24/05/2014 Newswatch

Hello, and welcome to Newswatch. Coming up, should private

conversations remain private? Even when they involve the air to the

throne. And, other Home Secretary's shoes more important than her

politics? What exactly rinse Charles did or didn't say at a museum in

Canada is not entirely clear, but his reported words were widely aired

on BBC News online 's day. `` Wednesday. Controversy as Prince

Charles seems to compare the actions of Vladimir Putin to Hitler. Prince

Charles evidently drew a comparison to what the Nazi's did in Europe and

what the Russians are doing now in Ukraine. The precise words are

disputed, but a Daily Mail reporter, behind the pillar, claims

the prince said: the BBC put the story on the front

page, with a news analysis about why this would be controversial. On

Thursday, a diplomatic storm was brewing but the Russian embassy

describing the words attributed to the Prince of Wales as outrageous.

Should the BBC have given such prominence to comments made in

private. BBC News told us there was no one

available to discuss this on the programme, but they did send us this

statement. We are joined now by another viewer

who shared her opinions with us, Alison Porter. Thank you for coming

on News watch. The BBC says that a future head of state, making

statements like this in whatever circumstances will be a story. I

felt that this was private conversation between Mrs Ferguson

and the prince, and I thought it was intrusive of the media and the press

to go and how the lady after speaking to the Prince and I felt

that it was really capital news all day from the 6am start right through

every news bulletin and, unfortunately, by the 6pm evening

news you are absolutely incensed. Other journalists were there, and at

least one says that they overheard the conversation. If the BBC had not

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

I do think that sometimes the media and the press really capitalise on

small issues and small comments, especially the royal family, and

they get prime`time plugging. I don't think there is any need for

it, I really don't. Do you not think there is a public interest case for

why this should be reported? I don't think there needs to be as much

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

Prince. I think he should have a chance to convey his personal point

of view. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's get another perspective

on this from Stuart Purves, who is now a professor of television

journalism. The BBC says, the lead story was a lead story because it is

important. But, I noticed that they used words like he appeared to

compare Putin to Nazis and reportedly said so. Is that

acceptable? It is different sometimes when you are in a newsroom

and you see another news organisation has a story that you

can't confirm. I would guess that those words are put there to soften

the attribution, in other words, the BBC is assuming it is correct but

doesn't pin its colour to the flag and say we know it is correct. If

there is a reasonable expectation of accuracy, and the Prince has not

denied it, that is often what happens you are waiting for a

denial, I think the fact that the Soviet Union was at war with Hitler

for sale on and lost so many people, and present`day Russia is

still obsessed about Nazism, to use those words either accidentally or

deliberately, was inevitably going to cause problems. For people to

ignore that would be a derogation of duty. People felt it was private and

that it was wrong to reported. I understand that, it is complicated

is private. Broadcasters talk about a legitimate expectation of

property. In other words, when a member of the Royal family walks

into a room and sees reporters there and speaks to a person he will never

meet before all again, and they walk out knowing that the person will go

immediately to them and ask what they said, it is the expectation of

property. It is not like that in the real world. In your experience

dealing with Prince Charles, how do you view this incident? I made a

series of documentaries with the Prince and spent a long time on the

road with him, and it is very difficult to assume what is in his

mind at this moment. There are others where he is not terribly

disappointed that statements have gotten out and caused controversy

because his point of view is in the public domain. Don't assume that he

is always annoyed when this happened because, in my experience, he is

not. When you look at this in their wider context, for example, private

e`mails from the chief executive, is there a different kind of defence?

Is it all still public interest? His personal assistant went into his

e`mail account and saw this information. If they had his

password, it is no longer private. Is one of his corporate accounts and

he can't really complain. He can complain that she shouldn't have

passed it on, but she said she was doing her job by looking at his

e`mail was that what somebody in the office asks her to do. That is one

of the areas where it is not black and white as to what is private and

what is public. Remember, public interest defence is the issue. If

you look at someone like Gordon Brown who famously had the

microphones you'll switched on when he was electioneering and he talked

about a bigoted woman in the public, anything for the idea that that

shouldn't have been broadcast? On that occasion, at the moment he

agreed to wear the whole time to help the filming, 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

his fault for not thinking through the implications of the microphone.

Thank you very much. The latter part of this week's

television news has been dominated by the European and local elections,

and we will look at the coverage of that next week. Elsewhere, we

received some comments following to reason may's hard`hitting address.

The report on it for the BBC News at six also proved controversial. She

is a Home Secretary famous for her shoes. She began by praising the

police as the bravest, the best in the world. Then she pulled the rug

from beneath them. The response of Jane Martin:

another viewer spotted what he thought was a similar sentiment in

the Robinson's article. He quotes: Nick Robinson later responded to

similar complaints on Twitter, saying, point taken, lesson learned.

Finally, there was an outbreak of swearing on BBC News this week. On

Thursday, an expletive was used in a live discussion on the politics

show. The BBC apologise for that. There was an incident with Jeremy

Paxman where a similar word was used, beeped as follows, but

broadcast on Newsnight. Do you have a problem with Angela Merkel? Is it

true you called her a BLEEP? TRANSLATION: No, I have never had

any problems with Angela Merkel. On Twitter, the responses were

positive. One person wrote: thank you for your comments. If you

want to appear on the programme, call us or e`mail us.

That's all from us, we will be back to hear your thoughts about BBC News

coverage again next week. Or `` goodbye.