23/05/2014 Newswatch

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