:00:00. > :00:00.Now, Clive Myrie will be here for the ten o'clock News but now it is
:00:00. > :00:16.time for news watch. MUSIC Heller and welcome to news
:00:17. > :00:21.watch with me, on today's programme. His BBC News holding Hillary Clinton
:00:22. > :00:26.and Donald Trump to the same journalistic standards in this US
:00:27. > :00:30.presidential election campaign. And does BBC News know how to pronounce
:00:31. > :00:38.the name of the Italian Prime Minister? First, football jumped
:00:39. > :00:41.this week from the sports bulletins to the news headlines following a
:00:42. > :00:48.sting operation by the Daily Telegraph which on Tuesday night
:00:49. > :00:52.resulted in this. Tonight at ten, a significant error of judgment means
:00:53. > :00:56.that Sam Allardyce is no longer the England football manager. He had
:00:57. > :01:02.been in the job for just two months, the FA has terminated his contract
:01:03. > :01:05.with immediate effect. Following a newspaper report that he had offered
:01:06. > :01:11.advice on bypassing the FA rules on and play transfers. He had made the
:01:12. > :01:17.comments to undercover reporters posing as businessmen, and he said
:01:18. > :01:22.that "Entrapment had one". As was the case with Keith Vaz that we
:01:23. > :01:26.explored three weeks ago, questions were asked about the legitimacy of
:01:27. > :01:31.the journalism and the keenness of the BBC to follow up the story. "
:01:32. > :01:54.This person reported: Brexit and how it is to be delivered
:01:55. > :01:59.still permeates much of the agenda and on Thursday BBC News heard the
:02:00. > :02:04.news of an important player on the European stage. The latest European
:02:05. > :02:09.leader to sound a warning about British expectations is the Italian
:02:10. > :02:16.Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi and he said it would be impossible, to give
:02:17. > :02:23.Britain's superior rights. News of the Brexit vote was met with dismay
:02:24. > :02:29.here, expressed clearly to me by the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.
:02:30. > :02:46.But Italy's Prime Minister is not actually pronounced like that.
:02:47. > :02:53.Names were also an issue last Friday when one fewer true our attention to
:02:54. > :03:01.the practice exemplified by this screen grab.
:03:02. > :03:43.83 million Americans watched the first televised presidential debate
:03:44. > :03:47.between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, audience figures that most TV
:03:48. > :03:51.networks could only dream of. Jon Sobel was there among the crowd of
:03:52. > :03:55.journalists reporting on the debate. Here in the spin room, both sides
:03:56. > :04:00.are claiming victory as you would expect, Donald Trump has come in to
:04:01. > :04:05.do his own spinning. He had one question to answer, did he have the
:04:06. > :04:08.temperament to be the next commander-in-chief, the next
:04:09. > :04:14.president, on that, maybe the jury is still out. Mr Trump are you
:04:15. > :04:18.satisfied with how it went? Answers came none. But some news watch
:04:19. > :04:22.viewers had a question of their own. Brian Watson watched the whole of
:04:23. > :04:25.the debate live and all three BBC News bulletins the next day and
:04:26. > :04:31.wondered why there was such a disjuncture between the two. During
:04:32. > :04:36.the debate, the Matt George of the time was taken up in a very serious
:04:37. > :04:41.and measured discussion -- the majority of the debate, on trade and
:04:42. > :04:45.jobs and another large segment consisted of a discussion on gun
:04:46. > :04:49.crime, particularly in the inner cities and how it could be
:04:50. > :04:55.controlled. But the count of the debate on the BBC News consisted of
:04:56. > :05:00.a focus on for example, Hillary Clinton defending her stamina, and
:05:01. > :05:07.then accusing Donald Trump of living in his own virtual world. And it was
:05:08. > :05:12.all very petty, whereas the debate as I said was measured and sensible.
:05:13. > :05:17.So I wonder why that was the case, why the BBC have reported it in that
:05:18. > :05:20.way? Banks to Brian Watson for recording his views and others made
:05:21. > :05:44.a different point about the presidential election campaign.
:05:45. > :05:51.While the foreign editor of BBC News is Andrew Roy and he joins us now.
