:00:00. > :00:11.are the headlines from BBC News. Now, at ten o'clock, Sophie ray
:00:12. > :00:17.Sophie Waworth, but it is time for Newswatch.
:00:18. > :00:21.Hello and welcome to NewsWatch with me, Samira Ahmed. Don't go out in
:00:22. > :00:26.Storm Imogen, the authorities said, unless necessary, so how responsible
:00:27. > :00:32.was this BBC reporter's appearance on the sea-front? Who has been
:00:33. > :00:35.presented in a more favourable light over a dispute in a new contract,
:00:36. > :00:40.the junior doctors or the Government?
:00:41. > :00:45.Extreme weather, it makes the headlines and it regularly gets
:00:46. > :00:49.NewsWatchers attention too. The week started with reports of powerful
:00:50. > :00:53.winds and heavy rain hitting parts of Southern England and Wales. Not
:00:54. > :00:58.for the first time, BBC News sent cameras and reporters out into the
:00:59. > :01:03.midst of the storm, following in a tradition that spawned hundreds of
:01:04. > :01:11.clips on YouTube. I haven't seen a lot of debris recently, but it was a
:01:12. > :01:17.couple of hours ago that... With more dramatic weather events
:01:18. > :01:20.across the world, has come more dramatic weather broadcasting. Sorry
:01:21. > :01:24.about that. Wow, that was a heck of a gust. It is actually very
:01:25. > :01:27.dangerous because you have the added bonus of frostbite. The American
:01:28. > :01:33.networks and weather channels lead the field here with some presenters
:01:34. > :01:40.apparently competing to put themselves in the most hazardous
:01:41. > :01:44.situations. No, we're fine. BBC reporters have been known to put
:01:45. > :01:50.themselves in the thick of it with appearances in the sea-front and
:01:51. > :01:56.wading through the flooding Thames attracting the ire of NewsWatch
:01:57. > :01:59.viewers two years ago who felt the coverage was dangerous and
:02:00. > :02:03.irresponsible. One experienced news correspondent finds himself facing
:02:04. > :02:09.the storm of complaints after a live appearance on Monday's news at one.
:02:10. > :02:14.Let's join Duncan ken he had yes. Duncan, conditions look pretty wild
:02:15. > :02:18.where you are. That's a bit of an under statement really. It is hard
:02:19. > :02:25.to stand up here such are the force of the winds here. We reckon they
:02:26. > :02:29.are coming in at 90mph gusts across the western approaches. More of this
:02:30. > :02:34.is to come for the next few hours and the advice is to baton down the
:02:35. > :02:38.hatches as the storm goes through. Don't come out and try and fight it
:02:39. > :02:41.or travel if you have to. Jane Elliot contacted us following that
:02:42. > :02:46.broadcast. Here is the telephone message she left us.
:02:47. > :02:50.We were watching the reports on Storm Imogen on the BBC lunch time
:02:51. > :02:55.news on Monday and couldn't believe that a crazy reporter was standing
:02:56. > :03:00.just a few feet away from a raging sea whilst telling us how high and
:03:01. > :03:04.dangerous the waves were and not to venture out unless really necessary.
