:00:08. > :00:19.The first of the year. In this programme... A masked British
:00:20. > :00:26.murderer and a child featuring in the latest year released by Islamic
:00:27. > :00:30.State. Did we fail to show enough of it for viewers understand the story?
:00:31. > :00:35.Did the corporation underplay the race of hundreds of men attacking
:00:36. > :00:43.women in Germany on New Year's Eve? And, a politician resigns live on
:00:44. > :00:51.air. Did politics engineer it's timing to cause maximum
:00:52. > :00:57.embarrassment? -- its. The BBC has for some time being very careful
:00:58. > :01:09.about showing propaganda videos. -- been. But the latest video posted a
:01:10. > :01:14.challenge. It had a British child showing propaganda. Islamic State
:01:15. > :01:18.militants in Syria have released a video claiming to show the execution
:01:19. > :01:23.of five men accused of spying for Britain. The video, which we will
:01:24. > :01:28.not show, has a masked man with a British accent threatening the UK.
:01:29. > :01:34.Our security correspondent is with me. There are many of these videos
:01:35. > :01:40.released. What is different about this one? It followed a brief
:01:41. > :01:46.description of the video but no excerpts. It started many
:01:47. > :01:51.investigations into the identity. It annoyed John Webster left this
:01:52. > :01:58.message. I am disgusted that they would not allow last to see the
:01:59. > :02:02.Islamic video. We did not get most of the audio, let alone the video.
:02:03. > :02:07.The following evening, we were showing a short clip from the
:02:08. > :02:14.video. The search had stepped up for the person. The latest propaganda
:02:15. > :02:20.from Islamic State, a masked dealer daunting Britain and addressing it
:02:21. > :02:27.is Prime Minister. -- killer. All in a British accent. How strange it is
:02:28. > :02:30.that a leader of a small island threatens us with a handful of
:02:31. > :02:34.planes. Some viewers thought that wasn't enough to get a sense of the
:02:35. > :02:37.video and regretted the BBC's apparent lack of interest in the
:02:38. > :03:03.identity of the child featured in it. Year is Christian. -- Here.
:03:04. > :03:11.To talk through this issue I am joined by James Stevenson, the news
:03:12. > :03:16.editor. Thank you. In the past you have had complaints the BBC was
:03:17. > :03:24.giving any oxygen of publicity to the terrorists by showing video. You
:03:25. > :03:28.have shown as little as possible according to your previous policy.
:03:29. > :03:33.What is the policy now? Our audience recognises the great difficulty we
:03:34. > :03:37.have with this material. It is clearly propaganda and intended as
:03:38. > :03:44.propaganda. It has an effect Peru it's shock value. -- through its.
:03:45. > :03:49.That makes us disinclined to show it. But it is clearly news and
:03:50. > :03:53.something we have to report. We try to report as much as we need to do
:03:54. > :03:58.our job, reports the news and given the context everyone expects, but
:03:59. > :04:06.not to do the job for them to be that is the balance we wish for. --
:04:07. > :04:14.that is. On Sunday night, you said you wouldn't show it. And the next
:04:15. > :04:20.night we got a short clip. Why did that change? I should say that in
:04:21. > :04:22.our reporting we were very much at the forefront of trying to establish
:04:23. > :04:28.the identity. By Monday night we were reporting he was the prime
:04:29. > :04:33.suspect. The reason we took that approach, we used the image, a still
:04:34. > :04:40.image, from the video, the masked perpetrator. We wanted to be as
:04:41. > :04:44.restraint as possible. We didn't want to use any more material than
:04:45. > :04:49.we felt we needed to do to explain the story to the audience. That was
:04:50. > :04:53.the judgement we talk. As the story developed on Monday and more detail
:04:54. > :04:57.emerged about the likely suspect, corporate, we began to use a bit
:04:58. > :05:02.more than we thought we needed to. -- culprit. That was for editorial
:05:03. > :05:11.reasons, lash out that he was British or appeared to be so. -- to
:05:12. > :05:16.flesh out. But still mindful of not showing more than we needed to.
