:00:09. > :00:13.At ten o'clock in Bruce will be here with a full round-up of the news.
:00:14. > :00:23.First, here is news watch. Hello and welcome to Newswatch
:00:24. > :00:26.with me, Samira Ahmed. She won't take part
:00:27. > :00:28.in a televised leaders debate. Will the BBC do more to make
:00:29. > :00:31.a head-to-head happen? And are the Green party being given
:00:32. > :00:35.a fair share of airtime on the BBC's There has been a bit
:00:36. > :00:42.of a phoney war feel Before the parties began
:00:43. > :00:45.publishing their manifestos. Many questions had been fobbed
:00:46. > :00:48.off with this answer, given to Laura Kuenssberg
:00:49. > :00:54.by Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday. Well, you will have to wait
:00:55. > :00:57.for the manifesto for the details. Those manifestos will be
:00:58. > :01:00.officially unveiled next week, but on Wednesday night we got
:01:01. > :01:02.a sneak preview of what Somehow, an earlier
:01:03. > :01:08.version had ended up I can't claim I've read it
:01:09. > :01:13.all, but here it is. Stamped right through the middle
:01:14. > :01:15.of the document, about 20,000 words In other words, they hadn't quite
:01:16. > :01:22.anticipated me waving it But I can do, because we've
:01:23. > :01:28.received this leaked draft. Well, he could leave it
:01:29. > :01:30.around on the telly, Tim Grant was among several
:01:31. > :01:34.Newswatch viewers who thought not, asking, if it's got confidential
:01:35. > :01:37.written on it, is it right And David Gregory
:01:38. > :01:43.elaborated on that. One report explained how the word
:01:44. > :01:45.draft was on every page and that this report was not meant
:01:46. > :01:49.for public viewing. Why, then, do the BBC take
:01:50. > :01:52.the opportunity to make a moral stand here and not report
:01:53. > :01:55.on what was in the manifesto? This is, in effect, a stolen
:01:56. > :01:58.document, and therefore should have not been used in the way
:01:59. > :02:02.that it was. We didn't discover much
:02:03. > :02:04.about the Conservative Party's policy plans on Tuesday night's
:02:05. > :02:07.One Show, but we did get a few insights into the personalities
:02:08. > :02:15.and marriage of Mr and Mrs May. I get to decide when
:02:16. > :02:20.There's boy jobs and girl jobs, you see.
:02:21. > :02:24.Now, we're not leaving that as well, are we?
:02:25. > :02:28.I'm tempted to say in current circumstances I'm not sure how
:02:29. > :02:38.Alison Norcross found that a stomach churning interview,
:02:39. > :02:41.it made uncomfortable viewing on many fronts, not the least
:02:42. > :02:45.of which is the absolute obsequiousness of the presenters.
:02:46. > :02:48.And one Twitter user wondered, how can this propaganda be
:02:49. > :02:53.allowed when May runs from a face-to-face debate?
:02:54. > :02:57.The format in which senior politicians appear in the set piece
:02:58. > :02:59.election programmes only started in 2010, but has since become
:03:00. > :03:05.In 2015 David Cameron refused to follow the example of his
:03:06. > :03:07.predecessor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and take part
:03:08. > :03:10.in a head-to-head discussion on the BBC with other party leaders.
:03:11. > :03:18.Five of whom appeared without him in a so-called challengers debate.
:03:19. > :03:21.Theresa May has followed his example and Jeremy Corbyn has said
:03:22. > :03:26.he won't take part in such a programme either, if she doesn't.
:03:27. > :03:29.So this time round we were told this week the BBC will be showing
:03:30. > :03:31.a debate featuring senior representatives from Labour,
:03:32. > :03:34.the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats,
:03:35. > :03:39.the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Ukip and the Green party.
:03:40. > :03:41.The press release also announced Question Time specials and election
:03:42. > :03:43.questions programmes featuring separately the leaders
:03:44. > :03:46.of six of those parties, but not the Green party,
:03:47. > :03:53.to the annoyance of many viewers, including Christopher Corey.
:03:54. > :03:58.I understand that the BBC in their forthcoming election
:03:59. > :04:01.specials have invited Ukip to take part and have excluded
:04:02. > :04:11.I think this is unfair and ludicrous, to be honest.
