:00:00. > :00:00.million Jews. At ten o'clock, Sophie Raworth will
:00:00. > :00:10.be here with a full round-up of all the day's news. First, he is
:00:11. > :00:19.Newswatch. Hello and welcome to Newswatch
:00:20. > :00:21.with me, Samira Ahmed. This week, how BBC News has covered
:00:22. > :00:27.three Coming up shortly,
:00:28. > :00:29.extensive airtime for President Obama's
:00:30. > :00:31.comments on the EU. Were they challenged enough
:00:32. > :00:32.or an unwarranted boost
:00:33. > :00:34.to the Remain campaign? And exit Ken Livingstone,
:00:35. > :00:36.pursued by the press pack, but has he been hounded unfairly by the news
:00:37. > :00:39.media over his comments about But first, the acrimonious
:00:40. > :00:42.dispute between junior doctors and the government reached
:00:43. > :00:48.another stage this week, with two We have continued to hear
:00:49. > :00:52.accusations that BBC News has been biased in its coverage
:00:53. > :00:55.in both directions, but two specific On Monday, the BBC news website
:00:56. > :01:02.published an article headlined "Junior doctors' leaders trying
:01:03. > :01:04.to topple the government". Although the claim was in quotation
:01:05. > :01:06.marks, the fact that it was attributed to one
:01:07. > :01:09.anonymous government source angered I was disappointed to read
:01:10. > :01:22.the headline on the BBC's health news website on the 25th of April,
:01:23. > :01:25.which stated that the BMA were The casural reader of such
:01:26. > :01:33.a headline might get the impression that there was a serious risk
:01:34. > :01:35.of this happening. However, if you look at the article,
:01:36. > :01:38.this appears to be the view of a government source,
:01:39. > :01:44.who remains unnamed and at the time of writing the article has no
:01:45. > :01:46.support ascribed to their view by any other government
:01:47. > :01:48.minister or MP. Conversely, there are 50,000 junior
:01:49. > :01:51.doctors and many other health professionals who would probably
:01:52. > :01:53.unanimously reject the view that there is any agenda to topple
:01:54. > :01:55.the government going on here, instead arguing
:01:56. > :01:58.that they are working for patient So is it entirely representative
:01:59. > :02:05.of the views being held on this issue to have such an alarmist
:02:06. > :02:07.headline on the BBC's In my view, it could unnecessarily
:02:08. > :02:11.cause alarm in the population The charge of alarmism was also made
:02:12. > :02:17.on Tuesday evening after a headline on the BBC News Channel crawling
:02:18. > :02:21.along the bottom of the screen described a strike
:02:22. > :02:29.without emergency cover. One doctor tweeted that he knew
:02:30. > :02:32.from personal experience that that was not a correct description,
:02:33. > :02:34.explaining in this phone message. I am ringing to express my profound
:02:35. > :02:37.disturbance about the rolling headline on your BBC
:02:38. > :02:41.News Channel currently, saying that during the junior
:02:42. > :02:44.doctors' strike tomorrow, they will be without
:02:45. > :02:49.emergency medical cover. This is completely wrong,
:02:50. > :02:51.misleading and alarmist and will potentially put people
:02:52. > :02:53.off coming to hospital Consultants around the country,
:02:54. > :03:00.myself included, are cancelling other work so that we can provide
:03:01. > :03:03.the emergency services needed. We know from today's experience
:03:04. > :03:11.that the emergency cover Now, last Sunday, BBC News unveiled
:03:12. > :03:18.an exclusive interview which ran at length throughout the day
:03:19. > :03:21.on television, radio and online. The guest - the president
:03:22. > :03:23.of the United States. Huw Edwards asked Barack Obama
:03:24. > :03:26.about some words he had used in a news conference a couple
:03:27. > :03:29.of days before, when he had dived headlong into the fractious
:03:30. > :03:33.debate over Britain's EU referendum. It is that phrase, back
