0:00:00 > 0:00:00And we know the BBC has new graphics for its weather service,
0:00:00 > 0:00:03so why did viewers get this retro last Saturday?
0:00:07 > 0:00:11First, Wednesday brought a sense of sickening familiarity with news
0:00:11 > 0:00:14of a mass shooting at a high school in Florida.
0:00:14 > 0:00:17A couple of hours later, Jon Sopel described the scene
0:00:17 > 0:00:18for the News at Ten.
0:00:18 > 0:00:23Yet again those terrifying pictures of children running for their lives
0:00:23 > 0:00:28as an active shooter is on the school premises,
0:00:28 > 0:00:31running as fast as they can to try to get to safety.
0:00:31 > 0:00:33We understand the shooter himself is in custody.
0:00:33 > 0:00:36He is believed to be an 18-year-old former student of this school.
0:00:36 > 0:00:42He is now under arrest.
0:00:42 > 0:00:46Over the next few hours it emerged 17 people had been killed
0:00:46 > 0:00:49and BBC News provided plenty more detail and reaction.
0:00:49 > 0:00:51Too much for some viewers.
0:00:51 > 0:00:56Here is Stephanie Johnson.
0:00:56 > 0:00:59"We all understand how tragic this latest shooting is.
0:00:59 > 0:01:01What we were shown this morning was completely unnecessary.
0:01:01 > 0:01:04We do not need to see those poor children shaking with fear.
0:01:04 > 0:01:08It is just too much."
0:01:08 > 0:01:10And C Hancock echoing that asked: do we really need
0:01:10 > 0:01:13such excessive coverage of the latest shooting atrocity?
0:01:13 > 0:01:16Does the BBC not realise that by providing such coverage
0:01:16 > 0:01:21we are giving the perpetrator the publicity he craves?
0:01:21 > 0:01:27There has also been harrowing news leading the six o'clock bulletin
0:01:27 > 0:01:37earlier this evening after Mujahid Arshid had been found
0:01:37 > 0:01:39guilty of murdering his neice Celine Dookhran last summer,
0:01:39 > 0:01:41and the attempted murder of a second woman.
0:01:41 > 0:01:42Denise Morley thought some of the description
0:01:42 > 0:01:44provided was inappropriate for an early evening broadcast.
0:01:44 > 0:01:47"You have just given a graphic description of a murder and rape,
0:01:47 > 0:01:50filling in all the details including a throat being cut.
0:01:50 > 0:01:53This is a family time and it appears it is totally appropriate
0:01:53 > 0:01:55in the BBC's judgment for children to get a detailed account
0:01:55 > 0:01:56of a rape and murder.
0:01:56 > 0:01:58Is it me?"
0:01:58 > 0:02:00Also on Wednesday, the BBC's economics editor Kamal Ahmed wrote
0:02:00 > 0:02:03online about the economic performance of the European Union,
0:02:03 > 0:02:06pointing out that growth in the region was at levels not
0:02:06 > 0:02:09seen since 2007.
0:02:09 > 0:02:13Initially, the article had the headline, "UK no longer shackled
0:02:13 > 0:02:17to a corpse," a reference of Kamal Ahmed later
0:02:17 > 0:02:20pointed out on Twitter, to a comment once made
0:02:20 > 0:02:22by the Eurosceptic MP Douglas Carswell, that Britain's
0:02:22 > 0:02:26membership of the EU came at a significant financial cost.
0:02:26 > 0:02:28The headline was later changed, but not before several readers had
0:02:28 > 0:02:31tweeted their objections.
0:02:31 > 0:02:36"Scandalous", once said.
0:02:36 > 0:02:39"We were never shackled to a corpse as you well know,
0:02:39 > 0:02:41so why use this misleading headline?
0:02:41 > 0:02:43The only court in question will be the UK economy
0:02:43 > 0:02:44of Brexit goes ahead."
0:02:44 > 0:02:46And others wondered why the phrase didn't have
0:02:46 > 0:02:55quotation marks around it.
0:02:55 > 0:02:56Here is Andrew Mell.
