29/04/2016 Newswatch

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