11/07/2014 Newswatch


11/07/2014

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

headlines are coming up in the BBC News at nine, but now it is time for

:00:00.:00:00.

Newswatch. This week Samira Ahmed focuses on the BBC News website.

:00:00.:00:10.

Welcome to Newswatch. Coming up: After the European Union ruled there

:00:11.:00:19.

was a right to be forgotten, Google removed links to some online news

:00:20.:00:24.

articles including BBC news pieces. What should the BBC be doing about

:00:25.:00:29.

it? And should the BBC ever remove its own news stories? I will ask the

:00:30.:00:34.

head of BBC News online about how they handle direct requests from

:00:35.:00:35.

individuals every week. If you have felt your reputation

:00:36.:00:45.

could be ruined by an article posted on a website, you might fight hard

:00:46.:00:49.

to try to ensure no one reads it, but would such an attempt ever be

:00:50.:00:53.

justified or is this just censorship? Google waded into this

:00:54.:00:57.

debate last week by removing links to some news articles after requests

:00:58.:01:02.

made under the European Union's right to be forgotten ruling. One

:01:03.:01:05.

was a blog post written by Robert pest in seven years ago about the

:01:06.:01:10.

American bank Merrill Lynch. The BBC economics editor himself takes up

:01:11.:01:15.

the story. Somebody complained that this

:01:16.:01:20.

article was in some sense not appropriate, irrelevant... Damaging

:01:21.:01:25.

to them, and they asked Google to make it much harder to be `` for

:01:26.:01:29.

people to find it and Google said yes. I found this quite shocking.

:01:30.:01:33.

Google has since restored links to some articles, though not that one

:01:34.:01:37.

by Robert Heston. It can still be read but cannot be found by a Google

:01:38.:01:42.

search. But this issue affects the BBC in another way. It's News

:01:43.:01:47.

website also receives an increasing number of director quests from

:01:48.:01:49.

individuals to remove articles permanently from the online archive,

:01:50.:01:53.

so how does it deal with these requests? To discuss this I am

:01:54.:02:04.

joined by the editor of BBC News online Steve Herrmann. I understand

:02:05.:02:06.

you get these requests weekly to take stories down. What are the

:02:07.:02:08.

reasons people give for these requests? The reasons people ask

:02:09.:02:11.

there is hugely. I won't go into individual specific cases, but

:02:12.:02:15.

things like people saying, I was involved in something some years ago

:02:16.:02:18.

which I now find embarrassing and I would rather it wasn't there, to

:02:19.:02:24.

something coming up when people Google my name and I am looking for

:02:25.:02:28.

a job and I am worried it might affect my job prospects, all the way

:02:29.:02:32.

through to, something where somebody was involved in court proceedings

:02:33.:02:37.

and they want to ensure that the record is clear, that they were

:02:38.:02:44.

cleared, or things where something quite traumatic happened to them and

:02:45.:02:48.

they don't want the full detail of the news reports at the time to be

:02:49.:02:52.

something people can look for and read or watch. Do you ever comply

:02:53.:02:56.

with these requests? Many viewers will be concerned at the very idea

:02:57.:03:00.

that the BBC might consider taking down in article just because someone

:03:01.:03:04.

doesn't want anybody to see it. We have always taken a very careful

:03:05.:03:08.

look at every one of those requests and we only agree to them in

:03:09.:03:13.

exceptional circumstances. So the kinds of criteria we use, the chief

:03:14.:03:17.

one really is balancing the harm to the individual against the harm to

:03:18.:03:20.

the public interest in having a the public interest in having a

:03:21.:03:23.

permanent record, and archive, of all the news events, in the same way

:03:24.:03:31.

library might have a record in the newspaper, the physical newspaper

:03:32.:03:34.

archive, so balancing those two things. But we also considered for

:03:35.:03:38.

example, whether the story was a matter of public record anyway,

:03:39.:03:42.

because it happened in open court, or whether it is so widely available

:03:43.:03:46.

on the Internet anyway that is removing it is neither here nor

:03:47.:03:50.

there. So we do consider each request carefully and only agree in

:03:51.:03:54.

exceptional circumstances. We share the concern of viewers and readers

:03:55.:03:58.

about preserving the integrity of our archive. There are couple of

:03:59.:04:03.

other issues about the BBC News website which viewers have been

:04:04.:04:07.

raising. One is from Hillary Melrose from doorstep. Concerned she has

:04:08.:04:12.

about a feature on the website front page. She e`mailed us this.

:04:13.:04:44.

That is one of a number of complaints along those lines that we

:04:45.:04:50.

have had. This week there was a popular story that was seven years

:04:51.:04:54.

old. Why does that happen? The reason some stories resurface can

:04:55.:04:59.

vary but it can be as simple as a website that has a big following,

:05:00.:05:03.

big traffic somewhere in the world, links back to one of our stories in

:05:04.:05:07.

some context, because they are retelling a similar story for

:05:08.:05:10.

whatever reason, so people come to the story for that reason, or it

:05:11.:05:20.

could be that it has been shared by someone with a big following on a

:05:21.:05:22.

social network. There are many reasons these stories resurface, and

:05:23.:05:24.

once they do they sometimes stay there for a while as other people

:05:25.:05:27.

come to them. You get this effect from time to time and Disraeli

:05:28.:05:30.

because the module does what it says on the tin, which is the most read

:05:31.:05:34.

and most watched at any given moment. This can be confusing for

:05:35.:05:38.

viewers, can't it, because you see something you think has just

:05:39.:05:41.

happened and it hasn't. What can you do about it? We are working on

:05:42.:05:45.

trying to make it clear when we are showing an old story, so just to be

:05:46.:05:48.

clear, when you get to the story, once you land on the story and are

:05:49.:05:58.

reading it it is clear at the top of the page that it is an old story.