:03:05. > :03:08.He could easily have been swept away. This surely is most
:03:09. > :03:14.irresponsible reporting by the BBC. An exert from the live appearance by
:03:15. > :03:19.Duncan Kennedy featured later on the six and ten o'clock bulletins and
:03:20. > :03:24.the fear for some, despite repeating the authority's warning, not to go
:03:25. > :03:27.out unless necessary, the report sent the opposite message. There was
:03:28. > :03:31.concern from the coastguard when a group of schoolchildren were spotted
:03:32. > :03:36.on the beach as heavy winds and choppy waves swept in. In Cornwall
:03:37. > :03:42.storm chasers were deluged with water, a car was almost submerged by
:03:43. > :03:47.massive waves and a man taking photographs from the harbour was
:03:48. > :03:51.brought to his knees so could those near disasters been encouraged by
:03:52. > :03:56.the BBC and was a camera and reporter really necessary? No,
:03:57. > :04:00.thought Christopher Arnold. This is really irspble and quite frankly
:04:01. > :04:06.unnecessary. We don't need to see how bad the sea is. We know how bad
:04:07. > :04:13.it is. So putting your correspondents at any sort of risk
:04:14. > :04:19.is quite frankly unbelievably silly. Well, to talk this through, I'm
:04:20. > :04:27.joined by UK News Editor for BBC News. It looked genuinely hazardous,
:04:28. > :04:33.are you sure that Duncan Kennedy and the crew were safe? He was safe. He
:04:34. > :04:37.was there with an experienced producer who lived by the sea for 20
:04:38. > :04:41.years and covered, snow, floods, harsh weather. They spend a lot of
:04:42. > :04:47.time risk assessing these situations. I think they spent of a
:04:48. > :04:50.an hour to an hour ahead of doing the broadcast to check everything
:04:51. > :04:54.was OK. What you don't see was there was about five meters of steps
:04:55. > :04:58.beyond that wall. So there was no danger of waves hitting Duncan. The
:04:59. > :05:03.water you could see was spray coming up from the steps. So, we take the
:05:04. > :05:06.safety of our correspondents, our reporters, our producers seriously.
:05:07. > :05:10.We wouldn't put them into a dangerous situation. I wonder if
:05:11. > :05:14.more of that information needed to be spelt out if you're going to do
:05:15. > :05:18.that live because it didn't look like there was much distance and it
:05:19. > :05:21.gave a sense that the drama of the picture was more important than the
:05:22. > :05:24.safety, because you could have shot from further away and people would
:05:25. > :05:27.have been reassured that the reporter was clearly much further
:05:28. > :05:30.away from the water? Sure. I understand that viewers are
:05:31. > :05:34.concerned and want to know that our people are safe and they have
:05:35. > :05:38.concerns about where we shoot lives and is it really necessary to be in
:05:39. > :05:41.those situations? I think in this case, you know, it really did
:05:42. > :05:45.illustrate the strength of the winds which was a big story that day. A
:05:46. > :05:48.great interest to our audience. We know they are interested in the
:05:49. > :05:51.weather and what Duncan's live did was really show how strong the winds
:05:52. > :05:56.were and that was the intention and I can assure viewers that he was
:05:57. > :06:00.safe. You see, the advice is not to go out unless absolutely necessary,
:06:01. > :06:05.why is it all right for him to go out when no one else is supposed to?
:06:06. > :06:09.It sends out the wrong message? Well, they have done a lot of risk
:06:10. > :06:12.assessment and I have got great trust in my producer and Duncan who
:06:13. > :06:17.are experienced. Look, we gave all the warnings. We were very clear
:06:18. > :06:20.that people shouldn't go out. We took advice from the Met Office and
:06:21. > :06:25.from the relevant authorities. Why was it all right for the reporter to
:06:26. > :06:31.be out if everyone isn't supposed to be? Well, Duncan was safe. He was
:06:32. > :06:35.out there to illustrate the strength of the winds which I think he did,
:06:36. > :06:41.the package included clips of the dangers posed, by the winds and
:06:42. > :06:47.Duncan himself spoke about the dangers posed by the winds. Zl There
:06:48. > :06:50.were so many incidents of the public with cameras trying to film the
:06:51. > :06:55.wind. You are giving the message that you can make a judgement and
:06:56. > :06:58.get great pictures that the BBC said you have got to see? I don't think
:06:59. > :07:03.there was any sense in which Duncan was encouraging people to go out.
