:00:12. > :00:18.Hello, and welcome to Newswatch. Coming up, should private
:00:19. > :00:25.conversations remain private? Even when they involve the air to the
:00:26. > :00:32.throne. And, other Home Secretary's shoes more important than her
:00:33. > :00:41.politics? What exactly rinse Charles did or didn't say at a museum in
:00:42. > :00:49.Canada is not entirely clear, but his reported words were widely aired
:00:50. > :00:55.on BBC News online 's day. `` Wednesday. Controversy as Prince
:00:56. > :01:03.Charles seems to compare the actions of Vladimir Putin to Hitler. Prince
:01:04. > :01:09.Charles evidently drew a comparison to what the Nazi's did in Europe and
:01:10. > :01:15.what the Russians are doing now in Ukraine. The precise words are
:01:16. > :01:16.disputed, but a Daily Mail reporter, behind the pillar, claims
:01:17. > :01:32.the prince said: the BBC put the story on the front
:01:33. > :01:38.page, with a news analysis about why this would be controversial. On
:01:39. > :01:44.Thursday, a diplomatic storm was brewing but the Russian embassy
:01:45. > :01:49.describing the words attributed to the Prince of Wales as outrageous.
:01:50. > :01:50.Should the BBC have given such prominence to comments made in
:01:51. > :02:04.private. BBC News told us there was no one
:02:05. > :02:07.available to discuss this on the programme, but they did send us this
:02:08. > :02:34.statement. We are joined now by another viewer
:02:35. > :02:42.who shared her opinions with us, Alison Porter. Thank you for coming
:02:43. > :02:46.on News watch. The BBC says that a future head of state, making
:02:47. > :02:51.statements like this in whatever circumstances will be a story. I
:02:52. > :02:55.felt that this was private conversation between Mrs Ferguson
:02:56. > :02:59.and the prince, and I thought it was intrusive of the media and the press
:03:00. > :03:08.to go and how the lady after speaking to the Prince and I felt
:03:09. > :03:12.that it was really capital news all day from the 6am start right through
:03:13. > :03:16.every news bulletin and, unfortunately, by the 6pm evening
:03:17. > :03:22.news you are absolutely incensed. Other journalists were there, and at
:03:23. > :03:27.least one says that they overheard the conversation. If the BBC had not
:03:28. > :03:32.reported it, and everyone else did, would it not be failing in its duty?
:03:33. > :03:38.I do think that sometimes the media and the press really capitalise on
:03:39. > :03:44.small issues and small comments, especially the royal family, and
:03:45. > :03:50.they get prime`time plugging. I don't think there is any need for
:03:51. > :03:54.it, I really don't. Do you not think there is a public interest case for
:03:55. > :03:58.why this should be reported? I don't think there needs to be as much
:03:59. > :04:03.reporting on what could have been just an individual comment by the
:04:04. > :04:12.Prince. I think he should have a chance to convey his personal point
:04:13. > :04:21.of view. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's get another perspective
:04:22. > :04:30.on this from Stuart Purves, who is now a professor of television
:04:31. > :04:34.journalism. The BBC says, the lead story was a lead story because it is
:04:35. > :04:42.important. But, I noticed that they used words like he appeared to
:04:43. > :04:46.compare Putin to Nazis and reportedly said so. Is that
:04:47. > :04:51.acceptable? It is different sometimes when you are in a newsroom
:04:52. > :04:53.and you see another news organisation has a story that you
:04:54. > :04:59.can't confirm. I would guess that those words are put there to soften
:05:00. > :05:04.the attribution, in other words, the BBC is assuming it is correct but
:05:05. > :05:07.doesn't pin its colour to the flag and say we know it is correct. If
:05:08. > :05:12.there is a reasonable expectation of accuracy, and the Prince has not
:05:13. > :05:17.denied it, that is often what happens you are waiting for a
:05:18. > :05:21.denial, I think the fact that the Soviet Union was at war with Hitler
:05:22. > :05:27.for sale on and lost so many people, and present`day Russia is
:05:28. > :05:32.still obsessed about Nazism, to use those words either accidentally or
:05:33. > :05:35.deliberately, was inevitably going to cause problems. For people to
:05:36. > :05:44.ignore that would be a derogation of duty. People felt it was private and
:05:45. > :05:50.that it was wrong to reported. I understand that, it is complicated
:05:51. > :05:54.is private. Broadcasters talk about a legitimate expectation of
:05:55. > :05:58.property. In other words, when a member of the Royal family walks
:05:59. > :06:03.into a room and sees reporters there and speaks to a person he will never
:06:04. > :06:05.meet before all again, and they walk out knowing that the person will go
:06:06. > :06:10.immediately to them and ask what they said, it is the expectation of
:06:11. > :06:15.property. It is not like that in the real world. In your experience
:06:16. > :06:21.dealing with Prince Charles, how do you view this incident? I made a
:06:22. > :06:24.series of documentaries with the Prince and spent a long time on the
:06:25. > :06:31.road with him, and it is very difficult to assume what is in his
:06:32. > :06:34.mind at this moment. There are others where he is not terribly
:06:35. > :06:39.disappointed that statements have gotten out and caused controversy
:06:40. > :06:42.because his point of view is in the public domain. Don't assume that he
:06:43. > :06:46.is always annoyed when this happened because, in my experience, he is
:06:47. > :06:55.not. When you look at this in their wider context, for example, private
:06:56. > :07:01.e`mails from the chief executive, is there a different kind of defence?