0:02:56 > 0:02:58"The headline implies that the UK economy was at one point
0:02:58 > 0:02:59shackled to a corpse.
0:02:59 > 0:03:02Many more people will read the headline than the whole article,
0:03:02 > 0:03:03even with the quote marks.
0:03:03 > 0:03:06Someone glancing at the headline is likely to read it
0:03:06 > 0:03:07as an endorsement of that position."
0:03:07 > 0:03:10We put those points to BBC News and they told us: The headline has
0:03:10 > 0:03:12been taken out of context.
0:03:12 > 0:03:14The article made clear that EU growth was strong and any previous
0:03:14 > 0:03:16criticisms that the EU was economically underperforming
0:03:16 > 0:03:18was no longer correct.
0:03:18 > 0:03:22In 2012, the eurozone was in recession which led to the criticism
0:03:22 > 0:03:24that it was economically a corpse, a basket case and a failure.
0:03:24 > 0:03:27That is what the headline was referring to.
0:03:27 > 0:03:30It was changed the following day as the surrounding material had been
0:03:30 > 0:03:33taken of the business front page online whereas the blog
0:03:33 > 0:03:39was still available.
0:03:39 > 0:03:45We needed to make it clearer what the blog was referring to."
0:03:45 > 0:03:51A couple of weeks ago viewer Russell Moore
0:03:51 > 0:03:53contacted us on his thoughts on
0:03:53 > 0:03:55a practice he and others have observed on BBC News.
0:03:55 > 0:03:57Here is the interview he recorded for us.
0:03:57 > 0:04:00I would like to share my frustration at what I call suggestive reporting.
0:04:00 > 0:04:02The increasingly used BBC technique of shouting accusing questions
0:04:02 > 0:04:05at politicians as they walk in and out of meetings.
0:04:05 > 0:04:07Are you still in control of your party, Prime Minister?
0:04:07 > 0:04:10Of course the person has no intention of answering or maybe has
0:04:10 > 0:04:12not heard the question but that does not matter.
0:04:12 > 0:04:14We see the pictures, we heard the accusation
0:04:14 > 0:04:15and that is what sticks.
0:04:15 > 0:04:18And in itself becomes the news and a new truth to be repeated.
0:04:18 > 0:04:22Do you want to be the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary?
0:04:22 > 0:04:26At best this is cheap, lazy, sensationalist and of the tabloids.
0:04:32 > 0:04:34At best this is cheap, lazy, sensationalist and worthy
0:04:35 > 0:04:36only of the tabloids.
0:04:36 > 0:04:38At worst it can feel like a deliberate technique,
0:04:38 > 0:04:40using suggestion to plant ideas into our subconscious and to get
0:04:40 > 0:04:43the public to think and believe in a particular way.
0:04:43 > 0:04:44Are you confident of staying in government?
0:04:44 > 0:04:47It is the BBC's job to report news, not to create it
0:04:47 > 0:04:49and to reflect opinion, not to deliberately manipulate it.
0:04:49 > 0:04:52So please, BBC News, stop doing this.
0:04:52 > 0:04:58At the end of last week it emerged that two British men believed to be
0:04:58 > 0:05:02part of an Islamic State group cell had been captured
0:05:02 > 0:05:05by Syrian Kurdish fighters.
0:05:05 > 0:05:07Andy Moore reported on the story for BBC News.
0:05:07 > 0:05:09Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elssheikh, the two Britons captured
0:05:09 > 0:05:19by Kurdish forces last month and questioned by the Americans.
0:05:21 > 0:05:23Together with Aine Davis and Mohammed Emwazi they they formed
0:05:23 > 0:05:25the kidnap gang that became known as the Beatles, because
0:05:25 > 0:05:27they were usually masked and their captors could hear
0:05:28 > 0:05:29only their British accents.
0:05:29 > 0:05:33The reference to the gang's nickname the Beatles annoyed some viewers.