:04:12. > :04:16.I am not a Green party supporter, and I am certainly not
:04:17. > :04:18.a Ukip supporter, however, I do think that the Green party
:04:19. > :04:21.should qualify far above Ukip to have their voice heard
:04:22. > :04:32.Other viewers were annoyed about the absence of a televised
:04:33. > :04:34.debate between the two main candidates to lead
:04:35. > :04:39.Some comparing it to the long established tradition of American
:04:40. > :04:44.presidential hopefuls squaring up to each other, a debate in March
:04:45. > :04:46.between the two leading candidates to become Prime Minister
:04:47. > :04:49.of the Netherlands, and the TV discussions before the recent
:04:50. > :04:56.If those countries can do it, wondered Terry Pearson,
:04:57. > :04:59.why should our potential leaders avoid that sort of scrutiny?
:05:00. > :05:02.Isn't it about time the BBC took on the clearly prepared Conservative
:05:03. > :05:08.strategy of not letting May face searching political questions?
:05:09. > :05:10.The One Show "Who takes out the bins?"
:05:11. > :05:14.I still don't understand why we will not see May
:05:15. > :05:20.If the BBC had seriously threatened to empty chair her,
:05:21. > :05:25.Well, let's discuss some of those issues with the BBC's
:05:26. > :05:27.head of news gathering, Jonathan Monroe.
:05:28. > :05:29.Jonathan, let's start with whether the BBC should have
:05:30. > :05:33.done more to try to get Theresa May to take part in a leaders debate
:05:34. > :05:36.by threatening to go ahead with her seat empty.
:05:37. > :05:38.Well, we're really disappointed the Prime Minister's not
:05:39. > :05:41.doing the leaders debate, we would have liked to have done
:05:42. > :05:43.a leaders debate featuring the party leaders themselves.
:05:44. > :05:45.The day after the Easter weekend the Prime Minister announced
:05:46. > :05:49.Number one, there would be a general election.
:05:50. > :05:51.And number two, she would not take part in television debates.
:05:52. > :05:54.And our judgment was that wasn't a negotiating position,
:05:55. > :05:58.So threatening to empty chair would have led to an empty chair.
:05:59. > :06:02.Ultimately, the viewer doesn't learn anything from an empty chair.
:06:03. > :06:04.She has paid no price for refusing the leaders debate.
:06:05. > :06:06.In fact, there she is on The One Show sofa,
:06:07. > :06:09.and viewers have said, whatever you say, they feel
:06:10. > :06:12.that's wrong, and maybe she would have given in.
:06:13. > :06:15.But she hasn't paid a price for saying no.
:06:16. > :06:17.We don't know she's not paid a price.
:06:18. > :06:20.Some viewers may decide that they're going to change their vote
:06:21. > :06:23.as a result of the strategy of the leaders of the election.
:06:24. > :06:27.But it doesn't help anybody to say that because the Prime Minister
:06:28. > :06:30.is going to appear in one format she can't therefore appear
:06:31. > :06:32.in other programmes, whether it's Question Time
:06:33. > :06:35.or election questions or Andrew Neil interviews.
:06:36. > :06:42.Or The One Show or Jeremy Vine or any of the other programmes that
:06:43. > :06:47.actually had leader debates, and people thought we were going
:06:48. > :06:53.It's a shame that we're not getting them.
:06:54. > :06:56.Basically what happened in 2010 is that all the main party
:06:57. > :06:59.leaders at the time, by which I mean just three of them,
:07:00. > :07:02.we didn't include the seven in 2010, they all felt, for whatever reason,
:07:03. > :07:05.it was in their interest, it was the right moment to say yes
:07:06. > :07:09.That changed by 2015 with, as you say, David Cameron not
:07:10. > :07:14.A very complicated negotiation then followed about exposure of parties
:07:15. > :07:19.We didn't have Nick Clegg in the TV debate either.
:07:20. > :07:22.And it has changed again this time round with the Prime Minister
:07:23. > :07:27.Let's hope we can get them back again in future elections.
:07:28. > :07:30.The BBC is going to run these special Question Time format
:07:31. > :07:32.programmes with individual party leaders and studio audience.
:07:33. > :07:34.At the start of this week the BBC said the Greens
:07:35. > :07:39.A lot of viewers complained to Newswatch.
:07:40. > :07:45.And they complained to us, too, and I've heard the comments your
:07:46. > :07:49.Let me explain the formula we use, not in too much detail.
:07:50. > :07:52.We are obliged by our regulations to take into account the electoral
:07:53. > :07:54.support over two election cycles, that means two general elections,
:07:55. > :07:58.in other words back to 2010, and all the elections that happened
:07:59. > :08:02.Lots of local elections in that time, obviously,
:08:03. > :08:06.If you take all those figures, the Ukip support over that period
:08:07. > :08:09.is significantly greater than the Greens.