:05:59.:06:01.

There is a date stamp on every story, but we want to make it

:06:02.:06:04.

clearer even before you click on the story that if you click on this

:06:05.:06:07.

headline it would be an old story. We are experimenting with a format

:06:08.:06:09.

that says something like, this story is more than a month old or more

:06:10.:06:12.

than three months old. The technicalities of implement in that

:06:13.:06:14.

are still being worked through, so you may have seen notices to that

:06:15.:06:17.

effect on some stories in the last week or so. They are not there all

:06:18.:06:20.

the time because we are still working on the fix at the moment.

:06:21.:06:26.

Another objection we get a lot from website users, some people want to

:06:27.:06:29.

comment on a story but not every article have that option. This is

:06:30.:06:32.

what Joshua e`mailed us. Rebecca from Swansea agreed, asking

:06:33.:06:45.

this week: You give readers the facility to

:06:46.:06:59.

comment on some stories but not others. Why not just on all of

:07:00.:07:04.

them? When we decide which stories to put comments on, we look for

:07:05.:07:08.

those key stories of the day, usually among the top stories, which

:07:09.:07:14.

are likely to attract a degree of debate, opinion, discussion and

:07:15.:07:17.

likely to engage audiences, stories where people have strong opinions

:07:18.:07:21.

they want to express and have a debate about. We are selective about

:07:22.:07:25.

it and try to choose those stories where we will have the best quality

:07:26.:07:30.

of debate. We don't put them on every story. On some stories there

:07:31.:07:34.

are legal considerations, but also more broadly we do moderate our

:07:35.:07:38.

comments and we have a lot of stories every day that we publish,

:07:39.:07:42.

and many users come to the website and say there is an issue of scale

:07:43.:07:47.

as well that we must be mindful of when we think about which stories

:07:48.:07:51.

have comments. Thank you very much, Steve Herrmann. You can find more

:07:52.:07:55.

information about the BBC's policy on removing online content and a

:07:56.:08:00.

host of other matters at our website. The addresses the screen.

:08:01.:08:07.

`` on the screen. Letters know your thoughts on the BBC News website or

:08:08.:08:12.

any aspect of BBC News. Details of how to contact us at the end of the

:08:13.:08:16.

programme. Now for some of your other concerns this week starting

:08:17.:08:20.

with the allegations swirling around Westminster of paedophilia made

:08:21.:08:23.

against senior politicians and other establishment figures, outlined in

:08:24.:08:26.

documents passed to the then Home Secretary in the 1980s and now

:08:27.:08:31.

lost. A very serious and complex story and one which Suzanne Lawrence

:08:32.:08:35.

felt was not being reported well. She e`mailed us to say:

:08:36.:09:09.

The football World Cup is almost over and Wimbledon has finished for

:09:10.:09:14.

another year, but the coverage of sports News continues to attract

:09:15.:09:18.

attention. On last week 's programme we showed two screenshots from the

:09:19.:09:22.

BBC sport website sent to us by a viewer who wondered if the BBC

:09:23.:09:26.

described Andy Murray as British when he wins and Scottish when he

:09:27.:09:31.

loses. BBC sport online have since been in touch with us denying that

:09:32.:09:35.

suggestion and pointing out that the tennis player was referred to as

:09:36.:09:39.

both British and Scottish at different points in both articles

:09:40.:09:49.

quoted, one about his defeat at Wimbledon and one about an early

:09:50.:09:52.

victory. They are but they try to use both terms about Andy Murray in

:09:53.:09:55.

all their pieces about him, win or lose. Losing has been the talk of

:09:56.:09:57.

Brazil this week it seems following the national football team 's

:09:58.:10:01.

disastrous 7`1 defeat by Germany in Tuesday 's World Cup semifinal. But

:10:02.:10:05.

how much of a calamity was this really? Here is Richard Batty.

:10:06.:10:30.

At least us the World Cup draws to a close we may see a lull in the

:10:31.:10:37.

numerous complaints we have received about sport dominating news

:10:38.:10:40.

bulletins. Bob streets summed up that view with this helpful

:10:41.:10:41.

suggestion. That is all from us. Thanks for all

:10:42.:11:05.

your comments this week. If you want to share your opinions on BBC News

:11:06.:11:09.

and current affairs or even appear on the programme, call us or e`mail

:11:10.:11:19.

us. You can find us on Twitter, and do have a look at our website.

:11:20.:11:25.

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

:11:26.:11:29.

coverage again next week. Goodbye. Good evening. We have had some

:11:30.:11:41.

decent weather again across the country today. Sunshine sending

:11:42.:11:45.

temperatures up into the mid`20s Celsius, but

:11:46.:11:46.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS