:00:00. > :00:00.headlines are coming up in the BBC News at nine, but now it is time for
:00:00. > :00:10.Newswatch. This week Samira Ahmed focuses on the BBC News website.
:00:11. > :00:19.Welcome to Newswatch. Coming up: After the European Union ruled there
:00:20. > :00:24.was a right to be forgotten, Google removed links to some online news
:00:25. > :00:29.articles including BBC news pieces. What should the BBC be doing about
:00:30. > :00:34.it? And should the BBC ever remove its own news stories? I will ask the
:00:35. > :00:35.head of BBC News online about how they handle direct requests from
:00:36. > :00:45.individuals every week. If you have felt your reputation
:00:46. > :00:49.could be ruined by an article posted on a website, you might fight hard
:00:50. > :00:53.to try to ensure no one reads it, but would such an attempt ever be
:00:54. > :00:57.justified or is this just censorship? Google waded into this
:00:58. > :01:02.debate last week by removing links to some news articles after requests
:01:03. > :01:05.made under the European Union's right to be forgotten ruling. One
:01:06. > :01:10.was a blog post written by Robert pest in seven years ago about the
:01:11. > :01:15.American bank Merrill Lynch. The BBC economics editor himself takes up
:01:16. > :01:20.the story. Somebody complained that this
:01:21. > :01:25.article was in some sense not appropriate, irrelevant... Damaging
:01:26. > :01:29.to them, and they asked Google to make it much harder to be `` for
:01:30. > :01:33.people to find it and Google said yes. I found this quite shocking.
:01:34. > :01:37.Google has since restored links to some articles, though not that one
:01:38. > :01:42.by Robert Heston. It can still be read but cannot be found by a Google
:01:43. > :01:47.search. But this issue affects the BBC in another way. It's News
:01:48. > :01:49.website also receives an increasing number of director quests from
:01:50. > :01:53.individuals to remove articles permanently from the online archive,
:01:54. > :02:04.so how does it deal with these requests? To discuss this I am
:02:05. > :02:06.joined by the editor of BBC News online Steve Herrmann. I understand
:02:07. > :02:08.you get these requests weekly to take stories down. What are the
:02:09. > :02:11.reasons people give for these requests? The reasons people ask
:02:12. > :02:15.there is hugely. I won't go into individual specific cases, but
:02:16. > :02:18.things like people saying, I was involved in something some years ago
:02:19. > :02:24.which I now find embarrassing and I would rather it wasn't there, to
:02:25. > :02:28.something coming up when people Google my name and I am looking for
:02:29. > :02:32.a job and I am worried it might affect my job prospects, all the way
:02:33. > :02:37.through to, something where somebody was involved in court proceedings
:02:38. > :02:44.and they want to ensure that the record is clear, that they were
:02:45. > :02:48.cleared, or things where something quite traumatic happened to them and
:02:49. > :02:52.they don't want the full detail of the news reports at the time to be
:02:53. > :02:56.something people can look for and read or watch. Do you ever comply
:02:57. > :03:00.with these requests? Many viewers will be concerned at the very idea
:03:01. > :03:04.that the BBC might consider taking down in article just because someone
:03:05. > :03:08.doesn't want anybody to see it. We have always taken a very careful
:03:09. > :03:13.look at every one of those requests and we only agree to them in
:03:14. > :03:17.exceptional circumstances. So the kinds of criteria we use, the chief
:03:18. > :03:20.one really is balancing the harm to the individual against the harm to
:03:21. > :03:23.the public interest in having a the public interest in having a
:03:24. > :03:31.permanent record, and archive, of all the news events, in the same way
:03:32. > :03:34.library might have a record in the newspaper, the physical newspaper
:03:35. > :03:38.archive, so balancing those two things. But we also considered for
:03:39. > :03:42.example, whether the story was a matter of public record anyway,
:03:43. > :03:46.because it happened in open court, or whether it is so widely available
:03:47. > :03:50.on the Internet anyway that is removing it is neither here nor
:03:51. > :03:54.there. So we do consider each request carefully and only agree in
:03:55. > :03:58.exceptional circumstances. We share the concern of viewers and readers
:03:59. > :04:03.about preserving the integrity of our archive. There are couple of
:04:04. > :04:07.other issues about the BBC News website which viewers have been
:04:08. > :04:12.raising. One is from Hillary Melrose from doorstep. Concerned she has
:04:13. > :04:44.about a feature on the website front page. She e`mailed us this.
:04:45. > :04:50.That is one of a number of complaints along those lines that we
:04:51. > :04:54.have had. This week there was a popular story that was seven years
:04:55. > :04:59.old. Why does that happen? The reason some stories resurface can
:05:00. > :05:03.vary but it can be as simple as a website that has a big following,
:05:04. > :05:07.big traffic somewhere in the world, links back to one of our stories in
:05:08. > :05:10.some context, because they are retelling a similar story for
:05:11. > :05:20.whatever reason, so people come to the story for that reason, or it
:05:21. > :05:22.could be that it has been shared by someone with a big following on a
:05:23. > :05:24.social network. There are many reasons these stories resurface, and
:05:25. > :05:27.once they do they sometimes stay there for a while as other people
:05:28. > :05:30.come to them. You get this effect from time to time and Disraeli
:05:31. > :05:34.because the module does what it says on the tin, which is the most read
:05:35. > :05:38.and most watched at any given moment. This can be confusing for
:05:39. > :05:41.viewers, can't it, because you see something you think has just
:05:42. > :05:45.happened and it hasn't. What can you do about it? We are working on
:05:46. > :05:48.trying to make it clear when we are showing an old story, so just to be
:05:49. > :05:58.clear, when you get to the story, once you land on the story and are
:05:59. > :06:01.reading it it is clear at the top of the page that it is an old story.
