:00:00. > :00:10.It is News watch with Samira Ahmed, and the art of the television news
:00:11. > :00:14.obituary. Hello and welcome to News watch with
:00:15. > :00:18.me, Samira Ahmed. An actor dies of a drugs overdose, how much news
:00:19. > :00:26.coverage does that warrant and her respectful fit the tone of victories
:00:27. > :00:32.the -- how respectful. Should the tone of obituaries. Viewers ask, do
:00:33. > :00:37.BBC staff need to be in the eye of the storm? And fake or fortune, why
:00:38. > :00:45.viewers of that BBC One programme knew the answer to the question
:00:46. > :00:48.before they had even watched it. News of the death of the actor,
:00:49. > :00:54.Philip Seymour Hoffman, broke early on Sunday evening. It led the BBC
:00:55. > :01:05.bulletin with a report from Nick Bryant in New York. Celebrated in
:01:06. > :01:07.Hollywood, the life of Philip Seymour Hoffman ended in the
:01:08. > :01:12.seclusion of his New York apartment, where he died following an apparent
:01:13. > :01:17.drug overdose. His body was reportedly discovered with a needle
:01:18. > :01:23.in his arm. What is believed to be heroin was also found at the scene.
:01:24. > :02:00.Not everyone approved of the coverage.
:02:01. > :02:19.We asked BBC News for a response to those complaints and were told...
:02:20. > :02:26.When reporting the death of public figures, we do take into account how
:02:27. > :02:28.they will be received among our audience. On Sunday night we also
:02:29. > :02:39.reported a number of other stories. This is not the first time the
:02:40. > :02:43.reporting of a death has provoked controversy among viewers about the
:02:44. > :02:50.amount of attention and the tone of obituaries. Two stories which
:02:51. > :02:56.resulted in some of the biggest complaint of recent years were the
:02:57. > :03:00.death of Michael Jackson in 2009 and of Amy Winehouse in 2011. Both
:03:01. > :03:05.resulted in widespread outpouring of grief. The controversy surrounding
:03:06. > :03:09.the death led to accusations of excessive focus on celebrities and
:03:10. > :03:14.overly sympathetic reporting. Political depth, such as that of
:03:15. > :03:20.Baroness Thatcher last year drew equally divided responses. Thousands
:03:21. > :03:25.complained about the blanket coverage of Nelson Mandela. There
:03:26. > :03:30.were complaints about the tone of the obituary of Ronnie Biggs and
:03:31. > :03:35.that of Lord McAlpine in January. Should one speak ill of the dead or
:03:36. > :03:44.should one always be respectful in obituaries? Joining me to discuss
:03:45. > :03:49.all those issues is Nick Higham. He has looked back on the lives of many
:03:50. > :03:53.figures in the news. Thank you for coming on the programme. Let's start
:03:54. > :03:56.with Philip Seymour Hoffman. It was interesting that the number of
:03:57. > :04:00.viewers felt the coverage was too prominent and he did not warrant
:04:01. > :04:06.that much attention. What did you make of that view? He led the
:04:07. > :04:09.bulletin at 10pm on Sunday evening. That was largely because there were
:04:10. > :04:14.other stories but they were not as strong. I think you need to
:04:15. > :04:22.distinguish between conventional obituaries, when somebody dies at a
:04:23. > :04:25.great age are to a long and valuable life, and we look back and celebrate
:04:26. > :04:31.that life and those people who die in other circumstances. That makes
:04:32. > :04:39.them news stories. The treatment of the Philip Seymour Hoffman story was
:04:40. > :04:43.much more of a news story than an obituary. There were complaints
:04:44. > :04:51.there was an outhouse bias. Many might not have seen his bills and he
:04:52. > :04:56.was not a very famous actor. -- his films. They say that scientists do
:04:57. > :05:04.not get proper obituaries but actors do. Actors, appearing on television,
:05:05. > :05:08.screen and films, there is a lot of material about them. Scientists
:05:09. > :05:12.often do not make television programmes. They work away from the
:05:13. > :05:20.public eye so it is much more difficult to craft an obituary about
:05:21. > :05:24.them. I did an obituary the other day of Christopher chat away. He was
:05:25. > :05:29.a middle distance runner in the 1950s. He was a world record holder
:05:30. > :05:34.who ran with Roger Bannister when he broke the four-minute mile. He was a
