:00:04. > :00:14.Newswatch. This week, what happens when BBC
:00:14. > :00:21.
:00:21. > :00:27.the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich last week, should BBC News have
:00:27. > :00:33.broadcast the grief of his family in scenes like this? He was a devoted
:00:33. > :00:38.father to our son Jack, and we will both miss him terribly. And from
:00:38. > :00:42.Hutton to Jimmy Savile, on the last day of his 24 year career at the
:00:42. > :00:49.BBC, we hear from the outgoing media correspondent Tyron Douglas about
:00:49. > :00:54.the difficulties the BBC has reporting on itself.
:00:54. > :00:58.A fierce debate about how the BBC News reported the murder of Lee
:00:58. > :01:02.Rigby in Woolwich has been running since the incident ten days ago. One
:01:02. > :01:07.aspect of the coverage which provoked reaction arose since last
:01:07. > :01:17.weeks programme, and related to what was shown of the grief of drummer
:01:17. > :01:24.Rigby's family. I leave. I always will, and I am proud to be his wife.
:01:24. > :01:28.Lee Rigby's mother looked at the flowers and messages to her son. The
:01:28. > :01:32.press conference on news bulletins last Friday, and other appearances
:01:32. > :01:42.by the Rigby family since then, prompted a number of complaints,
:01:42. > :02:03.
:02:04. > :02:10.contacted us about last Friday's press conference, leaving this phone
:02:10. > :02:14.message. Why is this family subjected to this kind of media
:02:14. > :02:17.scrutiny? Who organises this spectacle, and how was it supposed
:02:17. > :02:24.to help the viewer to make sense of the horrific events that proceeded
:02:24. > :02:28.to hit? Both men are in police custody, so why is it necessary to
:02:28. > :02:33.put the grieving family through more pain and anguish? Why did the news
:02:33. > :02:37.editor find it necessary to share this private family pain with the TV
:02:37. > :02:44.audience? We asked one person who got in touch with us to record his
:02:44. > :02:52.thoughts on camera. They showed the poor woman's Greece in detail, even
:02:52. > :02:57.zooming in when she broke down. So soon after. She must have only just
:02:57. > :03:02.been informed of her son's horrific death. To film the woman's grief
:03:02. > :03:08.publicly like that... I thought it was wrong, and inappropriate. What
:03:08. > :03:18.purpose did it serve? We put all those points to BBC News, and they
:03:18. > :03:44.
:03:44. > :03:49.end the conflict in Syria runs on, but fighting and violence continues.
:03:49. > :03:56.The report on Tuesdays news at ten had evidence of this. This footage
:03:56. > :04:01.shows the regime performing attacks in early May.
:04:01. > :04:06.What happened next is under dispute. This leaked video,
:04:06. > :04:16.apparently filmed by pro-government fighters, shows the troops.
:04:16. > :04:37.
:04:37. > :04:41.What was shown next offended Peter by BBC journalists is the task of
:04:41. > :04:46.reporting on their own employer. The corporation has certainly been in
:04:46. > :04:49.the news a lot recently, most noticeably when the Jimmy Savile and
:04:49. > :04:52.Lord McAlpine issues forced the resignation of the Director General
:04:53. > :04:58.last November, a resignation prompted by an interview on Radio 4
:04:58. > :05:04.'s today programme. Nobody even mentioned, in the context that we
:05:04. > :05:07.understand, nobody even mentioned it. No.Isn't that extraordinary?
:05:07. > :05:12.the light of what has happened here, I wish this had been referred
:05:12. > :05:14.to me, that it was not. I've run the BBC on the basis that the right
:05:14. > :05:19.people are put in the right positions to make the right
:05:19. > :05:22.decisions. Weeks after the crisis broke, the BBC is facing more
:05:22. > :05:28.questions, not just about its journalism but about the way the
:05:28. > :05:31.organisation is run. That was touring Douglas, the media
:05:31. > :05:35.correspondent for 24 years at the BBC, who has often faced the
:05:36. > :05:39.possibility of biting the hand that feeds him. That does the BBC get the
:05:39. > :05:49.balance right when examining itself? Some viewers think not, including
:05:49. > :06:11.
