26/09/2014 Newswatch

him. `` has not had to go to prison. And now we ask this BBC coverage

risk being a platform for militants? Hello, and welcome to Newswatch.

With air strikes, parliamentary votes and hostage videos, Islamist

militants are very much in the headlines. But if the BBC helping

the propaganda war? Why did the BBC's royal correspondent disappear

from the Scottish bridge last Friday evening? And indiscreet, perhaps,

but can't a man have a private conversation without it being

broadcast all over the world? Whether you call that an Islamic

State, ISIS or ISIL, and we will be coming to that later, the radical

Islamist group which has seized land in Syria and Iraq in the past few

months now unquestionably dominates the news agenda. US led air strikes

against the militants began on Monday night. On Tuesday, a second

video was released featuring journalist John Cantlie, kidnapped

in Syria in 2012. And the threat to kill another British hostage, Alan

Henning, remains. It is all worthwhile when you see

what is needed to get to actually wear it needs to go. He is the taxi

driver from Salford, held hostage by Islamic State. Tonight, Alan

Henning's wife Barbara begged for his release. She said she had

received an audiophile of Alan pleading for his life.

All this presents considerable challenges to journalists. The

obvious dangers of kidnapped in reporting from Syria and Iraq, the

distress of the facts of the story, with difficult judgements of taste

and decency for editors back in London. Then there is the risk of

providing a platform for the terrorists. Doug Graham is one fewer

concerned by that. There is also the issue of the

terminology used to describe these crimes and their perpetrators,

picked up in this e`mail by Paul Lodwick.

That last point was echoed by Neal Hastings.

Well, to discuss all that, the BBC's deputy director of news and

current affairs joins me now. Fran, we have spoken on Newswatch recently

about the principle that the BBC does use some stills and sometimes

audio from hostage videos, but given that there seemed to be more and

more of these videos coming out, doesn't the BBC need to rethink

whether it uses them at all? Absolutely. We need to reassess, as

we go along, exactly how we treat these videos. Whether we will ever

get to the point where we will say we will not use any of them at all,

in some cases we might do that, if we thought there was no public

interest served by it. But what we have to do here is balance a number

of different things, which is, I duty to inform versus the taste and

decency issues, and also, as you have described, the platform of the

oxygen of publicity issue. And balancing all these things can be

quite tricky, and to lead to tricky editorial judgements, which we must

constantly keep under review, as you suggest. Let's talk about language.

A lot of viewers questioned the taste of news constantly talking

about the details of how the hostages were beheaded. Or even the

word executed. Shouldn't you just say murdered? We do say murdered in

some instances. Executed probably tends to imply, although I don't

think this is actually the definition of it, a legal process.

And obviously there hasn't been a legal process in any of these cases.

Beheaded, well, I think it is actually quite important to know how

these people died, which is particularly gruesome. Then there is

the language of how this group is described. Islamic State, ISIS,

ISIL. Even politicians vary how they describe them. Even if you use the

qualifications so called, a lot of viewers are concerned that this

group are not an organised, legitimate political power, but they

are being talked about in a way which gives them legitimacy. This is

quite a tricky issue, because what we are seeking to do here is just

explain to the audience who it is that we are talking about. They

chose to call themselves Islamic State. You can imply whatever

meaning you think attaches itself to that, but that is what they call

themselves. Politicians are calling them something different, and we

have two actually reflects that as well, because of the politician is

calling them ISIL, then we also have to say the Islamic State, sometimes

known as ISIL, which we do in some of our coverage. But if we start to

decide ourselves what they are called, then I am not sure how

appropriate that is either. The BBC has engaged with British jihadists

in the region to try to understand what is going on and why they are

going up. But there is a concern that the BBC could be a kind of

platform for their propaganda. The interest that some media show in

tracing Jihadi John, for example, distresses a lot of viewers. This is

obviously a very tricky issue, and we don't particularly want to be

providing a platform for people with very extreme views. However, our job

is about understanding as well. I think that what our policy is here

is to show enough of this that we think would answer any questions of

public interest that people have about them. So, for instance, if you

take Jihadi John, so`called Jihadi John, we use some of the audio of

this person to show that they were British. It was quite clear from

their accent. And they were probably from the London area. Also, there is

an argument for putting this out, because somebody might be able to

identify him, which might be of help to the authorities. Fran, thank you

very much for coming on Newswatch. Do let us know your thoughts on

that, or on any aspect of BBC News. And stay with us for details on how

to get in touch. Now for some of your other concerns this week,

starting with an apology from the BBC for showing some footage of

Jimmy Savile on a repeat of an old edition of top of the pops a couple

of weeks ago. The BBC's News article website featured, you guessed it, a

photograph of the disgraced disc jockey. Ingrid Green did not

appreciate the irony. The fallout from last week's

referendum in Scotland will be felt for some time politically, and it

has continued to have an impact on our inbox over the past week. During

last Friday's News at 6pm, the reaction of the Queen to the

referendum result was `` result was keenly awaited. Within the last few

minutes, a statement from the Queen has been published. Our royal

correspondent has the details for us at Balmoral. Nicholas, what does it

say? I'm sorry, we seem to have a few difficulties trying to get a

hold of Nicholas. Apologies for that.

Five minutes later we did get to hear something of Her Majesty's

statement, but with these results. Do not, as they say, adjust your

set. For many in Scotland and elsewhere today, there will be

strong feelings and contrasting emotions among family, friends and

neighbours. That, of course, is the nature of the robust, Democratic...

INAUDIBLE I am so sorry for that.

Despite our best efforts to talk to Nicholas Witchell in Balmoral, we

are not managing. We will try later again in the programme.

Technical problems do sometimes occur, of course. But Caroline

Holmes made this point. There were more royal ramifications

of the independence vote on Tuesday, when, to the Prime Minister's great

embarrassment, this footage was aired on the BBC and elsewhere.

After that conversation with former New York City Mayor Michael

Bloomberg Cameron said he would apologise in

person to the Queen when they next meet.

Do let us know whether you think it was inappropriate for BBC News to

have reported that conversation. And we welcome all your opinions on BBC

News and current affairs. Yours may feature next week, and you may even

appear on the programme. That is all from us. We will be back

to hear your thoughts about BBC News coverage again next week. Goodbye.