting to explain the reasons

behind the attack which was filmed on a mobile phone. Stuart Pearce was

one of several hundred with this Robinson made this comment on the

news at six. Senior Whitehall sources have told me, and I cannot

confirm this, that the police now believe that the attackers were of

Moslem appearance, that they filmed their attack, and they shouted, and

owl Akbar. He later apologised for the use of that phrase, of Moslem

appearance, which attracted the ire choice of guest discussing the

attack. Concerns over a news channel interview with a man from the Muslim

public cares -- affairs committee. And Anjem Choudary. For others the

objection was to the images described here by Joan Jarvis. --

from viewers. With me to discuss them as -- is the head of the BBC

News. Talk about the bushels, the images the BBC showed. What was your

concern? My concern was this was a murderer with the blood of his

victim on his hands. Immediately in the aftermath of carrying out the

crime, is one of the e-mail said, the with the glimpse of the body in

the background, and to me that was inappropriate. It wasn't the right

place or time to show that footage, and I don't feel that footage should

have been shown on mainstream TV at all. That is a very specific

concern. A lot of viewers were concerned about that. Seeing the

blood and the suspect. This was a very challenging day in the newsroom

and other newsrooms, too. Really shocking events. On the folding

quite quickly, and then this flow of material that begins to appear, we

look very hard at this material coming in and we thought really

carefully about what to use because we knew how upsetting those images

where. -- those images were. We decided to use some of the footage

and earlier in the day and obviously particularly before the watershed,

we were very careful to give clear warnings. Later in the evening, the

audience is different. We flag with the language and which is to be very

clear about what is coming up. about the video? We heard what this

man had to second what he wanted people to hear. I just feel that

this is an absolute watershed moment in broadcasting. This has never

happened before and you responded to it very quickly. The difference

between this content being on our TV channels and on the Internet is an

editorial one. If people want to go to the Internet, they can see what

ever they want to see. But you have to draw the line on what is moral

and decent. To show a murderer with blood on his hands to me is

completely crossing that line. If he had attacked a woman or child, would

you have still shown that footage? Did the context of the possible

terrorist attack justify it? I don't think it did. To go back to the

second point, to allow him to speak and to voice the reason he had for

carrying out this awful attack. It showed him triumphant after he had

murdered a human being, whose relatives, like you say, could have

been watching. Or soldiers that could've been watching from his

barracks. I don't feel that... Giving a platform, allowing those

words to go out with the video is almost justifying what he did. He

did something terrible and he got what he wanted. About the

distressing images, we know they are distressing and we know we will have

a range of reactions. You are not alone in how you felt. And we do

know that. What we try to do is to find the point we feel is

appropriate to tell the story, to make sure that for people who do not

want to see it that we flag it. We made our judgement about what to

use, and there was more we didn't use. On the issue of the audio which

is very important and interesting, and one which we thought hard about,

we understand, of course, the issue of providing a platform, but our

view was that as the story unfolded in those first hours, that we were

endeavouring to report what happened, but also to try to

illuminate. And one of the issues is motivation. And the audio began to

take you to understanding, and this is not about justifying, but perhaps

understanding some of what had happened. There were still is and

graphic. Would the BBC run their audio footage of somebody did that

tomorrow? Our job is to show and explain how this footage existed,

that it had happened, people in Woolwich had heard it. But you

didn't have to broadcasted. We felt it was valuable in the early stages

of telling the story to show it because that's how people best can

make their own minds up. We didn't use it in a sort of thoughtless way.

And as time went on we used it less and less but in those early stages,

it felt part of helping the audience understand what had happened.

people have complained about the guest to have been appearing to

analyse this story, notably Anjem Choudary. He was on Newsnight on

Thursday. A concerned this was adding to an atmosphere, which was

not illuminating. Why was the BBC still putting him on air?

approach, as with all stories, is to talk to a really wide range of

people and to provide a range of reaction, again to serve

understanding. Newsnight thought very hard about whether or not to

approach and John Cowdrey. -- Anjem Choudary. Not least by the time

Newsnight went out, we knew and we had evidence that one of the

suspects was an associate of his. Therefore there were legitimate

questions to put to him. The other really important point was making

sure that Kirsty, but also some of her other guests, were in the studio

challenging him extremely hard, as they did, about some of the views he

holds. So that is the thinking that went into it. We didn't run many

interviews with him, we certainly were not putting him on live on the

airwaves. But in the context of Newsnight's journalism, and handled

the way we did, it was an appropriate thing to do. We will

have to leave it there but thank you Please letters know your thoughts on

those issues or any other aspects of BBC News. Stage and for how to

contact us. Time for a couple of other topics, starting with the

tornado which hit Oklahoma. Tony Pearson raised a question in this

our inbox this week. After he had been confronted by protesters in an

Edinburgh pub but before he had walked out of BBC Scotland radio

interview, Gavin Esler on the news channel interviewed the party's

economy spokesman. You know him very well and he has got this reputation

as a bloke in a saloon bar and so on, but you think it is telling on

him? He works very hard. Perhaps he smokes and drinks too much as well?

Well, he's never pretended to be a priest and if you don't mind me

suggesting, I regard that as an impertinent remark! How dare you

suggest he should smoke... What the hell has it got to do with you? !

apologise if you take it that way. He wasn't the only one to take

umbrage about that line of questioning. We received this

week. If you want to share your opinions on BBC News and current

affairs or even appear on the programme, you can call us or e-mail