:07:02. > :07:04.Is it all still public interest? His personal assistant went into his
:07:05. > :07:10.e`mail account and saw this information. If they had his
:07:11. > :07:15.password, it is no longer private. Is one of his corporate accounts and
:07:16. > :07:19.he can't really complain. He can complain that she shouldn't have
:07:20. > :07:23.passed it on, but she said she was doing her job by looking at his
:07:24. > :07:26.e`mail was that what somebody in the office asks her to do. That is one
:07:27. > :07:31.of the areas where it is not black and white as to what is private and
:07:32. > :07:39.what is public. Remember, public interest defence is the issue. If
:07:40. > :07:42.you look at someone like Gordon Brown who famously had the
:07:43. > :07:49.microphones you'll switched on when he was electioneering and he talked
:07:50. > :07:53.about a bigoted woman in the public, anything for the idea that that
:07:54. > :07:57.shouldn't have been broadcast? On that occasion, at the moment he
:07:58. > :08:01.agreed to wear the whole time to help the filming, he should have
:08:02. > :08:04.realised that from that moment on, everything he said was public,
:08:05. > :08:09.because every news organisation had access to that microphone. That is
:08:10. > :08:10.his fault for not thinking through the implications of the microphone.
:08:11. > :08:22.Thank you very much. The latter part of this week's
:08:23. > :08:25.television news has been dominated by the European and local elections,
:08:26. > :08:30.and we will look at the coverage of that next week. Elsewhere, we
:08:31. > :08:35.received some comments following to reason may's hard`hitting address.
:08:36. > :08:41.The report on it for the BBC News at six also proved controversial. She
:08:42. > :08:46.is a Home Secretary famous for her shoes. She began by praising the
:08:47. > :08:52.police as the bravest, the best in the world. Then she pulled the rug
:08:53. > :09:22.from beneath them. The response of Jane Martin:
:09:23. > :09:25.another viewer spotted what he thought was a similar sentiment in
:09:26. > :09:52.the Robinson's article. He quotes: Nick Robinson later responded to
:09:53. > :09:57.similar complaints on Twitter, saying, point taken, lesson learned.
:09:58. > :10:04.Finally, there was an outbreak of swearing on BBC News this week. On
:10:05. > :10:11.Thursday, an expletive was used in a live discussion on the politics
:10:12. > :10:15.show. The BBC apologise for that. There was an incident with Jeremy
:10:16. > :10:25.Paxman where a similar word was used, beeped as follows, but
:10:26. > :10:38.broadcast on Newsnight. Do you have a problem with Angela Merkel? Is it
:10:39. > :10:43.true you called her a BLEEP? TRANSLATION: No, I have never had
:10:44. > :10:45.any problems with Angela Merkel. On Twitter, the responses were
:10:46. > :11:08.positive. One person wrote: thank you for your comments. If you
:11:09. > :11:23.want to appear on the programme, call us or e`mail us.
:11:24. > :11:36.That's all from us, we will be back to hear your thoughts about BBC News
:11:37. > :11:38.coverage again next week. Or `` goodbye.