:00:00. > :00:15.has been found in the Atlantic. Now it is time for News watch.
:00:16. > :00:26.This should private conversations remain private, even when they
:00:27. > :00:33.involve the heir to the throne? And are the Home Secretary's shoes more
:00:34. > :00:43.important than our politics? What exactly Prince Charles did or did
:00:44. > :00:48.not say to Nile Ferguson at the museum and Canada is not entirely
:00:49. > :00:52.clear, but his reported words were widely aired on BBC News on
:00:53. > :00:55.Wednesday, leaving some radio and TV bulletins. Royal controversy as
:00:56. > :00:58.Prince Charles appears to liken the behaviour of Vladimir Putin to some
:00:59. > :01:02.Nazi actions during the war. In his conversation over a cup of tea with
:01:03. > :01:06.Mrs Ferguson, Prince Charles evidently drew a comparison between
:01:07. > :01:11.what the Nazis did in Europe then, and what the Russians under Vladimir
:01:12. > :01:14.Putin are doing now in Ukraine. The precise words are disputed but the
:01:15. > :01:19.Daily Mail reporter who was present, that is her behind a
:01:20. > :01:24.pillar, close to the conversation said that the prince said in
:01:25. > :01:28.relation to Ukraine, now Vladimir Putin is doing just about the same
:01:29. > :01:37.as Hitler. The BBC put the front `` historian front page of the news
:01:38. > :01:40.website. By Thursday, a diplomatic storm was indeed growing. The
:01:41. > :01:45.Russian embassy described the words attributed to the Prince of Wales as
:01:46. > :01:48.outrageous, and the meeting was sort of the Foreign Office. Should the
:01:49. > :01:52.BBC have given such prominence in the first place to comments made in
:01:53. > :02:07.private? No, said Sally Melville, who e`mailed... BBC news sent us
:02:08. > :02:36.this statement. We are joined by another viewer who
:02:37. > :02:41.shared their views with us, Alison Porter, who is in our Glasgow
:02:42. > :02:45.studio. The BBC says that the future head of state making a comment like
:02:46. > :02:51.this whatever the circumstances is going to be a news story and they
:02:52. > :02:53.should report it. Well, I felt this was a private conversation between
:02:54. > :02:59.Mrs Ferguson and the Prince. I thought it wasn't truce of of the
:03:00. > :03:05.media and the press to go and how the lady after speaking to the
:03:06. > :03:09.Prince `` it was intrusive. And it was capital news all day, from the
:03:10. > :03:16.six o'clock start, right through every news bulletin. By the six
:03:17. > :03:24.o'clock evening news, you were incensed. Other journalists were
:03:25. > :03:28.there and said that they overheard a conversation. If the BBC had not
:03:29. > :03:34.reported it and everyone else did, would it not be failing in its duty?
:03:35. > :03:40.Sometimes the media and the press capitalise on small issues and small
:03:41. > :03:46.comments, whoever they are, especially the Royal Family, and
:03:47. > :03:56.they get prime`time plug`in, and I do not think that there is any need
:03:57. > :04:00.for it. `` plugging. I do not think that there needs to be as much
:04:01. > :04:05.reporting on what could have been just an individual comment by the
:04:06. > :04:12.Prince. And I think the Prince should have a chance to be able to
:04:13. > :04:17.convey his personal point of view. Alison Porter, thank you so much.
:04:18. > :04:24.Let's get another perspective from Stuart Purvis, who has worked as
:04:25. > :04:30.Chief Executive at ITN, and is now professor of TV journalism at city
:04:31. > :04:34.University, London. The BBC says the lead story was a the story because
:04:35. > :04:40.it was important. I noticed in that introduction on the news at one they
:04:41. > :04:49.used words like "appeared worse quotes, and "reportedly". Is that
:04:50. > :04:53.acceptable for a lead story? It is difficult when you are in the
:04:54. > :04:53.newsroom and you see another news organisation has got a story that
:04:54. > :05:12.you cannot If the Prince or himself and his
:05:13. > :05:16.staff had not denied it, sometimes you're waiting for a denial, and if
:05:17. > :05:22.it does not come, that is taken as confirmation. The fact that the
:05:23. > :05:26.soggy union was at war with Hitler for so long, present`day Russia are
:05:27. > :05:33.still obsessed about masses, so to use those words `` about Nazism, to
:05:34. > :05:39.use those words was going to cause a row, and for the BBC to ignore that
:05:40. > :05:42.would be a derogation of duty. The public interest defence is
:05:43. > :05:48.interesting because many viewers felt that it was private and that we
:05:49. > :05:51.were wrong to report it. The Ofcom broadcasting code applies to the
:05:52. > :05:59.BBC. It talks about the legitimate expectation of privacy. When a
:06:00. > :06:03.member of the Royal Family box into the room and sees reporters and
:06:04. > :06:05.speaks to the person they have never met before and one of the meet
:06:06. > :06:10.again, they know that the reporters will go to that person and say, what
:06:11. > :06:14.did he say to you? Is that a reasonable expectation of privacy? I
:06:15. > :06:20.doubt it. How do you view this incident and the like of experience
:06:21. > :06:24.working at ITN? I made a series of documentaries with the Prince and
:06:25. > :06:28.spent months on the road with him. It is typical to assume what is in
:06:29. > :06:32.his mind at these moments. Sometimes these remarks are quoted and he's
:06:33. > :06:35.upset, other times he is not terribly disappointed that they have
:06:36. > :06:39.got out and cause controversy because his point of view on
:06:40. > :06:42.something is in the public domain. Do not assume he's always annoyed
:06:43. > :06:50.when this happens because in my experience, sometimes, he is not.