:05:17. > :05:20.Identifying the boy in that video was clearly important. Why didn't
:05:21. > :05:23.you show his face? We have a difficult balance to strike. It gets
:05:24. > :05:27.more difficult for us in the judgement we make in relation to a
:05:28. > :05:32.child. As well as the editorial considerations and things I have
:05:33. > :05:39.already touched on, we have already serious and strict responsibilities
:05:40. > :05:43.for a child, looking at the interests, instead of just straight
:05:44. > :05:52.editorial judgements. That is in our guidelines. We thought there was an
:05:53. > :05:57.even higher bar the in using imagery. -- there. A young British
:05:58. > :06:03.child. You would understand their complaint from the viewer. Given the
:06:04. > :06:07.circumstance, the child is out there, and we need to find out who
:06:08. > :06:11.these people are that do these kinds of things to children. Was that a
:06:12. > :06:19.misguided idea of child protection given the threat? We'd think so,
:06:20. > :06:29.that is why we took a decision. There was a lot of discussion. -- We
:06:30. > :06:35.don't this. It was so widely out the that we thought others should
:06:36. > :06:42.follow. -- there. Some others thought that even if lots of other
:06:43. > :06:48.media showed him either blobbed or unblobbed, we had a responsibility
:06:49. > :06:53.to show him. In this digital age we live in, the audience can find those
:06:54. > :06:56.images. We didn't think they couldn't find them if we didn't show
:06:57. > :07:02.them. We did what we thought was right. Another issue. People thought
:07:03. > :07:06.that the murderers of the five men did not get enough attention. Did
:07:07. > :07:11.you convey the full horror of what happens to this and? It depends on
:07:12. > :07:16.what you mean. -- this man. We described it, but we didn't show all
:07:17. > :07:23.of it. We didn't feel we were able to do that given requirement about
:07:24. > :07:27.harm and offence that we make these judgements by. But also the
:07:28. > :07:32.expectation of the audience. No doubt, it is a horrendous video. I
:07:33. > :07:33.think our reporting, the scale and nature of it, did full justice.
:07:34. > :07:44.Thank you, James. Thank you for continuing to contact
:07:45. > :07:50.us while we have been off air over the last few weeks. One subject was
:07:51. > :07:53.news reports from Cologne in Germany about co-ordinated attacks on women
:07:54. > :08:02.on New Year's Eve to be about 1000 men, described as being Arabic in
:08:03. > :08:10.appearance, attacks women, including two alleged rapes. -- Eve.. Some
:08:11. > :08:17.complained that until the middle of this week the apparent background of
:08:18. > :08:22.them did not get broadcast. In Germany, tonight, protesters
:08:23. > :08:28.gathered around the cathedral in Cologne after around 80 women were
:08:29. > :08:31.assaulted on New Year's Eve. Police suspected as many as 1000 young
:08:32. > :08:36.males, many drunk, carried out the attacks but the Angela Merkel has
:08:37. > :08:42.called for the perpetrators to be caught and punished. Not mentioned
:08:43. > :08:46.is the in the brief report was the ethnicity of the attack is. --
:08:47. > :08:51.there. But that did appear on the following night thanks to Jenny Hill
:08:52. > :08:57.in a full report. -- attackers. At this point it was already major
:08:58. > :09:05.news. Many thought there was a significant omission from coverage.
:09:06. > :09:11.The appearance of the man involved in the incidents had been widely
:09:12. > :09:18.published in all other media sources. -- men. As well as on line.
:09:19. > :09:27.In fact, the BBC's own website included disinformation. So, why on
:09:28. > :09:34.earth the decision was taken to suppress information is beyond me.
:09:35. > :09:42.-- this information. It is being politically correct to the extreme.
:09:43. > :09:45.It brings into question the BBC's impartiality. It plays into the
:09:46. > :09:50.hands of those who are against immigration. Finally, the ongoing
:09:51. > :09:57.dispute about how the news media treats Jeremy Corbyn got a new focus
:09:58. > :09:59.in the new year with coverage of the shadow cabinet reshuffle that lasted
:10:00. > :10:04.three days. By Wednesday, changes were still being made following the
:10:05. > :10:14.sacking of Pat McFadden. Laura Kuenssberg was on the case with a
:10:15. > :10:19.colleague of his. It has also led others to be considering walking out
:10:20. > :10:27.of the door. One of them is Stephen Dougherty. What is your opinion? I
:10:28. > :10:32.agree to serve on Jeremy Corbyn's frontbench for a number of reasons.
:10:33. > :10:37.-- agreed. I had differences on national security and other issue.
:10:38. > :10:41.When someone is singled out in that way with views that I also have, it
:10:42. > :10:50.is honourable for myself to leave as well. Journalist might say an on air
:10:51. > :10:51.resignation was a bit of a coup. Many were concerned about how it
:10:52. > :11:27.went about. -- Journalists. The BBC had this to say in
:11:28. > :11:50.response. And that is all from us this week.
:11:51. > :11:56.If you want to share your opinions you can call us using this number or
:11:57. > :12:02.e-mail Newswatch at the website. You can find us on Twitter. And you
:12:03. > :12:11.cannot previous programmes on our website. The website to do so here.
:12:12. > :12:17.That is all from a. We will be back to investigate BBC News coverage
:12:18. > :12:20.next week. -- us. Thank you for watching.
:12:21. > :12:23.It is gradually getting colder over the next few days.