:03:34. > :03:35.of the queue, which I suppose has
:03:36. > :03:37.offended some and alarmed others. As I said, it was simply a response
:03:38. > :03:46.to an argument I have heard from others, who are proposing
:03:47. > :03:48.to leave the EU, that somehow, America would be able to do things
:03:49. > :03:52.more quickly with the UK than I was simply indicating that that
:03:53. > :04:01.wouldn't be the case The interview was quite a scoop,
:04:02. > :04:08.no doubt, but the airtime given to it added to the coverage
:04:09. > :04:21.previously afforded The interview was quite a scoop, no
:04:22. > :04:25.doubt, but the airtime given to it, added to the coverage previously
:04:26. > :04:27.afforded to President Obama and his views on the EU
:04:28. > :04:29.during his trip here, concerned some viewers,
:04:30. > :04:34.such as Geoff Gee. Another viewer who contacted us
:04:35. > :04:37.on Sunday was Richard Westwood Brookes, who joins us now
:04:38. > :04:39.on the line from Worcester. And with me in the studio
:04:40. > :04:44.is Paul Royall, the editor Richard, you watched
:04:45. > :04:47.the interview on Sunday. What was it about it that made
:04:48. > :04:50.you want to contact us? It reminded me of the deferential
:04:51. > :04:54.interviews of the 1950s, when Richard Dimbleby used
:04:55. > :04:58.to invite the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Macmillan,
:04:59. > :05:04.to state his message for the nation. Here we have a president
:05:05. > :05:07.of the United States that, despite all the warnings,
:05:08. > :05:11.decided to come here and wade into the most important domestic
:05:12. > :05:16.political issue of the day, and yet he was never really
:05:17. > :05:19.challenged on anything he said. Paul, it was too reverential in tone
:05:20. > :05:25.and then what he had to say about the EU
:05:26. > :05:27.was not challenged enough. First of all, all interviewers
:05:28. > :05:29.have different styles. It is up to people which style
:05:30. > :05:37.they prefer. Firm, probing, but polite,
:05:38. > :05:40.I believe, can be more Secondly, in terms of not
:05:41. > :05:57.being challenged, for example on the back of the queue comments
:05:58. > :05:59.that President Obama had he was challenged three or four
:06:00. > :06:04.times on the nature of a trade relationship if Britain
:06:05. > :06:05.left the European Union. Thirdly, he made it very clear,
:06:06. > :06:09.and this was picked up by Liam Fox, one of the most prominent Leave
:06:10. > :06:11.campaigners, that actually, the special relationship
:06:12. > :06:12.would not change. It was an unbreakable bond,
:06:13. > :06:14.as the president described it. Liam Fox described
:06:15. > :06:20.the interview as well judged. So the argument could be made that
:06:21. > :06:29.people read more into it than might Richard, what different questions
:06:30. > :06:32.would you have chosen? One question he could have asked,
:06:33. > :06:37.in a polite manner, was, by the way, President,
:06:38. > :06:39.how is the American-EU As I understand it, it should have
:06:40. > :06:46.been ratified in 2014. We're now in 2016 and it
:06:47. > :06:50.still hasn't been ratified. I believe there is substantial
:06:51. > :06:52.objection to it in France And of course, he could also have
:06:53. > :06:57.asked the president if he knew because this wonderful trade deal
:06:58. > :07:09.which the Americans are doing with this major bloc could easily be
:07:10. > :07:12.scuppered if somebody like Cyprus or Latvia or Ireland or us object
:07:13. > :07:24.to it and veto the whole thing. Paul, there is a concern that given
:07:25. > :07:27.how contentious arguments are are about how the EU works,
:07:28. > :07:30.President Obama needed to be I go back to the point
:07:31. > :07:33.that he was challenged He wasn't challenged
:07:34. > :07:36.robustly enough, though. This is a guy who has stood
:07:37. > :07:38.for president twice. He's used to being given
:07:39. > :07:42.pretty robust interviews. A lot of prominent Leave campaigners
