09/01/2016 Newswatch

The first of the year. In this programme... A masked British

murderer and a child featuring in the latest year released by Islamic

State. Did we fail to show enough of it for viewers understand the story?

Did the corporation underplay the race of hundreds of men attacking

women in Germany on New Year's Eve? And, a politician resigns live on

air. Did politics engineer it's timing to cause maximum

embarrassment? -- its. The BBC has for some time being very careful

about showing propaganda videos. -- been. But the latest video posted a

challenge. It had a British child showing propaganda. Islamic State

militants in Syria have released a video claiming to show the execution

of five men accused of spying for Britain. The video, which we will

not show, has a masked man with a British accent threatening the UK.

Our security correspondent is with me. There are many of these videos

released. What is different about this one? It followed a brief

description of the video but no excerpts. It started many

investigations into the identity. It annoyed John Webster left this

message. I am disgusted that they would not allow last to see the

Islamic video. We did not get most of the audio, let alone the video.

The following evening, we were showing a short clip from the

video. The search had stepped up for the person. The latest propaganda

from Islamic State, a masked dealer daunting Britain and addressing it

is Prime Minister. -- killer. All in a British accent. How strange it is

that a leader of a small island threatens us with a handful of

planes. Some viewers thought that wasn't enough to get a sense of the

video and regretted the BBC's apparent lack of interest in the

identity of the child featured in it. Year is Christian. -- Here.

To talk through this issue I am joined by James Stevenson, the news

editor. Thank you. In the past you have had complaints the BBC was

giving any oxygen of publicity to the terrorists by showing video. You

have shown as little as possible according to your previous policy.

What is the policy now? Our audience recognises the great difficulty we

have with this material. It is clearly propaganda and intended as

propaganda. It has an effect Peru it's shock value. -- through its.

That makes us disinclined to show it. But it is clearly news and

something we have to report. We try to report as much as we need to do

our job, reports the news and given the context everyone expects, but

not to do the job for them to be that is the balance we wish for. --

that is. On Sunday night, you said you wouldn't show it. And the next

night we got a short clip. Why did that change? I should say that in

our reporting we were very much at the forefront of trying to establish

the identity. By Monday night we were reporting he was the prime

suspect. The reason we took that approach, we used the image, a still

image, from the video, the masked perpetrator. We wanted to be as

restraint as possible. We didn't want to use any more material than

we felt we needed to do to explain the story to the audience. That was

the judgement we talk. As the story developed on Monday and more detail

emerged about the likely suspect, corporate, we began to use a bit

more than we thought we needed to. -- culprit. That was for editorial

reasons, lash out that he was British or appeared to be so. -- to

flesh out. But still mindful of not showing more than we needed to.

Identifying the boy in that video was clearly important. Why didn't

you show his face? We have a difficult balance to strike. It gets

more difficult for us in the judgement we make in relation to a

child. As well as the editorial considerations and things I have

already touched on, we have already serious and strict responsibilities

for a child, looking at the interests, instead of just straight

editorial judgements. That is in our guidelines. We thought there was an

even higher bar the in using imagery. -- there. A young British

child. You would understand their complaint from the viewer. Given the

circumstance, the child is out there, and we need to find out who

these people are that do these kinds of things to children. Was that a

misguided idea of child protection given the threat? We'd think so,

that is why we took a decision. There was a lot of discussion. -- We

don't this. It was so widely out the that we thought others should

follow. -- there. Some others thought that even if lots of other

media showed him either blobbed or unblobbed, we had a responsibility

to show him. In this digital age we live in, the audience can find those

images. We didn't think they couldn't find them if we didn't show

them. We did what we thought was right. Another issue. People thought

that the murderers of the five men did not get enough attention. Did

you convey the full horror of what happens to this and? It depends on

what you mean. -- this man. We described it, but we didn't show all

of it. We didn't feel we were able to do that given requirement about

harm and offence that we make these judgements by. But also the

expectation of the audience. No doubt, it is a horrendous video. I

think our reporting, the scale and nature of it, did full justice.

Thank you, James. Thank you for continuing to contact

us while we have been off air over the last few weeks. One subject was

news reports from Cologne in Germany about co-ordinated attacks on women

on New Year's Eve to be about 1000 men, described as being Arabic in

appearance, attacks women, including two alleged rapes. -- Eve.. Some

complained that until the middle of this week the apparent background of

them did not get broadcast. In Germany, tonight, protesters

gathered around the cathedral in Cologne after around 80 women were

assaulted on New Year's Eve. Police suspected as many as 1000 young

males, many drunk, carried out the attacks but the Angela Merkel has

called for the perpetrators to be caught and punished. Not mentioned

is the in the brief report was the ethnicity of the attack is. --

there. But that did appear on the following night thanks to Jenny Hill

in a full report. -- attackers. At this point it was already major

news. Many thought there was a significant omission from coverage.

The appearance of the man involved in the incidents had been widely

published in all other media sources. -- men. As well as on line.

In fact, the BBC's own website included disinformation. So, why on

earth the decision was taken to suppress information is beyond me.

-- this information. It is being politically correct to the extreme.

It brings into question the BBC's impartiality. It plays into the

hands of those who are against immigration. Finally, the ongoing

dispute about how the news media treats Jeremy Corbyn got a new focus

in the new year with coverage of the shadow cabinet reshuffle that lasted

three days. By Wednesday, changes were still being made following the

sacking of Pat McFadden. Laura Kuenssberg was on the case with a

colleague of his. It has also led others to be considering walking out

of the door. One of them is Stephen Dougherty. What is your opinion? I

agree to serve on Jeremy Corbyn's frontbench for a number of reasons.

-- agreed. I had differences on national security and other issue.

When someone is singled out in that way with views that I also have, it

is honourable for myself to leave as well. Journalist might say an on air

resignation was a bit of a coup. Many were concerned about how it

went about. -- Journalists. The BBC had this to say in

response. And that is all from us this week.

If you want to share your opinions you can call us using this number or

e-mail Newswatch at the website. You can find us on Twitter. And you

cannot previous programmes on our website. The website to do so here.

That is all from a. We will be back to investigate BBC News coverage

next week. -- us. Thank you for watching.

It is gradually getting colder over the next few days.