09/12/2016 Newswatch

government-controlled West Aleppo. At 10pm Fiona Bruce will be her with

a round-up of the day's news, first, Newswatch.

Hello and welcome. The former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, is he giving

too much air time on the BBC? And particularly on Question Time? The

Brexit Supreme Court hearings. Is there too much coverage this week?

We ask the BBC legal correspondent had to make sense of impenetrable

legal jargon for viewers. Also, contradictory reporting. A BBC story

says the cost of Christmas dinner has gone up, another, that it has

gone down, which is right? First, Ukip's Nigel Farage, on the

BBC, specifically Question Time, several viewers have been in touch

about the frequency of his appearances, at the end of last

week's programme the presenter, David Dimbleby, announced the

following week's panel to the audience, and got the following

reaction... On our panel next week we have got

Nigel Farage... Are you groaning because he's not

here? All right. Here's a flavour of the programme.

I am surprised to see Nigel trumpeting Donald Trump so much. He

has trumpeted him so much she's now in a situation where he has to

decide his own future, whether to be a Conservative Lord, or Donald

TrumpButler. Is that the choice you face?

I don't think it is. I do know him and I did support him on his

campaign and I spoke with him on a platform and I completely accept

that he says things that shock everybody, but he also apologises.

Which is interesting because very few people in politics apologise.

Many people got in touch to say that Nigel Farage and Ukip are given too

much coverage. And Rod Fraser recorded this video

files. I was deeply disappointed to find out he was once again invited

onto the panel for the Question Time programme. I understand that as an

organisation the BBC must provide impartial and balanced coverage and

give a voice to all, but to continue to give Nigel Farage a platform to

air extremist and devise a is dangerous. -- divisive. Too many of

my fellow Britons he embodies all that is wrong with the country.

The producer told us... The long-running civil war in Yemen

has concerned that many viewers. They felt it was being

underreported. Fergal Keane's report on Monday's news at ten touched many

in the audience. More than 7000 have been killed and 3 million forced to

flee their homes. In rural areas they are furthest

from aid. Waiting for the world. In this village, medics from Save the

Children battle to help. In another, people have brought sick infants to

others. The old man, and his hungry grandchildren. This nine-month old

is sick with liver problems caused by malnutrition.

Martin Rowe was one of many viewers who decided to get in touch with

us... The future of Britain and whether

the government or MPs have the final right to trigger the exit from the

European Union is one of the biggest stories around, and it has been

determined in the Supreme Court, which held a four-day hearing of the

government appeal on the issue. While there was a bit of a circus

with protesters outside the real drama was inside, with cameras

enabling the news channel to run all day live coverage, the justices

would announce their judgment in the New Year, but there was plenty of

detail on the argument on whether the government can invoke Article 50

of the Lisbon Treaty when it chooses or whether, as various campaigners

are successfully argued in the High Court, it must seek the approval of

MPs. The hearing was covered extensively on the BBC News Channel.

Let's go over to our reporter who has watched

proceedings all week, for the latest.

It has been for Mike days of hearings of this historic Brexit

legal case, four days of argument that has sometimes been impassioned,

sometimes, frankly, pretty impenetrable, although today one of

the barristers said that the arguments against the government

were so clear they could be understood by a six-year-old child,

which I somehow doubt. Were you gripped?

One reviewer said... But there were those who were keen

to stick with the unfolding arguments and felt let down for a

different reason, like David... I am joined by the BBC legal

correspondent, Clive Coleman, who had been at the Supreme Court all

week. Although cameras have been in the Supreme Court for a while this

felt like the first big chance for rolling news to go with a story that

is clearly of major importance, but some viewers felt it was overloaded,

and they did not really understand what was going on, because of the

nature of proceedings, did you get the balance right?

Some correspondence and lawyers felt overloaded. Look, proceedings in

the Supreme Court have been televised since 2009. Why have we

not televise a whole case? The reason being that they have become a

sort of academic seminar, that is the sort of flavour, the texture,

and often they are very, very complicated, and very difficult to

follow, the decision was taken on this occasion that this was such a

massive case, perhaps the biggest case in generations, about where

power lies in our Constitution, between ministers and Parliament,

and because the political ramifications are to give it a lot

more coverage than we would normally do with a Supreme Court case the

decision was taken to give it a lot more coverage than we would normally

do with a Supreme Court reports for a general audience, how do you

manage a situation like this, when it is all kind of unfolding live?

