23/05/2014 Newswatch


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



has been found in the Atlantic. Now it is time for News watch.


This should private conversations remain private, even when they


involve the heir to the throne? And are the Home Secretary's shoes more


important than our politics? What exactly Prince Charles did or did


not say to Nile Ferguson at the museum and Canada is not entirely


clear, but his reported words were widely aired on BBC News on


Wednesday, leaving some radio and TV bulletins. Royal controversy as


Prince Charles appears to liken the behaviour of Vladimir Putin to some


Nazi actions during the war. In his conversation over a cup of tea with


Mrs Ferguson, Prince Charles evidently drew a comparison between


what the Nazis did in Europe then, and what the Russians under Vladimir


Putin are doing now in Ukraine. The precise words are disputed but the


Daily Mail reporter who was present, that is her behind a


pillar, close to the conversation said that the prince said in


relation to Ukraine, now Vladimir Putin is doing just about the same


as Hitler. The BBC put the front `` historian front page of the news


website. By Thursday, a diplomatic storm was indeed growing. The


Russian embassy described the words attributed to the Prince of Wales as


outrageous, and the meeting was sort of the Foreign Office. Should the


BBC have given such prominence in the first place to comments made in


private? No, said Sally Melville, who e`mailed... BBC news sent us


this statement. We are joined by another viewer who


shared their views with us, Alison Porter, who is in our Glasgow


studio. The BBC says that the future head of state making a comment like


this whatever the circumstances is going to be a news story and they


should report it. Well, I felt this was a private conversation between


Mrs Ferguson and the Prince. I thought it wasn't truce of of the


media and the press to go and how the lady after speaking to the


Prince `` it was intrusive. And it was capital news all day, from the


six o'clock start, right through every news bulletin. By the six


o'clock evening news, you were incensed. Other journalists were


there and said that they overheard a conversation. If the BBC had not


reported it and everyone else did, would it not be failing in its duty?


Sometimes the media and the press capitalise on small issues and small


comments, whoever they are, especially the Royal Family, and


they get prime`time plug`in, and I do not think that there is any need


for it. `` plugging. I do not think that there needs to be as much


reporting on what could have been just an individual comment by the


Prince. And I think the Prince should have a chance to be able to


convey his personal point of view. Alison Porter, thank you so much.


Let's get another perspective from Stuart Purvis, who has worked as


Chief Executive at ITN, and is now professor of TV journalism at city


University, London. The BBC says the lead story was a the story because


it was important. I noticed in that introduction on the news at one they


used words like "appeared worse quotes, and "reportedly". Is that


acceptable for a lead story? It is difficult when you are in the


newsroom and you see another news organisation has got a story that


you cannot If the Prince or himself and his


staff had not denied it, sometimes you're waiting for a denial, and if


it does not come, that is taken as confirmation. The fact that the


soggy union was at war with Hitler for so long, present`day Russia are


still obsessed about masses, so to use those words `` about Nazism, to


use those words was going to cause a row, and for the BBC to ignore that


would be a derogation of duty. The public interest defence is


interesting because many viewers felt that it was private and that we


were wrong to report it. The Ofcom broadcasting code applies to the


BBC. It talks about the legitimate expectation of privacy. When a


member of the Royal Family box into the room and sees reporters and


speaks to the person they have never met before and one of the meet


again, they know that the reporters will go to that person and say, what


did he say to you? Is that a reasonable expectation of privacy? I


doubt it. How do you view this incident and the like of experience


working at ITN? I made a series of documentaries with the Prince and


spent months on the road with him. It is typical to assume what is in


his mind at these moments. Sometimes these remarks are quoted and he's


upset, other times he is not terribly disappointed that they have


got out and cause controversy because his point of view on


something is in the public domain. Do not assume he's always annoyed


when this happens because in my experience, sometimes, he is not.


Say the Richard Scudamore private e`mails, the chief executive of the


Premier League, controversial whether those should have been


released. Is the public interest defence still a defence? My view on


this is quite simple. If his personal assistant has his password


to get into his account it is no longer private. It is one of its


corporate accounts. And he cannot complain. He can complain that as


his PA, she should not have passed it on, but she was doing her job and


looking at these e`mails, because that is what somebody in the office


asked her to do. It is not black and white what is public and what is


private and what should stay reported and what not, but this


public interest defence is the key issue. Can the media organisation


reporting it justify the breach of privacy? Gordon Brown famously had a


microphone still switched on when he was electioneering and he spoke


about "that bigoted woman". Do you think that should have been


broadcast? The moment he agreed to wear a microphone, the whole time,


to helpful in, he should have realised that from that moment on,


everything he said was public because every news organisation had


access to that microphone. That is, frankly, his fault for not thinking


through the implications of green to wear microphone, the whole time. ``


of agreeing to wear a microphone. The TV news has been dominated by


the European and local elections and we will look at coverage of those


next week. This week we have received comments following Theresa


May's hard`hitting address to the police Federation on Wednesday. The


report on it on the BBC on Wednesday also attracted attention. She is a


Home Secretary as famous for her shoes as she is for putting her foot


down. She praised the police as the best in the world, then she pulled


the rug from beneath them. Jane Martin from channels for the


Hampshire said... `` from Chandlers Ford.


Another viewer, Andrew Miller, spotted a similar sentiment in Nick


Robinson's website article on the speech. He quoted the opening


sentence. Nick Robinson later responded to similar complaints on


Twitter by saying, point taken, lesson learned. There wasn't a break


of swearing on BBC news this week. Conservative MP Nick Herbert used an


expletive on a live discussion on the politics `` the daily politics


show. And on Wednesday, Newsnight contain an interview with Jeremy


Paxman with Sylvia Abella skinny where the soon to depart presenter


use a similar world, that was bleeped on the following clip, but


broadcast unexpurgated `` unexpurgated, on Wednesday night. Is


it true that you called Angela Merkel a BLEEP! ? No, I never had


any problem with Angela Merkel. One viewer treated about this... `` said


on Twitter about this. If you want to share opinions about BBC News and


current affairs or appear on the programme, you can contact us...


You can look at discussions on topics you might previously have


missed. We will be back next week. Goodbye. Good evening. The weather


is not looking very user`friendly this


Download Subtitles