:05:52. > :05:55.Let us start with that debate coverage, viewers say that if you
:05:56. > :05:58.watched the debate, there was lots of serious discussion and the
:05:59. > :06:05.bulletins did not give you any of that? The debates are more than one
:06:06. > :06:08.how long and everybody watches the debate and will take something
:06:09. > :06:12.different way about what they think is the most important and
:06:13. > :06:16.interesting part of it. Our job is to distil it down to only three
:06:17. > :06:21.minutes to go into a news bulletin. I'm not surprised that some people
:06:22. > :06:24.disagree with the elements that we selected for that three-minute
:06:25. > :06:28.report, but I don't think that you can say that the BBC didn't cover
:06:29. > :06:32.the serious issues around the debate. In the longer form areas
:06:33. > :06:38.online and everywhere else we could go into depth, we picked it apart,
:06:39. > :06:43.we picked it a party in our business coverage as well, the comments they
:06:44. > :06:46.made about trade. So I think our coverage across the board on the
:06:47. > :06:52.debate was pretty good and pretty in-depth. White but news bulletins
:06:53. > :06:55.are a big court part of what the audience get. And if you have
:06:56. > :07:02.viewers saying that there wasn't any of that? There was quite a big
:07:03. > :07:07.discussion about TTP and a lot of back and forth in the candidates are
:07:08. > :07:11.doing what Hillary had said about support of trade deals. In brief, is
:07:12. > :07:15.there a case to say that if you are going to have a report, let us name
:07:16. > :07:21.check the issues that were discussed. I have watched it and it
:07:22. > :07:27.is just the moments of clashes? It is not just the moments of clashes,
:07:28. > :07:33.the sound bites, you have got to put in, you might have skipped over what
:07:34. > :07:38.we were saying about the TPP because it was an exchange where they were
:07:39. > :07:41.getting ugly with each other. The topic was covered, we covered the
:07:42. > :07:46.fact that they did in some parts of the debate getting too serious
:07:47. > :07:51.issues. It was also not just the BBC who said it was an extremely
:07:52. > :07:56.fractious debate, and other broadcasters definitely called it
:07:57. > :08:02.one way or the other. We reported in many cases, that supporters of Mr
:08:03. > :08:07.Trump called it a something he had lost including Rudy Giuliani. We did
:08:08. > :08:11.not necessarily call it ourselves but we did record how it was being
:08:12. > :08:14.received in America which is the most important part of our
:08:15. > :08:19.reporting. Do you think there is an issue about some of the language
:08:20. > :08:24.used to describe Clinton against Trump in these debates. Certainly in
:08:25. > :08:29.some bulletins I have heard talk about a fight, punches being thrown,
:08:30. > :08:35.first blood. Is that helpful? I don't know if it is our job about
:08:36. > :08:40.being helpful about describing such an adversarial event staged for
:08:41. > :08:45.television. We can soften our language but the reality is, this
:08:46. > :08:50.has been one of the most fractious US presidential elections anybody
:08:51. > :08:56.has had to cover, and it has been unpleasant, it has been fractious
:08:57. > :09:00.and personal, so I think, that if we use adjectives to describe what has
:09:01. > :09:06.been a pretty tough residential fight, I think that is accurate.
:09:07. > :09:12.Some viewers feel there is a different issue. "Impartiality
:09:13. > :09:19.Doesn't mean giving countries as much as fact, the BBC has
:09:20. > :09:23.struggled". We have tried as much as we can to pin them down on policy,
:09:24. > :09:27.it is not that easy on either of them called both have made
:09:28. > :09:32.statements, backtracked, refined the statements. And we have tried to pin
:09:33. > :09:37.down what each candidate says on particular issues of policy and hold
:09:38. > :09:41.them to it. And we have got a lot of online explainers trying to show
:09:42. > :09:45.exactly what each candidate stands for on particular issues. I don't
:09:46. > :09:51.think we are going just with the circus atmosphere. We do call the
:09:52. > :09:54.candidates and there were fact checks done throughout the
:09:55. > :09:59.presidential election, calling them on whether it was true. The more
:10:00. > :10:04.sophisticated use of it in America was actually live during the debate,
:10:05. > :10:08.we worry little bit behind on that, but we were calling the candidates
:10:09. > :10:16.on their fact checking, and we were just letting it twist our coverage.
:10:17. > :10:21.-- we were not. Finally, television is a visual media but some tell us,
:10:22. > :10:26.that fetching appropriate pictures can be tortuous. Take this report
:10:27. > :10:30.that appeared few weeks ago. Lure with politics turned on its head, a
:10:31. > :10:35.trampoline park seems like the perfect place to come. Swindon voted
:10:36. > :10:39.for Brexit, but after all of the twists and turns of the last few
:10:40. > :10:45.weeks, people say what they want most from Mrs May is a bit of
:10:46. > :10:53.stability. I hope she's going to steady us and put it at rest, it is
:10:54. > :10:57.not going to be too rocky. STUDIO: There was a rocky reaction to that
:10:58. > :11:01.from this anonymous caller. They were interviewing people bouncing up
:11:02. > :11:06.and down on the trampoline while making the most appalling range of
:11:07. > :11:09.visual metaphors, and all you do is end up cringing. I think really
:11:10. > :11:14.there should be a fine every time they do it. Donate the proceeds to
:11:15. > :11:19.charity because it is just getting ridiculous. The idea of a fine might
:11:20. > :11:47.go down well with steep twist who e-mailed us along similar lines.
:11:48. > :11:55.Thanks for all of your comments this week. You can share your opinions on
:11:56. > :12:02.BBC News I calling us on this number or e-mailing us. You can find us on
:12:03. > :12:09.Twitter, and do have a look at our website. That is all from us, we
:12:10. > :12:18.will be live to act to hear your thoughts about BBC News coverage
:12:19. > :12:24.again, next. -- next week. Goodbye.