29/04/2016 Newswatch


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



million Jews. At ten o'clock, Sophie Raworth will


be here with a full round-up of all the day's news. First, he is


Newswatch. Hello and welcome to Newswatch


with me, Samira Ahmed. This week, how BBC News has covered


three Coming up shortly,


extensive airtime for President Obama's


comments on the EU. Were they challenged enough


or an unwarranted boost


to the Remain campaign? And exit Ken Livingstone,


pursued by the press pack, but has he been hounded unfairly by the news


media over his comments about But first, the acrimonious


dispute between junior doctors and the government reached


another stage this week, with two We have continued to hear


accusations that BBC News has been biased in its coverage


in both directions, but two specific On Monday, the BBC news website


published an article headlined "Junior doctors' leaders trying


to topple the government". Although the claim was in quotation


marks, the fact that it was attributed to one


anonymous government source angered I was disappointed to read


the headline on the BBC's health news website on the 25th of April,


which stated that the BMA were The casural reader of such


a headline might get the impression that there was a serious risk


of this happening. However, if you look at the article,


this appears to be the view of a government source,


who remains unnamed and at the time of writing the article has no


support ascribed to their view by any other government


minister or MP. Conversely, there are 50,000 junior


doctors and many other health professionals who would probably


unanimously reject the view that there is any agenda to topple


the government going on here, instead arguing


that they are working for patient So is it entirely representative


of the views being held on this issue to have such an alarmist


headline on the BBC's In my view, it could unnecessarily


cause alarm in the population The charge of alarmism was also made


on Tuesday evening after a headline on the BBC News Channel crawling


along the bottom of the screen described a strike


without emergency cover. One doctor tweeted that he knew


from personal experience that that was not a correct description,


explaining in this phone message. I am ringing to express my profound


disturbance about the rolling headline on your BBC


News Channel currently, saying that during the junior


doctors' strike tomorrow, they will be without


emergency medical cover. This is completely wrong,


misleading and alarmist and will potentially put people


off coming to hospital Consultants around the country,


myself included, are cancelling other work so that we can provide


the emergency services needed. We know from today's experience


that the emergency cover Now, last Sunday, BBC News unveiled


an exclusive interview which ran at length throughout the day


on television, radio and online. The guest - the president


of the United States. Huw Edwards asked Barack Obama


about some words he had used in a news conference a couple


of days before, when he had dived headlong into the fractious


debate over Britain's EU referendum. It is that phrase, back


of the queue, which I suppose has


offended some and alarmed others. As I said, it was simply a response


to an argument I have heard from others, who are proposing


to leave the EU, that somehow, America would be able to do things


more quickly with the UK than I was simply indicating that that


wouldn't be the case The interview was quite a scoop,


no doubt, but the airtime given to it added to the coverage


previously afforded The interview was quite a scoop, no


doubt, but the airtime given to it, added to the coverage previously


afforded to President Obama and his views on the EU


during his trip here, concerned some viewers,


such as Geoff Gee. Another viewer who contacted us


on Sunday was Richard Westwood Brookes, who joins us now


on the line from Worcester. And with me in the studio


is Paul Royall, the editor Richard, you watched


the interview on Sunday. What was it about it that made


you want to contact us? It reminded me of the deferential


interviews of the 1950s, when Richard Dimbleby used


to invite the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Macmillan,


to state his message for the nation. Here we have a president


of the United States that, despite all the warnings,


decided to come here and wade into the most important domestic


political issue of the day, and yet he was never really


challenged on anything he said. Paul, it was too reverential in tone


and then what he had to say about the EU


was not challenged enough. First of all, all interviewers


have different styles. It is up to people which style


they prefer. Firm, probing, but polite,


I believe, can be more Secondly, in terms of not


being challenged, for example on the back of the queue comments


that President Obama had he was challenged three or four


times on the nature of a trade relationship if Britain


left the European Union. Thirdly, he made it very clear,


and this was picked up by Liam Fox, one of the most prominent Leave


campaigners, that actually, the special relationship


would not change. It was an unbreakable bond,


as the president described it. Liam Fox described


the interview as well judged. So the argument could be made that


people read more into it than might Richard, what different questions


would you have chosen? One question he could have asked,


in a polite manner, was, by the way, President,


how is the American-EU As I understand it, it should have


been ratified in 2014. We're now in 2016 and it


still hasn't been ratified. I believe there is substantial


objection to it in France And of course, he could also have


asked the president if he knew because this wonderful trade deal


which the Americans are doing with this major bloc could easily be


scuppered if somebody like Cyprus or Latvia or Ireland or us object


to it and veto the whole thing. Paul, there is a concern that given


how contentious arguments are are about how the EU works,


President Obama needed to be I go back to the point


that he was challenged He wasn't challenged


robustly enough, though. This is a guy who has stood


for president twice. He's used to being given


pretty robust interviews. A lot of prominent Leave campaigners


regarded what the president said to Huw Edwards as much more


conciliatory, more nuanced, more developed and a rowing back


from what appeared to be the more So if that is regarded


as a soft interview, well, actually, we learned more


about the President's position. And for those who were sceptical


of the back of the queue comments, there were three or four points


in that interview which prominent Leave campaigners all pointed


to to say actually, it reassured reassured them that the UK-US


relationship would remain robust and and strong on many levels if Britain


leaves the European Union. The key concern is that it felt


like all day, we had another set of coverage which was really


someone saying Remain, and that is what people have


taken from it. A broad range of views


were reflected. Of course, there was time


and space devoted Audiences are telling us


they want to go beyond the kind of he says/she says type


of coverage which doesn't aid There will be other days,


because we are committed to balance and impartiality throughout this


campaign, there will be other days when it


could be someone on the Leave side, a prominent politician or world


leader who advocates Britain leaving the European Union,


and they will be given the time and space to develop


sophisticated arguments about why Richard, in the end,


isn't this a case of sometimes, more information is more useful


as part of the overall coverage than it having


to be confrontational? because of the fact


that the president made an open season on this by virtue of the fact


that he came over here uninvited to dictate to us exactly how


we should feel about the EU. One other question which Huw Edwards


could have asked him would be, is it right for a foreign politician


to get involved in British domestic politics?


I don't think it is. Richard Westwood Brookes,


thank you so much, Just time before we go to mention


the explosive row over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party which has ended


the week, much of it


played out on television. Following Wednesday's suspension


from the party of MP Naz Shah, the following morning


Ken Livingstone defended her On his way to a subsequent interview


in the BBC's Westminster offices, he was accosted by another


Labour MP, John Mann. You Nazi apologist, rewriting


history. That confrontation featured


prominently on the day's news bulletins, prompting Cheryl Lang


to ask: after making it into BBC


Two's Daily Politics studio, about Hitler's policy


towards the Jews in 1932, and that prompted his own suspension


from the party shortly afterwards. In the afternoon, he found himself


pursued again, this time by the press pack in full flow,


led by Channel 4's Michael Crick and John Sweeney,


reporting for Newsnight. If you don't want the answer


to questions, The response of D Wood


from Cheshire: I suspect


many of you will have strong views on all the topics we have mentioned


today, which we may well come back


to, so do get in touch with any


of your opinions on BBC News We'll be back to hear your thoughts


about BBC news coverage


Download Subtitles