:07:43. > :07:45.regarded what the president said to Huw Edwards as much more
:07:46. > :07:48.conciliatory, more nuanced, more developed and a rowing back
:07:49. > :07:51.from what appeared to be the more So if that is regarded
:07:52. > :07:57.as a soft interview, well, actually, we learned more
:07:58. > :07:59.about the President's position. And for those who were sceptical
:08:00. > :08:03.of the back of the queue comments, there were three or four points
:08:04. > :08:12.in that interview which prominent Leave campaigners all pointed
:08:13. > :08:16.to to say actually, it reassured reassured them that the UK-US
:08:17. > :08:23.relationship would remain robust and and strong on many levels if Britain
:08:24. > :08:27.leaves the European Union. The key concern is that it felt
:08:28. > :08:30.like all day, we had another set of coverage which was really
:08:31. > :08:32.someone saying Remain, and that is what people have
:08:33. > :08:34.taken from it. A broad range of views
:08:35. > :08:36.were reflected. Of course, there was time
:08:37. > :08:38.and space devoted Audiences are telling us
:08:39. > :08:46.they want to go beyond the kind of he says/she says type
:08:47. > :08:50.of coverage which doesn't aid There will be other days,
:08:51. > :08:55.because we are committed to balance and impartiality throughout this
:08:56. > :08:56.campaign, there will be other days when it
:08:57. > :09:00.could be someone on the Leave side, a prominent politician or world
:09:01. > :09:02.leader who advocates Britain leaving the European Union,
:09:03. > :09:04.and they will be given the time and space to develop
:09:05. > :09:06.sophisticated arguments about why Richard, in the end,
:09:07. > :09:13.isn't this a case of sometimes, more information is more useful
:09:14. > :09:15.as part of the overall coverage than it having
:09:16. > :09:23.to be confrontational? because of the fact
:09:24. > :09:29.that the president made an open season on this by virtue of the fact
:09:30. > :09:32.that he came over here uninvited to dictate to us exactly how
:09:33. > :09:35.we should feel about the EU. One other question which Huw Edwards
:09:36. > :09:40.could have asked him would be, is it right for a foreign politician
:09:41. > :09:43.to get involved in British domestic politics?
:09:44. > :09:47.I don't think it is. Richard Westwood Brookes,
:09:48. > :09:49.thank you so much, Just time before we go to mention
:09:50. > :09:58.the explosive row over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party which has ended
:09:59. > :10:00.the week, much of it
:10:01. > :10:03.played out on television. Following Wednesday's suspension
:10:04. > :10:06.from the party of MP Naz Shah, the following morning
:10:07. > :10:08.Ken Livingstone defended her On his way to a subsequent interview
:10:09. > :10:15.in the BBC's Westminster offices, he was accosted by another
:10:16. > :10:19.Labour MP, John Mann. You Nazi apologist, rewriting
:10:20. > :10:24.history. That confrontation featured
:10:25. > :10:27.prominently on the day's news bulletins, prompting Cheryl Lang
:10:28. > :10:47.to ask: after making it into BBC
:10:48. > :10:52.Two's Daily Politics studio, about Hitler's policy
:10:53. > :10:56.towards the Jews in 1932, and that prompted his own suspension
:10:57. > :11:04.from the party shortly afterwards. In the afternoon, he found himself
:11:05. > :11:07.pursued again, this time by the press pack in full flow,
:11:08. > :11:11.led by Channel 4's Michael Crick and John Sweeney,
:11:12. > :11:14.reporting for Newsnight. If you don't want the answer
:11:15. > :11:16.to questions, The response of D Wood
:11:17. > :11:41.from Cheshire: I suspect
:11:42. > :11:44.many of you will have strong views on all the topics we have mentioned
:11:45. > :11:46.today, which we may well come back
:11:47. > :11:49.to, so do get in touch with any
:11:50. > :11:52.of your opinions on BBC News We'll be back to hear your thoughts
:11:53. > :12:13.about BBC news coverage