:06:11. > :06:15.is about to leave the BBC, and by the Professor of journalism from the
:06:16. > :06:20.University of Kent. Mr Douglas, Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpin
:06:20. > :06:24.must've been your toughest stories as a media correspondent. As far did
:06:24. > :06:28.you feel that you could independently report, when it was
:06:28. > :06:37.putting your own bosses the spot? The BBC is better at this than
:06:37. > :06:41.anybody else. That is not saying a lot, but I think the fact that John
:06:41. > :06:45.Humphrys 's interview lead to the resignation shows that on current
:06:45. > :06:49.affairs, they can be very, very independent. And it is important
:06:49. > :06:52.that the BBC should be because it is publicly funded and publicly
:06:52. > :06:58.accountable. If it not look at its own affairs independently, no one
:06:58. > :07:03.else cannot. -- if it cannot look at its own affairs independently, no
:07:03. > :07:07.one else can. The BBC is good about talking about management and jobs
:07:07. > :07:11.but not very good about confronting the horror of the crime. Wonder how
:07:11. > :07:13.uncomfortable you felt about the balance? It was a difficult one
:07:13. > :07:19.because Newsnight had the first opportunity to expose Jimmy Savile
:07:19. > :07:23.and did not. And therefore, the BBC initially, certainly on its news
:07:23. > :07:30.site, felt at a disadvantage. Then there was a period when actually the
:07:30. > :07:34.BBC probably tried to overcompensate and thought it ought to go in higher
:07:34. > :07:39.-- go in hard because it was on the back foot. Eventually, these things
:07:39. > :07:44.work themselves out. As an outsider, how do you view the way the BBC has
:07:44. > :07:49.reported on itself? I think the BBC is inclined to sell scrutinised but
:07:49. > :07:56.I am not sure it is properly self-aware. What I mean is that when
:07:56. > :07:59.the BBC needs to scrutinise itself, it is facing a tough conflict. Two
:07:59. > :08:04.versions of public service are in conflict. It asked to hold power to
:08:04. > :08:11.account and it does that honestly. -- it has to hold power to account.
:08:11. > :08:14.It has to involve -- it is to avoid boring its licence payers with
:08:14. > :08:22.arcane subjects. I'm not sure they get the balance right. Let me give
:08:22. > :08:25.you an example. The BBC will believe that if they put the most senior
:08:25. > :08:30.manager available on here to answer questions, that it has done the job
:08:31. > :08:34.properly, but the truth is that the very senior management responsible
:08:34. > :08:38.is not actually the person who took the decision. And it might have been
:08:38. > :08:42.a better idea to put, for example, the editor of the programme on the
:08:42. > :08:45.air, rather than the Director General. If we go back to the Hutton
:08:45. > :08:52.enquiry, I did not want to hear from the drag the general about the
:08:52. > :08:57.abuse. -- Director General. How far have things changed since that
:08:57. > :09:02.landmark scandal? Well, that was a landmark because it was such a big
:09:02. > :09:06.story. But also in the way that the BBC covered it, cause everybody
:09:06. > :09:10.acknowledged that since the enquiry began, the BBC was covering it
:09:10. > :09:14.straight. Remember the first day, people were shocked and were leaders
:09:14. > :09:19.in the papers the next day saying that the BBC was doing a good job of
:09:19. > :09:24.covering it straight, not trying to defend itself in any way at all.
:09:24. > :09:28.you wonder that if a story, when it breaks, the BBC might be good about
:09:28. > :09:34.coming clean about it, and analysing it, but getting the BBC to give you
:09:34. > :09:39.a story is much, much harder. Stories get leaked and broken by
:09:39. > :09:44.other broadcasters. That is inevitable to some extent. If you
:09:45. > :09:49.imagine that the BBC has learned that they have broken the law, it
:09:49. > :09:53.sounds odd. You have to take your viewers with you. At a gay current
:09:53. > :09:56.affairs programme like panorama or Newsnight might do it, but you can
:09:56. > :10:02.imagine imagination is that would go on. -- I think a current affairs
:10:02. > :10:07.programme. It would be difficult to do it that way. What the BBC does
:10:07. > :10:11.do, when a story breaks or is about to break, then it really gets onto
:10:11. > :10:17.it and does it properly. Actually breaking a big story about the BBC
:10:17. > :10:21.itself is quite a hard thing to do on its own. It is bound to the issue
:10:21. > :10:28.that the BBC will put up its management, but not other news
:10:28. > :10:32.media. The BBC is spectacularly good at self-flagellation, saying" we are
:10:32. > :10:36.to blame and we know we are to blame and we are sorry". What it is not
:10:36. > :10:41.good at is saying precisely what has happened. It is not about being
:10:41. > :10:44.dishonest. The BBC accurately says that they are better at self
:10:44. > :10:51.scrutiny than other media outlets but other media outlets are
:10:51. > :10:56.absolutely appalling at it. Thank you both.
:10:57. > :11:01.Thank your for your comments this week. If you want to share your