:07:04. > :07:07.Well, the BBC was, by giving that coverage? No, I don't think. I think
:07:08. > :07:11.Duncan was clear in his messages which he said, don't go out, baton
:07:12. > :07:15.down the hatches, stay safe. He was safe. We took a lot of precautions
:07:16. > :07:19.to make sure he was safe. And as I've said to you, even the people
:07:20. > :07:23.who we interviewed later on, they were safe as well. One thing that
:07:24. > :07:27.struck me watching it, on the one o'clock, he was live. And that's
:07:28. > :07:30.what added to part of the viewer concern because you didn't know
:07:31. > :07:34.whether something might happen and he could actually be injured before
:07:35. > :07:38.our eyes. Wouldn't it have been more responsible to have filmed that and
:07:39. > :07:42.put it into an edited package like you did later, not to have done it
:07:43. > :07:46.live? Well, I mean, I think again, it was to illustrate the strength of
:07:47. > :07:50.the winds... That's the point, but to have done it as a pre-recorded
:07:51. > :07:54.item would have made it clear, yes, it was fine and it was all safe,
:07:55. > :07:58.wouldn't that be a possible compromise? We showed it live
:07:59. > :08:01.because we really wanted to illustrate at that point the
:08:02. > :08:04.strength of those winds and Duncan did that very well. Duncan is a very
:08:05. > :08:07.experienced correspondent and he knows what he is doing. I've come on
:08:08. > :08:12.here because I understand viewers were concerned and I appreciate
:08:13. > :08:15.that. I'm coming on here to reassure them that we take the safety of our
:08:16. > :08:20.people seriously and we spent a lot of time assessing this situation and
:08:21. > :08:23.making sure it was safe. In the en, given that this is not the first
:08:24. > :08:26.conversation we have had on NewsWatch about this reporting,
:08:27. > :08:29.viewers might say is anything going to be different? Are you going to
:08:30. > :08:33.re-think these situations, otherwise there is a fear, it is only when
:08:34. > :08:36.someone is injured that the BBC might re-think or compared to two
:08:37. > :08:41.years ago, for example, is it already being as far as you are
:08:42. > :08:45.aware rethinking each year about how you approach these stories? We think
:08:46. > :08:48.about the safety of our people. They have to report from around the world
:08:49. > :08:52.in potentially dangerous situations, but if it is not safe, we won't put
:08:53. > :08:56.them in there and that's not changed and when we get feedback from
:08:57. > :09:00.viewers, of course, we take it on board and that's why I have come on
:09:01. > :09:07.here to explain Duncan was safe. Thank you very much.
:09:08. > :09:12.We are keen to hear your thoughts on any aspect of BBC News. Stay tuned
:09:13. > :09:16.for details of how to contact us. More of your reactions to what you
:09:17. > :09:20.have seen over the past few days. Starting with the week's big story.
:09:21. > :09:23.The dispute over the proposed new contract for junior doctors. After
:09:24. > :09:26.Wednesday's strike and Thursday's announcement by the Government that
:09:27. > :09:31.it would be imposing the new contract, passions are still running
:09:32. > :09:37.high on both sides, both about the issue it's he have and the -- itself
:09:38. > :10:00.and David Kenny: On the other side of the argument,
:10:01. > :10:05.scores of viewers this week alleged a bias in the other direction. Here
:10:06. > :10:38.is Sue Robson writing: Finally, the BBC News Channel along
:10:39. > :10:42.with other 24 hour channels is keen to tell us when it has breaking
:10:43. > :10:46.news. But what developments are considered significant and newsy
:10:47. > :10:55.enough to qualify for that status? Last week the announcement that Matt
:10:56. > :11:03.LeBlanc was going to be one of the present irs of Top Gear prompted a
:11:04. > :11:07.breaking news alert. Scientists are claiming a stunning
:11:08. > :11:10.discovery in their quest to fully understand the origins of the
:11:11. > :11:15.universe. They have detected evidence of so-called gravitational
:11:16. > :11:21.waves. Ripples in the fabric of space. If this was was a newspaper,
:11:22. > :11:25.you would be hearing cries of, "Hold the front page." David Macmillan
:11:26. > :11:46.said: But, Ned BH was more sceptical.
:11:47. > :11:55.Do let us know if you think BBC News lives up to its own hype. You can
:11:56. > :12:00.send us your views by calling us: Or e-mailing:
:12:01. > :12:05.You can post your comments on Twitter:
:12:06. > :12:08.And catch up with any eds of the programme you've missed at our
:12:09. > :12:13.website: That's all from us. We will be back
:12:14. > :12:14.to hear your thoughts about BBC News coverage again next week.