:05:35. > :05:36.pioneering television reporter. He was a Conservative MP and the
:05:37. > :05:43.minister who produced commercial television. Many came up to me who
:05:44. > :05:51.had not heard of him and said, Goss, wasn't he interesting! There is a
:05:52. > :05:58.sense there is an implicit danger of glorifying a celebrity drug abuse
:05:59. > :06:03.death. I understand why people say that. To shy away from the cause of
:06:04. > :06:10.death would be dishonest. You have to say he died in the prime of
:06:11. > :06:13.life. Why? He was a drug user. Where someone has been controversial and
:06:14. > :06:16.private lives have been difficult, where they have done things which
:06:17. > :06:24.are perhaps reprehensible, it would be wrong of us to shy away from that
:06:25. > :06:29.and not to talk about it. The BBC does prepare profiles in advance. As
:06:30. > :06:37.someone who has done it a lot, how does it work? How tricky is it
:06:38. > :06:43.preparing films about people who are still with us? There are many people
:06:44. > :06:47.about whom we would want to run obituaries. You are looking for good
:06:48. > :06:52.pictures and someone who has lived an interesting and significant
:06:53. > :06:56.life. They have had a significant impact. It helps but is not
:06:57. > :07:01.essential that people recognise them and know them. If there is some
:07:02. > :07:07.element of controversy, you want to reflect that. You must not shy away
:07:08. > :07:12.from bad news. My biggest failure many years ago in obituaries was
:07:13. > :07:16.when Robert Maxwell died. We ran an obituary, because we were not
:07:17. > :07:23.certain he was dead at the time. We were always afraid he might come
:07:24. > :07:30.back and sue us for libel if he were not dead. I knew he was a crook but
:07:31. > :07:39.I think we short-changed our viewers. Thank you so much. You can
:07:40. > :07:42.let us know your thoughts on TV obituaries by phone, e-mail or
:07:43. > :07:47.Twitter. Details coming up later. First, some of the topics which have
:07:48. > :07:51.caught your attention this week, starting with the attention given to
:07:52. > :08:16.the trip of Prince Charles to the flood hit Somerset Levels.
:08:17. > :08:23.This week 's floods also prompted comments with or familiar ring.
:08:24. > :08:28.There were concerns that BBC staff might be endangering themselves and
:08:29. > :08:31.setting a bad example to others in the wet and windy locations from
:08:32. > :08:40.where they were reporting. We were told that BBC staff or undergo
:08:41. > :08:45.safety training. Now complaints have resurfaced, following reports this
:08:46. > :08:50.week, such as these. People are offering each other places to stay.
:08:51. > :08:54.Cattle are being taken to auction. You get the sense that the time is
:08:55. > :08:59.up and the water is encroaching that bit further up all the time. It has
:09:00. > :09:06.really taken a turn for the worse. Their ways are starting to come over
:09:07. > :09:14.the wall. It is very damp and windy. -- be waves. It has been a ferocious
:09:15. > :09:19.night. Have you done enough to protect communities like this? Very
:09:20. > :09:24.much so. I think we will leave it there because it is starting to
:09:25. > :09:27.become unsafe. We are going to move. There is one message from the
:09:28. > :09:29.Environment Agency to be ballooning in these areas, do not come down and
:09:30. > :10:11.take a look. Finally, the strange Case of the
:10:12. > :10:18.businessman who paid ?100,000 for a work of art by the artist Marc
:10:19. > :10:22.Chagall. The discovery was made on BBC One programme shown on Sunday
:10:23. > :10:25.evening. Before that, BBC Television, radio and online news
:10:26. > :10:31.had already carried the story that it was indeed a forgery, thus
:10:32. > :11:05.upsetting 150 or so viewers who contacted us.
:11:06. > :11:16.Thanks to those who got in touch this week. You can telephone us, or
:11:17. > :11:23.e-mail. You may feature your message or even invite you to appear on the
:11:24. > :11:30.programme. You can search the topics we have previously covered on the
:11:31. > :11:32.website. That is all from us. We will back to hear your thoughts
:11:33. > :11:39.about BBC News coverage again next week. Goodbye.
:11:40. > :11:48.Hello. The coast will be a dangerous place to be again over the next
:11:49. > :11:51.couple of days. More storms heading in from the Atlantic with the