:06:51. > :06:53.Say the Richard Scudamore private e`mails, the chief executive of the
:06:54. > :06:58.Premier League, controversial whether those should have been
:06:59. > :07:05.released. Is the public interest defence still a defence? My view on
:07:06. > :07:10.this is quite simple. If his personal assistant has his password
:07:11. > :07:14.to get into his account it is no longer private. It is one of its
:07:15. > :07:18.corporate accounts. And he cannot complain. He can complain that as
:07:19. > :07:22.his PA, she should not have passed it on, but she was doing her job and
:07:23. > :07:26.looking at these e`mails, because that is what somebody in the office
:07:27. > :07:30.asked her to do. It is not black and white what is public and what is
:07:31. > :07:33.private and what should stay reported and what not, but this
:07:34. > :07:38.public interest defence is the key issue. Can the media organisation
:07:39. > :07:45.reporting it justify the breach of privacy? Gordon Brown famously had a
:07:46. > :07:51.microphone still switched on when he was electioneering and he spoke
:07:52. > :07:54.about "that bigoted woman". Do you think that should have been
:07:55. > :07:59.broadcast? The moment he agreed to wear a microphone, the whole time,
:08:00. > :08:03.to helpful in, he should have realised that from that moment on,
:08:04. > :08:06.everything he said was public because every news organisation had
:08:07. > :08:11.access to that microphone. That is, frankly, his fault for not thinking
:08:12. > :08:20.through the implications of green to wear microphone, the whole time. ``
:08:21. > :08:24.of agreeing to wear a microphone. The TV news has been dominated by
:08:25. > :08:31.the European and local elections and we will look at coverage of those
:08:32. > :08:35.next week. This week we have received comments following Theresa
:08:36. > :08:41.May's hard`hitting address to the police Federation on Wednesday. The
:08:42. > :08:45.report on it on the BBC on Wednesday also attracted attention. She is a
:08:46. > :08:48.Home Secretary as famous for her shoes as she is for putting her foot
:08:49. > :08:52.down. She praised the police as the best in the world, then she pulled
:08:53. > :09:02.the rug from beneath them. Jane Martin from channels for the
:09:03. > :09:24.Hampshire said... `` from Chandlers Ford.
:09:25. > :09:30.Another viewer, Andrew Miller, spotted a similar sentiment in Nick
:09:31. > :09:50.Robinson's website article on the speech. He quoted the opening
:09:51. > :09:53.sentence. Nick Robinson later responded to similar complaints on
:09:54. > :10:00.Twitter by saying, point taken, lesson learned. There wasn't a break
:10:01. > :10:04.of swearing on BBC news this week. Conservative MP Nick Herbert used an
:10:05. > :10:11.expletive on a live discussion on the politics `` the daily politics
:10:12. > :10:13.show. And on Wednesday, Newsnight contain an interview with Jeremy
:10:14. > :10:20.Paxman with Sylvia Abella skinny where the soon to depart presenter
:10:21. > :10:24.use a similar world, that was bleeped on the following clip, but
:10:25. > :10:41.broadcast unexpurgated `` unexpurgated, on Wednesday night. Is
:10:42. > :10:52.it true that you called Angela Merkel a BLEEP! ? No, I never had
:10:53. > :11:02.any problem with Angela Merkel. One viewer treated about this... `` said
:11:03. > :11:05.on Twitter about this. If you want to share opinions about BBC News and
:11:06. > :11:23.current affairs or appear on the programme, you can contact us...
:11:24. > :11:30.You can look at discussions on topics you might previously have
:11:31. > :11:43.missed. We will be back next week. Goodbye. Good evening. The weather
:11:44. > :11:44.is not looking very user`friendly this