:08:10. > :08:12.The Greens have been stable but very low.
:08:13. > :08:16.We saw, as you know, a week or so ago, they didn't do
:08:17. > :08:20.But over the seven-year period we are obliged to count,
:08:21. > :08:25.But when you apply that format to the schedule,
:08:26. > :08:30.the programmes we are actually going to make, we do think
:08:31. > :08:32.in retrospect, actually, that the gap between what Ukip
:08:33. > :08:35.is getting and what the Greens are getting is too great,
:08:36. > :08:38.so we're going to make a change and we've invited the Green party
:08:39. > :08:41.in the last 24 hours to take part in an extra programme
:08:42. > :08:43.in the elections questions format in the last weekend
:08:44. > :08:47.They've accepted that and we're really pleased to have
:08:48. > :08:50.that extra programme going into the BBC One schedule.
:08:51. > :08:53.So you've either caved in to pressure or you got it wrong.
:08:54. > :08:57.We're not going to cave in to pressure from political parties.
:08:58. > :08:59.We looked at the schedule in retrospect, what we'd lined up,
:09:00. > :09:02.and the differences between the parties.
:09:03. > :09:04.There were two differences, effectively, that the Greens
:09:05. > :09:09.One was the Question Time elections questions programmes,
:09:10. > :09:13.The other was the series of Andrew Neil interviews,
:09:14. > :09:16.which are going out the week after next on BBC One.
:09:17. > :09:19.So what we've done is we said to the Green party, we think
:09:20. > :09:22.the gap's too great at the moment, but you can't have equivalents
:09:23. > :09:25.to the other parties because of that electoral support issue.
:09:26. > :09:27.So we've given them, we hope, a good compromise
:09:28. > :09:30.and an offer I'm really pleased to say they've accepted.
:09:31. > :09:35.Away from the election, shock were created this week
:09:36. > :09:38.by President Trump's sacking of the FBI director James Comey.
:09:39. > :09:41.The White House has said he was fired because he'd
:09:42. > :09:44.mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's
:09:45. > :09:49.Here's Jon Sopel on Wednesday night's News at Ten.
:09:50. > :09:52.But if it really is all about the way the FBI conducted
:09:53. > :09:54.the Hillary Clinton investigation, why sack him now?
:09:55. > :09:59.Why not do it when Donald Trump first came to office?
:10:00. > :10:02.And how do you reconcile it with the praise that was
:10:03. > :10:07.Roger Witt from Poole felt there was a lack
:10:08. > :10:10.of balance in the reporting of Mr Comey's sacking.
:10:11. > :10:14.I'm struggling to understand why the BBC should imply that the reason
:10:15. > :10:17.behind it is the fact that the bureau were closing
:10:18. > :10:22.Yes, it's what the Democrats say, but without any evidence.
:10:23. > :10:26.In months of investigation, Comey has produced no evidence either,
:10:27. > :10:30.so I'm curious as to what facts the BBC is privy to.
:10:31. > :10:33.Or is the corporation merely reporting selective rumour?
:10:34. > :10:36.Finally, Alexander Blackman, known as Marine A, was freed two
:10:37. > :10:39.weeks ago after serving three years in prison for killing a wounded
:10:40. > :10:45.An incident recorded on a helmet camera.
:10:46. > :10:47.On Tuesday, Clinton Rogers met the former Royal Marine
:10:48. > :10:54.To be fair, you can put quite a few different spins on what's said.
:10:55. > :10:58.And unless you were actually there, you don't know the full story.
:10:59. > :11:04.Obviously, I told my version of events when I was at trial.
:11:05. > :11:05.Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and given especially what's
:11:06. > :11:08.happened to us in our life, if you could go back,
:11:09. > :11:17.One viewer was watching that and the her response for us on camera.
:11:18. > :11:21.I have absolutely no sympathy with the allegiances
:11:22. > :11:25.of his Taliban victim, but allowing the man who breached
:11:26. > :11:28.the Geneva Convention and killed and injured prisoner of war
:11:29. > :11:33.to justify himself in this way is disgusting.
:11:34. > :11:36.He was provided with a platform and allowed to minimise his actions
:11:37. > :11:44.and suggest there was justification not known to the general public.
:11:45. > :11:47.Thanks for all your comments this week.
:11:48. > :11:50.If you want to share your opinions on BBC News and current affairs,
:11:51. > :11:53.or even appear on the programme, you can call us...
:11:54. > :11:58.Do have a look at our website for previous discussions.
:11:59. > :12:09.We'll be back to hear your thoughts about BBC news