0:05:33 > 0:05:36"Why does the BBC insist on glorifying the story
0:05:36 > 0:05:39regarding the Islamic State fighters, highlighting their infamy
0:05:39 > 0:05:42as the Beatles gang just cements them as gang members that young
0:05:42 > 0:05:46troubled men may connect with.
0:05:46 > 0:05:50They have been caught and will spend a long time behind
0:05:50 > 0:05:55bars when convicted, end of story."
0:05:55 > 0:05:58And Clive Shaw agreed.
0:05:58 > 0:06:00"This totally misrepresents a cell of evil murderers and gives
0:06:00 > 0:06:05the impression as a group of dashing heroes while denigrating
0:06:05 > 0:06:09of one of our most famous and loved bands."
0:06:09 > 0:06:11Over the past two years, reports of sexual exploitation
0:06:11 > 0:06:13and abuse by those in powerful positions have hit institutions such
0:06:13 > 0:06:16as parliament, the church, the film industry, the world
0:06:16 > 0:06:17of sport and the BBC.
0:06:17 > 0:06:19On Saturday, the headlines in the Times newspaper focused
0:06:19 > 0:06:20on the charity sector.
0:06:20 > 0:06:23Their investigation found that in 2011, four members of staff
0:06:23 > 0:06:28at Oxfam had been sacked and three others resigned over charges
0:06:28 > 0:06:30of using local women, some underage for sex,
0:06:30 > 0:06:33after the earthquake in Haiti.
0:06:33 > 0:06:35Further revelations followed and the BBC has been following up
0:06:35 > 0:06:41the story with Angus Crawford reporting on Sunday evening.
0:06:41 > 0:06:44The government is now demanding every charity receiving taxpayers
0:06:44 > 0:06:49money disclose all past and current cases of sexual misconduct.
0:06:49 > 0:06:51A scandal affecting one charity is now threatening
0:06:51 > 0:06:55to engulf the entire sector.
0:06:55 > 0:06:59The government has always defended its budget by saying look,
0:06:59 > 0:07:01we are spending it better, we are making less fraud, less
0:07:02 > 0:07:03waste, all those kind of things.
0:07:03 > 0:07:11I think it is harder for the government to make that
0:07:11 > 0:07:15argument we have some Oxfam worker spending taxpayers' money
0:07:15 > 0:07:17on Caligula style orgies with young prostitutes.
0:07:17 > 0:07:18James Landale in the studio there.
0:07:18 > 0:07:21Some viewers took exception to the way the story was covered,
0:07:21 > 0:07:23with one viewer, who preferred to remain anonymous writing:
0:07:23 > 0:07:26the fact that Oxfam dealt with the case at the time was not
0:07:26 > 0:07:29portrayed clearly at all by the BBC, which also conveyed the message
0:07:29 > 0:07:33about the 87 allegations of sexual assault at Oxfam itself reported
0:07:33 > 0:07:35in its annual report, out of context.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39It did not make clear that because Oxfam has transparency
0:07:39 > 0:07:41and safeguarding policy in place, it voluntarily
0:07:41 > 0:07:43published this figure.
0:07:43 > 0:07:45Instead, it conveyed it as if the media discovered
0:07:45 > 0:07:55these allegations.
0:07:55 > 0:07:58Anzac Rose made this point.
0:07:58 > 0:08:01"A tiny number of Oxfam staff behaved inappropriately in the past.
0:08:01 > 0:08:03From this minuscule molehill, and Everest has been made
0:08:03 > 0:08:04by the populist press.
0:08:04 > 0:08:06It is disappointing that the BBC has joined the witchhunt.
0:08:06 > 0:08:09A more balanced approach would have pointed out the outstanding work
0:08:09 > 0:08:11done by thousands of Oxfam staff and volunteers."
0:08:11 > 0:08:15And Grace Dalton echoed that in this telephone message she left us.
0:08:15 > 0:08:18I really feel that the BBC was not anywhere careful enough to make
0:08:18 > 0:08:21clear that this scandal relates to a small number of people who no
0:08:21 > 0:08:26longer work for Oxfam.
0:08:26 > 0:08:29The report that was aired last night said this one scandal
0:08:29 > 0:08:33was threatening to engulf the whole sector.
