05/07/2013 Newswatch

you very much indeed. Time now for Newswatch with Samir

Ahmed and this week, immigration from Europe comes under the

spotlight. Welcome to Newswatch. On the

programme: come on, Andy! Why should news bulletins have to move because

of a tennis match? The Rolling Stones, the tents, the

wellies, but should BBC News had gone to Glastonbury? And has BBC

coverage of immigration from Europe demonstrated a liberal bias?

The biggest story of the week has been the crisis in Egypt, where huge

protests against the government led to President Morsi being ousted and

replaced but how should that litter call our people be described -- how

should the political upheaval be festivals are in full swing and so

is Murray-mania. Along with the latter comes the annual round of

complaints about the scheduling of Wimbledon, with Andy Murray's

quarterfinal comeback supplanting the local news bulletins and moving

Glastonbury, also gave rise to objections. Judging by this phone

call from Mike Morgan, he is not a fan. Why was it necessary in the

news programme to have repeated references for what passes for a

music festival, and to actually send a reporter and a camera team looking

at people jumping up and down in puddles and making inane comments?

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 46 seconds

This is not what I expect from the way the breadth of public opinion on

the thorny topic of immigration, the European Union and religion? That is

the question the BBC Trust set out to answer in a review published on

Wednesday. All these Eastern European 's are coming in. It was

the defining point of the last general election. Gordon Brown's

description of Gillian Duffy as that bigoted woman showed that the

political class did not get the strength of public feeling about

immigration. This week's -- Helen Boaden agrees, saying she found a

deep liberal bias in immigration coverage when she took up her post

in 2004. Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had been guilty of a

massive bias to the left. On Europe, some viewers have told us they still

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 46 seconds

Kingdom Independence party and the way the BBC reported it may suggest

that sceptical views on immigration and the EU are now taken more

seriously and a report from the BBC Trust praises the broad and

impressive range of opinions currently broadcast, but the talk of

bias still resonates with some he used to run ITV and two conducted

that assessment of impartiality in BBC output. -- and who conducted.

How has this liberal bias come about? I did not say there was a

liberal bias in the BBC, it was the BBC head of news. The BBC has a

tendency to follow the news agenda as driven by Westminster

politicians. Politicians have historically been reluctant to talk

about immigration and Europe. What I think the BBC has failed to do is to

use its own initiative to go out into the community where these

issues were being discussed and sometimes where mainstream

politicians are not reflecting views that are widely held in that

community they will be expressed through a naughty party. That is

what is happening with UKIP. None of the main parties were ready

representing their viewpoint held in some communities. UKIP has come

forward quite suddenly. Journalists generally have recognised that, in

many cases, late. And perhaps they have overcompensated. Some people

look at news organisations say in America where there is much stronger

opinion. There is also concerned that some of it is a lot of

shouting, it is aggressive, and it could be harmful to the public

discourse. I am not in favour of a lot of shouting and heat just for

the sake of it. A good entertaining news and current affairs programme

is mixture of heat and light and mostly light, but what I am trying

to say is it is an important service that the BBC can provide for our

democracy. For us to be able to hear and understand a wide range of

viewpoints, some of which we will not find palatable. Every time the

BBC does this, sections of the press and politicians say, outrageous,

terrible, to give the oxygen of publicity to this. But history tells

us we do end up speaking to these people but sometimes it takes ten

years. We would not broadcast the IRA in 1998. 20 years later, Martin

McGuinness is a deputy minister. I am interested that ordinary public

opinion is not being reflected in news coverage. To what extent should

the BBC be reflecting public opinion, including controversial

opinion, and how far is it just a duty to inform? An example is

climate change scepticism. You say we need to reflect dissent. That is

an interesting one. That is a long discussion. You keep on hearing

people say that climate change is a settled science. There is no such

thing. We are questioning the sensible 's of science the whole

time. It is not the job of the BBC to close down this debate. While

there are respectable arguments by people like the former Chancellor of

the exchequer Nigel Lawson, we should be hearing those voices.

there is the issue of the liberal bias, what should the BBC be doing

about it? Does bringing in someone from the Guardian reflect the

problem? What matters is what is on the air. A number of things can be

done to safeguard regularly on a routine. Things I suggested, things

like appointing somebody whose job it will be to be in overall charge

of that story and as part of their daily discipline to ask themselves,

what are the voices on this story that we should have heard that we

have not heard? Things like stand back moments. We get so involved in

the unfolding story, to stand back for a minute and say, are we asking

the questions that the public is asking? There are a number of things

like that that could really make a difference. Thank you. A particular

bugbear we are told about is the tendency of some reporters to wave

their hands about. One viewer identified what he saw

was a prime example on Monday's aware of the public backlash they

risk if they go ahead with this pay rise, there may be nothing they can

do about it precisely because MPs have chosen to hand decisions over

their pay to this independent body. Jim Lee accorded the robotic hand

your comments this week. If you want to share your opinions or even