07/04/2017 Newswatch

president Trump. That's it from me. At 10pm, the full round-up of the

day 's news will be here. First of all, time for NewsWatch.

The BBC gets an independent and external regulator,

what difference will that make to viewers concerned

about whether news coverage is fair and impartial?

Are we on the brink of a bright new dawn, or might

A measured analysis of Brexit from David Dimbleby in the

First, one of the survivors of the Westminster attack

a couple of weeks ago, Melissa Cochrane, gave an emotional

Her husband was killed and she herself was badly injured.

Melissa Cochrane has spoken exclusively to Fiona Bruce.

Kurt was probably the best man I have ever met.

I'm very happy that the world now knows what a wonderful man he was.

Two viewers recorded their thoughts on that for us.

They were divided about the interview itself,

but united in their condemnation of how

it was described and promoted on air.

Can someone please explain to me what it means when Hugh Edwards

prefaces a news report with the expression exclusive report?

The interview was very emotionally charged, but handled very

I feel the interview was cheapened by this

The woman was visibly traumatised, she was

shocked, there were tears on her face.

I don't believe she should have been interviewed, even had she

Here's the rub: at the very beginning of the interview,

Fiona Bruce said, and now we have an exclusive interview

We have managed to get an interview with a visibly traumatised, shocked

and bereaved woman, before anybody else.

Andrew Horner there, and Ian Drake, before him.

This is what they told us:

One of the big debates of the week

was over the comments made by football

manager David Moyes, in a post-match

interview with BBC sports reporter Vicki Sparkes.

Does it put any extra pressure on you as a manager when

you know the owner is in the stands, watching?

Watch yourself, getting a bit naughty at the end there.

You still might get a slap, even though you

David Moyes apologised for those comments, which were widely

condemned and are being investigated by the FA.

But some news critics thought this was a storm in a

Now, who decides what constitutes impartiality, balance and accuracy

And passes judgments on when there's values

And passes judgments on when those values

Here on news watch, we don't have that authority

although we are always keen to view your views.

Up until this week it has been the responsibility of the

But that body has now disappeared, and from Monday, the

independent regulator off, has taken over oversight of all BBC content.

independent regulator Ofcom, has taken over oversight

To answer that, I am joined by Steven Barnett, professor of

communication at Westminster and former chief executive of ITM and

communication at Westminster and Stuart Pervis, former

chief executive of ITM and

Stephen first, people say the BBC has been

What difference will make another .com has taken over?

What difference will make another Ofcom has taken over?

The difference is that once you have made a

complaint to the BBC, which has always the case,

if you then want to escalate it, up until the end of

March, you would then go to the BBC trust.

The question is, in practice, will it

The BBC trust, despite the name, in my view

at least was actually a pretty independent body.

I think it was actually pretty good at looking

after the complaints who felt they had not had justice

The problem was that the perception was that this was just,

There will be a question around those grounds of

Briefly, bringing in some change, I think

there will be more news happening on radio 2 which does not

But some practical changes on what is now required.

There will be, there was a different issue around what will be required

Which is different from the complaints procedure.

So-called licences for radio stations,

We know at news watch the viewers often unhappy

about how the BBC handles concerns around impartiality.

We have heard from Stephen, that in a way it

It was not just a perception that you are

not conscious of who was making the decision.

It was a much wider conclusion about who should complain

about what, and the issue goes much wider across the whole

The simplicity of this is that if you are unhappy, complain to

the BBC first, if you're not happy with the decision, go to Ofcom.

Having said that, there are exceptions.

There was, if you like, a big fudge in the past.

We often hear from BBC editors that achieving

impartiality and balance is not a personal judgment, it is not a

Even the BBC chair says he does want a scientific approach.

The whole debate is that we want some human judgment involved, we

don't want it to be done by some algorithm or other.

We want people to take account of the context and

the background and the whole series of factors before the regulator

I'm sure there will be all sorts of league

tables of which words are more or less impartial than others.

At the end of the day, we need experienced

people preferably with some kind of back on themselves in production,

making a judgment which they have to be prepared to defend.

I have no problem if the BBC does not like the

Ofcom says, it should have the right to say that.

With the scientific approach, I think a lot of people

think it would be good if the BBC did a proper

headcount and looks at who gets to go on panel shows.

I hear complaints about certain people

You will always get complaints from people who actually

see the news through their own lens, of what they think is right and

Particularly in some of the biggest views, like referendum or

But Stewart is completely right, it is

-- you can count the number of minutes as much as you want.

You can count the number of head, the number

of times that someone is for or against.

In the end, it is going to be a matter of judgment.

NewsWatch deals with online as much as

But Ofcom are not going to regulate it.

What has been coming on behind the scenes of the Ofcom

have been pushing back to the government about the idea that they

should regulate, not just broadcasting BBC online content as

well, so we'll have a rather weird situation where if you want complain

about something on television radio, you will if you do not like the

But if you see the same story to go to Ofcom.

But if you see the same story covered online in terms of a blog

post by a BBC correspondent, you will not be able to go to Ofcom. The

reason is that Ofcom does not want to set a precedent for regulating

online content, because then why not recollect ITV online channel for

online, or the Daily Mail online? I think it is an odd situation.

Everyone complains about too much bureaucracy at the BBC. As a whole

new layer of Ofcom rules was going to make that worse? I'm not

convinced there will be a whole new layer of rules. The whole idea as

Stewart said, is to make it easier and clearer. For those consumers who

actually want to complain. I had a look at the Ofcom form and it is

dead simple. The actual process is not going to be any more confusing.

I do have a fear about what it might do to the culture of Ofcom, taking

on this additional, very large area of BBC oversight. I think it will

make it... I think it will politicise off, and a weight has not

been before. It will be in the line. It will be under more pressure from

those who actually are not great friends of the BBC, and then he

majorly of the publishers and some of those who are major critics of

the BBC. Once Ofcom come-down in some of those judgments on the side

of the BBC, which they will, I suspect we will see more criticism

of Ofcom the me have so far. Thank you both. Last week saw a novel

approach to impartiality taken by David Dimbleby in a pollution or

trail he published for BBC question Time on Facebook live. He

demonstrated his alleged skill in the art of rap. We have triggered

article 50, Barnier look shifty, we're going to have to be thrifty

with a recession in 2050. With rather more doom and gloom, the

economy could bloom. With terror threats, murder threats, we will do

we decide to pay our debts? As immigration, taxation, and questions

from the nation will stop May is out on probation. What does Britain

think? Are we on the brink of a bright new dawn, or might we sink?

This is the kind of stuff we get up to on question Time in the

afternoon, thinking Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. What are we going to

do differently about Brexit?! Well it was certainly different, wasn't

it? But was appropriate? The performance was described as

impressive, awkward, with one viewer pleading...

Thank you for all your comments this week. If you want to share your

opinions on BBC News and current affairs or even appear on the

programme, you can call us on our website is BBC .co .uk/ news

watch. That's all from us. We are only the Easter -- we are off over

Easter but