This was a fantastically complicated case generating 24,000 pages of

written argument, legal authorities, how do you convince that down, when

you are doing hips and the news channel, which are lasting one

minute, two minutes, three minutes? It is really

difficult, I approach it in this clearly in your day to day job you

are used to complicated court proceedings and turning them into

understandable news reports for a general audience, how do you manage

a situation like this, when it is all kind of unfolding live? This was

a fantastically complicated case generating 24,000 pages of written

argument, of the authorities, how do you convince that down, when you are

doing hips and the news channel, which are lasting one minute, two

minutes, three minutes? It is really difficult, I approach it in this

way, you are trying to be like a good jury advocate. You are trying

to find an image, or a way through a complicated thicket of legal

argument, the way that you might do...

Dining, for instance, let's take the act at the centre of this case, the

European communities act of 1972, the act which took us into the EU, I

described that as sort of a huge oak tree of an act, it is a

constitutional statute, it is not a little sapling, you know, there were

other acts mentioned like the Dangerous Dogs Act, this is a

massive constitutional statute, people may think it is a cheap

trick, but something like that, it at least once the image in the head

of the viewer, it makes it more understandable, and that is my would

you say to people who felt it was complicated that the importance of

the story meant it was worth trying to stick the most important thing

for me is that politics and personal threats against the woman at its

centre and some very personal criticism of the judges, enemies of

the people being the headline, exactly, and it is such an important

case, that, you know, I really took the view that actually this is a

case arrived at the Supreme Court in a blizzard of politics and personal

threats against the woman at its centre and some very personal

criticism of the judges, enemies of the people being the headline,

exactly, and it is such an important case, that, you know, I really took

the view that actually this is opportunity to see our Constitution

and the rule of law in action, because this was a judicial review,

it was triggered by two citizens who have the right to ask a court to get

you know, they don't really teach the constitution in school, but

these are incredibly important things, and this did provide the BBC

and others with a great opportunity to see the tectonic plates of the

Constitution in action, and these were independent judges, dealing

with decisions that ministers were wanting to take, and actually the

thing that came being taken by ministers and rule on whether it is

lawful or not. We all have the right to do that. It

is interesting, a lot of lawyers have said to me, you know, they

don't really teach the constitution in school, but these are incredibly

important things, and this did provide the BBC and others with a

great opportunity to see the tectonic plates of the Constitution

in action, and these were independent judges, dealing with

decisions that ministers were wanting to take, and actually the

thing that came across is that a lot of people did not quite realised

that judges had that when will we get the decision?

In the middle of. Let us know your thoughts on that or

any aspect of BBC News. Details on how to contact us at the end of the

programme. Has the cost of Christmas dinner gone up or down? The BBC News

website was thank you so much. Let us know your thoughts on that or any

aspect of BBC News. Details on how to contact us at the end of the

programme. Has the cost of Christmas dinner gone up or down? The BBC News

website conflicting stories. One story used to research by good

housekeeping and said Christmas 2016 may be the cheapest ever. Another

piece used figures from my supermarket to save costs and ridden

by 14%. Janice Moffat is confused. An item on the website Christmas

would be the cheapest ever. A contributing factor was the fact

that the price of Christmas dinner with the lowest since 2009. 10%

lower. Imagine my surprise when days later I read another headline on the

same website claiming the Christmas dinner costs were to rise 14% this

year. What is it to be? Is my Christmas dinner going to cost me

more less? I am really disappointed in the BBC News editorial team for

allowing this clearly contradictory reports to be posted an item on the

website Christmas would be the cheapest ever. A contributing factor

was the fact that the price Christmas dinner with the lowest

since 2009. 10% lower. Imagine my surprise when days later I read

another headline on the same website claiming the Christmas dinner costs

were to rise 14% this year. What is it to be? Is my Christmas dinner

going to cost me more less? I am really disappointed in the BBC News

editorial team for allowing this clearly contradictory reports to be

posted has anybody in this team even read their own news?

The BBC's reality check has looked at these two reports and concluded

that food in general is slightly cheaper, what you end up paying for

Christmas dinner will depend on how you shop and how much time you have

to do it. That is all from us. Thank you for your comments this week. If

you want to see appear on the programme you can call appear on the

programme you can or e-mail Newswatch. Do have a look at our

website for previous do have a look at our website for previous back to

hear your thoughts about BBC News coverage again next week.