:06:02. > :06:04.There is a date stamp on every story, but we want to make it
:06:05. > :06:07.clearer even before you click on the story that if you click on this
:06:08. > :06:09.headline it would be an old story. We are experimenting with a format
:06:10. > :06:12.that says something like, this story is more than a month old or more
:06:13. > :06:14.than three months old. The technicalities of implement in that
:06:15. > :06:17.are still being worked through, so you may have seen notices to that
:06:18. > :06:20.effect on some stories in the last week or so. They are not there all
:06:21. > :06:26.the time because we are still working on the fix at the moment.
:06:27. > :06:29.Another objection we get a lot from website users, some people want to
:06:30. > :06:32.comment on a story but not every article have that option. This is
:06:33. > :06:45.what Joshua e`mailed us. Rebecca from Swansea agreed, asking
:06:46. > :06:59.this week: You give readers the facility to
:07:00. > :07:04.comment on some stories but not others. Why not just on all of
:07:05. > :07:08.them? When we decide which stories to put comments on, we look for
:07:09. > :07:14.those key stories of the day, usually among the top stories, which
:07:15. > :07:17.are likely to attract a degree of debate, opinion, discussion and
:07:18. > :07:21.likely to engage audiences, stories where people have strong opinions
:07:22. > :07:25.they want to express and have a debate about. We are selective about
:07:26. > :07:30.it and try to choose those stories where we will have the best quality
:07:31. > :07:34.of debate. We don't put them on every story. On some stories there
:07:35. > :07:38.are legal considerations, but also more broadly we do moderate our
:07:39. > :07:42.comments and we have a lot of stories every day that we publish,
:07:43. > :07:47.and many users come to the website and say there is an issue of scale
:07:48. > :07:51.as well that we must be mindful of when we think about which stories
:07:52. > :07:55.have comments. Thank you very much, Steve Herrmann. You can find more
:07:56. > :08:00.information about the BBC's policy on removing online content and a
:08:01. > :08:07.host of other matters at our website. The addresses the screen.
:08:08. > :08:12.`` on the screen. Letters know your thoughts on the BBC News website or
:08:13. > :08:16.any aspect of BBC News. Details of how to contact us at the end of the
:08:17. > :08:20.programme. Now for some of your other concerns this week starting
:08:21. > :08:23.with the allegations swirling around Westminster of paedophilia made
:08:24. > :08:26.against senior politicians and other establishment figures, outlined in
:08:27. > :08:31.documents passed to the then Home Secretary in the 1980s and now
:08:32. > :08:35.lost. A very serious and complex story and one which Suzanne Lawrence
:08:36. > :09:09.felt was not being reported well. She e`mailed us to say:
:09:10. > :09:14.The football World Cup is almost over and Wimbledon has finished for
:09:15. > :09:18.another year, but the coverage of sports News continues to attract
:09:19. > :09:22.attention. On last week 's programme we showed two screenshots from the
:09:23. > :09:26.BBC sport website sent to us by a viewer who wondered if the BBC
:09:27. > :09:31.described Andy Murray as British when he wins and Scottish when he
:09:32. > :09:35.loses. BBC sport online have since been in touch with us denying that
:09:36. > :09:39.suggestion and pointing out that the tennis player was referred to as
:09:40. > :09:49.both British and Scottish at different points in both articles
:09:50. > :09:52.quoted, one about his defeat at Wimbledon and one about an early
:09:53. > :09:55.victory. They are but they try to use both terms about Andy Murray in
:09:56. > :09:57.all their pieces about him, win or lose. Losing has been the talk of
:09:58. > :10:01.Brazil this week it seems following the national football team 's
:10:02. > :10:05.disastrous 7`1 defeat by Germany in Tuesday 's World Cup semifinal. But
:10:06. > :10:30.how much of a calamity was this really? Here is Richard Batty.
:10:31. > :10:37.At least us the World Cup draws to a close we may see a lull in the
:10:38. > :10:40.numerous complaints we have received about sport dominating news
:10:41. > :10:41.bulletins. Bob streets summed up that view with this helpful
:10:42. > :11:05.suggestion. That is all from us. Thanks for all
:11:06. > :11:09.your comments this week. If you want to share your opinions on BBC News
:11:10. > :11:19.and current affairs or even appear on the programme, call us or e`mail
:11:20. > :11:25.us. You can find us on Twitter, and do have a look at our website.
:11:26. > :11:29.That's all from us. We will be back to hear your thoughts about BBC News
:11:30. > :11:41.coverage again next week. Goodbye. Good evening. We have had some
:11:42. > :11:45.decent weather again across the country today. Sunshine sending
:11:46. > :11:46.temperatures up into the mid`20s Celsius, but