13/05/2016 Newswatch


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



make a plan to get people home in two weeks. At ten o'clock, Fiona


Bruce will be here with a full round-up of all of the day 's news,


now it is time for Hello and welcome to Newswatch


with me, Samira Ahmed. The Queen and the PM overheard on


camera, but where is the line between what is said in public and


what is fair to broadcast for publish consumption?


And who should get to speak for leave and remain when it comes to


broadcasters casting their big referendum debate programmes?


First, it was a big week for the BBC, with the publication on


Thursday of the government's White Paper on the corporation 's future.


The proposals unveiled for renewing its Royal Charter were the result of


intense negotiation and ferocious argument.


This had been highlighted in Sunday's BAFTA awards where the


drama was Paul was one of the big winners. The director and a standing


over ocean, speaking out on what he thinks our government attacks on the


corporation. In many ways, our broadcasting, the BBC and Channel 4,


they are attempting to this rate, it is the envy of the world and we


should stand up and fight for it, not let it go by default. The


director of Wolf Hall making the news.


David Mellor was one of a number of view was concerned about what he


called an apparent lack of impartiality. He said the


following... Now, it is not everyday that we hear


one of Britain's leaders making apparently private comments which


may offend a foreign power. So, for that to happen twice on was


extraordinary. We have some leaders of fantastically corrupt countries


coming to Britain. Those pieces footage were first


recorded at a reception at Buckingham Palace, marking the Queen


's 90th birthday, then a palace garden party and were both filmed by


a long-standing cameraman wearing a royal badge but working jointly for


the BBC, ITN and Sky. Given potential for embarrassment, it


surprised some viewers the footage came to be broadcast at all. But


after the material was seen and heard at the BBC it was headline


news here for the rest of the day. In a moment we will explore whether


it should have been. Before that, a reminder of some


previous occasions when what public figures said in private had a wider


airing than they would have liked. The primer Mr has form on this, in


2014 he was heard boasting tomb Michael Bloomberg, the New York


mayor, saying how happy the Queen was on the referendum on Scottish


independence. He was again caught out off-camera


but on microphone preparing for a speech in Yorkshire with a joke that


may not have gone down well with his audience.


Previous prime ministers have also forgotten microphones were on, Sir


John Major made industrial language back in 1993 about some of his


Eurosceptic Cabinet colleagues after he finished giving an interview.


And, the sound of President George Bush greeting the British Prime


Minister with" yo Blair" in 2006 at a summit.


In the 2010 election campaign, Gordon Brown described this woman as


a bigoted woman, which caused a major headache.


The Royal family has also faced embarrassment of this kind before.


Prince Charles was heard describing the BBC royal correspondence


Nicholas Witchell as "Awful" at a photocall in 2005.


Interesting and often amusing insights into view is often kept


behind closed doors, but the broadcasters right to share with the


rest of us, this yo comments they would rather were kept secret.


One of our viewers joins us now from Brighton.


Claire, what bothers you about this coverage? I thought it was a private


discussion the Queen was having with a guest at the Buckingham Palace


garden party. And it seemed to have been picked up on microphones, but


it was The Choice of the news team to run this as a news item on


Wednesday, setting the tone for news items for the rest of the day --


elite news item. I thought it was wholly inappropriate. The Royal


family are used to be being filmed this way, the fact the camera was


there, they may have miscalculated what was over hard. But the argument


is it is a good and real insight into real challenges -- overheard.


Quite, but I think the references to the Chinese state visit, that was


something clearly worked on very hard by a great number of diplomats,


and I'm sure a very broad team of people, to deliver what, in effect


at the time, was regarded as a very successful event. In choosing to Ed


this piece of what I would regard as tabloid journalism, sensationalising


comments where the Queen was clearly involved in a private discussion, I


think it is wholly inappropriate -- air. The damage potentially caused


by using footage like this from a broader diplomatic perspective I


think also needs to be taken into account. The BBC officially an


saying anything about this footage but I know there has been much


discussion, including by journalists who would say it was not damaging,


and certainly David Cameron 's comments about Nigeria and


Afghanistan, about general corruption, was something most


people would hardly dispute? It was regarded more as an insight and


perhaps honesty? I don't agree at all, I think this is around trust,


and principles, of communicating. And also the relationship between


the palace and the BBC as well. I think on this occasion the BBC has


gone too far and taken the wrong decision on choosing to Ed this


story. And, making it the lead news item that day -- air. I think thou


more serious stories going on in the world.


All of the main broadcasters around the stories in the end, do you think


you are out of step with what many members of the public feel they


should know? We know the story about China was


censored in that country and not reported, is that what we want? I


don't think so at all but I think this comes down to a set of


operating principles on behalf of the BBC, and item on the news to


watch every day, relying on the fact the BBC is trusted, trusted by the


UK population, and I think it should continue to be, -- to concentrate on


creating good quality news stories, and I honestly feel on this occasion


that this was very close to tabloid journalism, which I do not think has


a place on the BBC at all. Claire Goring, thank you so much. Do


let us know your thoughts on that or any aspect of BBC News.


Details of how to contact us in a moment.


Before that, some of your other comments in the last few days, when


arguments over the forthcoming EU referendum have got evermore


intense. One bone of contention is the


make-up of various debates planned by broadcasters over the next few


weeks. Robert Paxton has been the subject


of furious attacks from the official vote Leave group after ITV, where he


now works, announced they were inviting Ukip Bedene Nigel Farage


and not one of their representatives onto a programme with the Prime


Minister. Meanwhile, the BBC has faced


criticism from the other direction after suggestions it would not be


inviting Nigel Farage onto its own debate programme, at Wembley Arena


two days before the referendum. The corporation says it has not yet


decided who will be on the programme but the Ukip reader has already


expressed concern there are plans to freeze him out, which has been


echoed to us by Eric Adamson, who writes this...


Who takes part in televised debates before a vote and what format they


have has of course been a fraught topic before, with arguments over


David Cameron 's participation in such programmes before the last


general election. If anything, the problem is tricky at this time


around as the vote Leave group, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove,


boast Conservative MPs -- are both Conservative MPs. It seems the BBC


live rally may go ahead without the participation of him or George


Osborne, but this is something that we will certainly keep our eye on.


Finally, the EU referendum has made one particular ubiquitous.


One viewer left this message... No English dictionaries have any


reference to the word Brexit, it is not a word, not a recognised word in


the EU language. -- British land which, why use it? It is used by


people in the media who do not have any regard to English language.


-- language. Thank you for all of your comments this week, if you want


to share your opinions on BBC news or current affairs, or even appear


on the programme, call us on this number, or e-mail at this address.


You can find us on Twitter, and do have a look at the website. That's


all from us, we will be back to hear your thoughts about BBC News


coverage again next week. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles