04/12/2015 Newswatch

heaviest rains in southern India for 100 years. Now, a full round-up of

the days news at 10pm. Now, Newswatch.

Hello and welcome. As British aircraft join the assault on targets

in Syria, was there enough discussion of the rights and wrongs

of military action or too much focus on splits in the Labour Party?

The coverage seemed unbalanced, parochial, and lazy.

And now the Prime Minister is calling them, is it time the BBC to?

It was a solemn decision and one the entire nation was debating since the

Paris terror attacks. After ten hours of impassioned debate in the

House of Commons on Wednesday, the vote by MPs to back as strikes in

Syria came while the BBC News at ten was on air.

The ayes to the right, 397. The noes to the left, 223.

The intensity of the debate was matched by viewers responses to the

way it was reported. And Robinson was one who felt there was a bias in

favour of taking military action. Over the days preceding the vote,

divisions in labour were clear but was too much made of them are not

enough of the arguments for and against war? Nicky Willis thought so

and recorded her thoughts. I have never felt motivated to contact you

before, or though not always happy with coverage but in the week up to

S strikes in Syria, I was increasingly frustrated by the

coverage I saw when I switched on the news to see BBC journalists

seemingly obsessed with potential splits in the Labour Party in the

run-up to the vote rather than the key crucial questions that should be

analysed and examined. As the Shadow Cabinet meets... There with scant

coverage of underlying issues, the potential value or efficacy of

military action or other possible causes of action to address the

funding of Isil, its support and the political and diplomatic routes that

might be followed. Tonight, Britain stands on the brink of military

action in Syria, is it all down to splits in the Labour Party? The

coverage seemed unbalanced, parochial, and lazy. Tending to

reduce the issues down to a Punch and Judy style discussion of

potential splits in the Labour Party and what they might mean. Come on,

BBC. This isn't good enough. Another viewer got in touch was Richard. He

is with me. You complained early in the week in the days leading up to

the debate about the BBC coverage, what concerns you? I feel the focus

wasn't enough on the case for and against and the analysis. It was too

much party political splits which the journalists were assessed with

at the expense of informing the public to enable the public to be

engaged. They needed information early on. It wasn't until the last

minute the coverage shifted towards looking at the arguments for and

against. It was too little, too late. What coverage was there too

much of? It seemed to be led by the political journalist rather than

diplomatic or foreign affairs who could have taken a different slime.

There was endless speculation about different factions of the party

voting one way or the other. I am not saying it important, it is

important to look at what parties say but it is not the main issue in

the run-up to war and deciding to commit British lives to attacking

another country. The families of the service personnel will be thinking,

what is going on? We asked the BBC for someone to come on to discuss

the issue but no one was available. They gave us a statement.

Does that satisfy you? Not really. They missed the point. I am not

accusing them of being biased, I have not reached a final decision on

whether I think it is right and the BBC have not helped me decide. There

was splits in other parties as well. It is a pre-existing accession

of the BBC that they were following up on rather than taking a step

back, an editorial decision to save the public need to be informed and

what are the arguments for and against? Is there an argument with

the way the BBC news agenda and others focuses on the Westminster

village, you said it was political journalists bleeding the coverage.

There was a point on Newsnight earlier in the week when the

presenter said, the run-up to war has been overshadowed by the party

Briscoe splits and I thought, in whose reality is that? Not in mine.

It is happening in the media and Westminster. It was strange. Thank

you so much. Who exactly is under attack in Syria? IS, Isil, so-called

Islamic State, we have discussed before the question of which term

the BBC should use but on Wednesday the Prime Minister set out a change

of the government position. It is time to join our key ally France,

the Arab league and other members of the international Trinity in using

as frequently as possible the terminology Daesh rather than Isil

because this evil death cult is neither a true representation of

Islam nor is it a state. Following the announcement, the daily politics

had a heated discussion about how to refer to militants in Syria and

Iraqi. A Conservative MP agreed with David Cameron that Daesh is the best

term. Daesh and Islamic State do mean the same thing, it was argued.

We have a duty to use the right terminology. There was a problem, we

need to address it. It is well-intentioned but the problem is

what does Daesh mean? It means Islamic State. It is the same thing.

No, it doesn't. You are telling us what we should do and you cannot

decide what it means. Some feel it has pejorative connotations. It is

an acronym. What does the deed stand for? It is a state. A fraught issue

and some believe the BBC should change and clarify its policy on

what to call the organisation. So, is the BBC going to follow David

Cameron and change its stance? We asked that question and were

told... Finally, moving away from the

military action and return to Jeremy Corbyn, this was another week when

he and his leadership were being put under particular scrutiny and last

Saturday BBC news showed him being pursued down the street. Will you

resign, Mr Corbyn? Good morning, I hope you are well. Is your position

untenable? Good morning. Peter got in touch after seeing that and went

into the Newcastle studio to give reaction. The clip showed Jeremy

Corbyn walking down the street attempting to go about his normal

life that he was harassed by a journalist and the BBC showed this.

He was being asked if he would give Labour MPs a free vote on the

extension of air strikes before official talks took place but also

whether he would resign as leader of the Labour Party, six months after

being given a huge mandate. For me, this is embarrassing tabloid

journalism. I think it is beneath it. Will you allow a free vote on

Syria? Is a 19-year-old student I think it is worrying because it puts

other young people off getting into politics. To see a politician

harassed in the way he was, I think the irony if someone like Jeremy

Corbyn who has done so much to build momentum to engage in conversations

with people in politics can have the reverse impact of that and put

people off politics. It is wrong. Will you allow a free vote on Syria?

I think MPs to a good job and they are well paid, relatively but we

need to respect that they are humans and they live individual lives and

in their downtime, walking to the shop or walking to his car, I think

that should be allowed free from journalism. Thank you for that and

all of your comments. You could also appear on the programme. Please get

in touch with us... And look at our website. That is all from us. We are

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

Coming up in Sportsday, FA Cup action. And a round-up of the action

from snooker. There was a titanic struggle between two former