0:08:33 > 0:08:36It is only threatening to engulf the whole sector because the way
0:08:36 > 0:08:40that media outlets like yourself are reporting it.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43I would not mind at all of the government would stop
0:08:43 > 0:08:46giving money to Oxfam, but if people give less
0:08:46 > 0:08:50to all foreign aid charities, because the BBC makes it seem
0:08:50 > 0:08:55as though foreign aid is now to be associated
0:08:55 > 0:08:58with sex scandals like this, people will die.
0:08:58 > 0:09:06Less aid money will be given and people will die.
0:09:06 > 0:09:09There was no one available from BBC News to discuss those concerns,
0:09:09 > 0:09:12but instead they gave us this statement in response.
0:09:12 > 0:09:15"This is a significant story with disturbing revelations
0:09:15 > 0:09:18about one of the most recognised aid organisations in the world.
0:09:18 > 0:09:23Oxfam International's executive director has herself called
0:09:23 > 0:09:25for those affected to come forward to a new independent commission
0:09:25 > 0:09:29and said the charity needs to atone for the past.
0:09:29 > 0:09:34Our coverage has reflected the seriousness of the allegations
0:09:34 > 0:09:44and examined the likely extent of the problem in
0:09:46 > 0:09:47and examined the likely extent of the
0:09:48 > 0:09:49problem in a responsible manner."
0:09:49 > 0:09:52Finally, we discussed on Maastricht's programme,
0:09:58 > 0:10:00Finally, we discussed on last week's programme,
0:10:00 > 0:10:02the changes introduced to the BBC television weather forecast.
0:10:02 > 0:10:04Ahead of the BBC whether the sophisticated new
0:10:04 > 0:10:06graphics in operation.
0:10:06 > 0:10:08So it was something of a surprise for those watching BBC One
0:10:08 > 0:10:10on Saturday evening seeing this following the end
0:10:10 > 0:10:11of the news bulletin.
0:10:11 > 0:10:14Now we are going to take a look at the weekend's weather.
0:10:14 > 0:10:15There will be some heavy rain.
0:10:15 > 0:10:18It will move eastwards this evening bringing snow to northern hills.
0:10:18 > 0:10:20After the rain clears there will be strong winds
0:10:20 > 0:10:25which will sweep in from the West, bringing wintry showers.
0:10:25 > 0:10:27And so it continued, leaving Julie Juniper to ask,
0:10:27 > 0:10:29where is the weather?
0:10:29 > 0:10:32Just a picture of the UK and a woman's voice for a minute.
0:10:32 > 0:10:36Sian Evans was confused.
0:10:36 > 0:10:40"Just watched the new BBC weather forecast or was it a joke?
0:10:40 > 0:10:43No presenter or map.
0:10:43 > 0:10:52Better to listen to the radio."
0:10:52 > 0:10:54And Sarah Horsley wondered has somebody broken
0:10:54 > 0:10:56the new BBC graphics already?
0:10:56 > 0:11:03Was this decidedly low-tech approach to deliver deliberate reversion
0:11:04 > 0:11:11a 50-year-old style.
0:11:11 > 0:11:13The BBC Press tam tweeted this explanation.
0:11:13 > 0:11:16This was simply a case of human error due to the earlier
0:11:16 > 0:11:17than normal BBC News.
0:11:17 > 0:11:19Nothing to do with the new graphics or any forecasting issues.
0:11:19 > 0:11:21Thank you for your comments this week.
0:11:21 > 0:11:23We always welcome your comments on BBC News.
0:11:23 > 0:11:26If you would like them to be heard or even to appear yourself,
0:11:26 > 0:11:28you can telephone us or send us an e-mail.
0:11:28 > 0:11:30You can also post your thoughts on Twitter.
0:11:30 > 0:11:33Do have a look at our website where you can watch previous
0:11:33 > 0:11:38interviews and discussions we have recorded.
0:11:38 > 0:11:42That is all from us.
0:11:42 > 0:11:52We will be back to hear your thoughts next week.