31/05/2013 Newswatch

Newswatch. This week, what happens when BBC

the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich last week, should BBC News have

broadcast the grief of his family in scenes like this? He was a devoted

father to our son Jack, and we will both miss him terribly. And from

Hutton to Jimmy Savile, on the last day of his 24 year career at the

BBC, we hear from the outgoing media correspondent Tyron Douglas about

the difficulties the BBC has reporting on itself.

A fierce debate about how the BBC News reported the murder of Lee

Rigby in Woolwich has been running since the incident ten days ago. One

aspect of the coverage which provoked reaction arose since last

weeks programme, and related to what was shown of the grief of drummer

Rigby's family. I leave. I always will, and I am proud to be his wife.

Lee Rigby's mother looked at the flowers and messages to her son. The

press conference on news bulletins last Friday, and other appearances

by the Rigby family since then, prompted a number of complaints,

contacted us about last Friday's press conference, leaving this phone

message. Why is this family subjected to this kind of media

scrutiny? Who organises this spectacle, and how was it supposed

to help the viewer to make sense of the horrific events that proceeded

to hit? Both men are in police custody, so why is it necessary to

put the grieving family through more pain and anguish? Why did the news

editor find it necessary to share this private family pain with the TV

audience? We asked one person who got in touch with us to record his

thoughts on camera. They showed the poor woman's Greece in detail, even

zooming in when she broke down. So soon after. She must have only just

been informed of her son's horrific death. To film the woman's grief

publicly like that... I thought it was wrong, and inappropriate. What

purpose did it serve? We put all those points to BBC News, and they

end the conflict in Syria runs on, but fighting and violence continues.

The report on Tuesdays news at ten had evidence of this. This footage

shows the regime performing attacks in early May.

What happened next is under dispute. This leaked video,

apparently filmed by pro-government fighters, shows the troops.

What was shown next offended Peter by BBC journalists is the task of

reporting on their own employer. The corporation has certainly been in

the news a lot recently, most noticeably when the Jimmy Savile and

Lord McAlpine issues forced the resignation of the Director General

last November, a resignation prompted by an interview on Radio 4

's today programme. Nobody even mentioned, in the context that we

understand, nobody even mentioned it. No.Isn't that extraordinary?

the light of what has happened here, I wish this had been referred

to me, that it was not. I've run the BBC on the basis that the right

people are put in the right positions to make the right

decisions. Weeks after the crisis broke, the BBC is facing more

questions, not just about its journalism but about the way the

organisation is run. That was touring Douglas, the media

correspondent for 24 years at the BBC, who has often faced the

possibility of biting the hand that feeds him. That does the BBC get the

balance right when examining itself? Some viewers think not, including

is about to leave the BBC, and by the Professor of journalism from the

University of Kent. Mr Douglas, Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpin

must've been your toughest stories as a media correspondent. As far did

you feel that you could independently report, when it was

putting your own bosses the spot? The BBC is better at this than

anybody else. That is not saying a lot, but I think the fact that John

Humphrys 's interview lead to the resignation shows that on current

affairs, they can be very, very independent. And it is important

that the BBC should be because it is publicly funded and publicly

accountable. If it not look at its own affairs independently, no one

else cannot. -- if it cannot look at its own affairs independently, no

one else can. The BBC is good about talking about management and jobs

but not very good about confronting the horror of the crime. Wonder how

uncomfortable you felt about the balance? It was a difficult one

because Newsnight had the first opportunity to expose Jimmy Savile

and did not. And therefore, the BBC initially, certainly on its news

site, felt at a disadvantage. Then there was a period when actually the

BBC probably tried to overcompensate and thought it ought to go in higher

-- go in hard because it was on the back foot. Eventually, these things

work themselves out. As an outsider, how do you view the way the BBC has

reported on itself? I think the BBC is inclined to sell scrutinised but

I am not sure it is properly self-aware. What I mean is that when

the BBC needs to scrutinise itself, it is facing a tough conflict. Two

versions of public service are in conflict. It asked to hold power to

account and it does that honestly. -- it has to hold power to account.

It has to involve -- it is to avoid boring its licence payers with

arcane subjects. I'm not sure they get the balance right. Let me give

you an example. The BBC will believe that if they put the most senior

manager available on here to answer questions, that it has done the job

properly, but the truth is that the very senior management responsible

is not actually the person who took the decision. And it might have been

a better idea to put, for example, the editor of the programme on the

air, rather than the Director General. If we go back to the Hutton

enquiry, I did not want to hear from the drag the general about the

abuse. -- Director General. How far have things changed since that

landmark scandal? Well, that was a landmark because it was such a big

story. But also in the way that the BBC covered it, cause everybody

acknowledged that since the enquiry began, the BBC was covering it

straight. Remember the first day, people were shocked and were leaders

in the papers the next day saying that the BBC was doing a good job of

covering it straight, not trying to defend itself in any way at all.

you wonder that if a story, when it breaks, the BBC might be good about

coming clean about it, and analysing it, but getting the BBC to give you

a story is much, much harder. Stories get leaked and broken by

other broadcasters. That is inevitable to some extent. If you

imagine that the BBC has learned that they have broken the law, it

sounds odd. You have to take your viewers with you. At a gay current

affairs programme like panorama or Newsnight might do it, but you can

imagine imagination is that would go on. -- I think a current affairs

programme. It would be difficult to do it that way. What the BBC does

do, when a story breaks or is about to break, then it really gets onto

it and does it properly. Actually breaking a big story about the BBC

itself is quite a hard thing to do on its own. It is bound to the issue

that the BBC will put up its management, but not other news

media. The BBC is spectacularly good at self-flagellation, saying" we are

to blame and we know we are to blame and we are sorry". What it is not

good at is saying precisely what has happened. It is not about being

dishonest. The BBC accurately says that they are better at self

scrutiny than other media outlets but other media outlets are

absolutely appalling at it. Thank you both.

Thank your for your comments this week. If you want to share your