our main headlines: the us has said it could take further military action against the syrian government after firing missiles at a syrian air base from which washington believes a chemical weapons attack was launched. meanwhile, the un secretary general has called for restraint from the syrian government and russia, who have denounced the attack, but american allies around the world have backed the us bombing of that syrian air filled. in a suspected terror attack, a truck is ploughed into a department store in the swedish capital stockholm. four people were killed and 15 others injured, some seriously. a man has been arrested. the us senate has confirmed presidentjohn‘s nominee for the supreme court, neil gorsuch was confirmed by a simple majority after the senate voted on thursday to abolish a rule that nominees should receive at least 60 votes. —— president trump. that's it from me. at10pm, 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. welcome to newswatch. with me, samira ahmed. the bbc gets an independent and external regulator, what difference will that make to viewers concerned about whether news coverage is fairand impartial? and... so what does britain think? are we on the brink of a bright new dawn, or might we sink? a measured analysis of brexit from david dimbleby in the form of a rap. first, one of the survivors of the westminster attack a couple of weeks ago, melissa cochrane, gave an emotional interview to the bbc on wednesday. her husband was killed and she herself was badly injured. here's a clip from that. melissa cochrane has spoken exclusively to fiona bruce. kurt was probably the best man i have ever met. he was...

sweet and kind. and, i'm extremely proud of him. 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 sensitively by fiona bruce. i feel the interview was cheapened by this out of date expression. 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 agreed to it. here's the rub: at the very beginning of the interview, fiona bruce said, and now we have an exclusive interview with melissa cochrane. it was like it was a trophy. we are better than the rest. we have managed to get an interview with a visibly traumatised, shocked and bereaved woman, before anybody else. well done, bbc. give yourself a pat on the back. andrew horner there, and ian drake, before him. we put their points to bbc news. this is what they told us: 0ne 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? no, not at all. that's brilliant, thank you. but then came this. watch yourself, getting a bit naughty at the end there. you still might get a slap, even though you are a woman. careful next time you come in. 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 teacup, being hyped up by bbc news. now, who decides what constitutes impartiality, balance and accuracy in bbc news reports? and passesjudgments on when there's values on when those values

have been infringed ? 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 bbc trust. but that body has now disappeared, and from monday, the independent regulator off, has taken over oversight of all bbc content. independent regulator 0fcom, has taken over oversight of all bbc content. what difference will that make? 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 former partner at off com. stephen first, people say the bbc has been marking its own homework for years. what difference will make another .com has taken over? what difference will make another 0fcom 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. now you would go to come. now you would go to 0fcom.

the question is, in practice, will it make that much difference. 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 from the bbc itself. the problem was that the perception was that this was just, once again, the bbc. there will be a question around those grounds of impartiality in particular. briefly, bringing in some change, i think there will be more news happening on radio 2 which does not affect us. but some practical changes on what is now required. there will be, there was a different issue around what will be required to do, which will be set by 0fcom. which is different from the complaints procedure. so—called licences for radio stations, possibly some tv channels as well. which will be set by 0fcom. you used to be at 0fcom, stuart. 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 should not make adjustments. but does it make a difference? it was notjust 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 range of bbc output. 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 0fcom. having said that, there are exceptions. there was, if you like, a big fudge in the past. now there are slightly less. one of its greater clarity. we often hearfrom bbc editors that achieving impartiality and balance is not a personaljudgment, it is not a scientific measurement. even the bbc chair says he does want a scientific approach. can it be done? it's a noble ambition.

i'm afraid it is in vain. the whole debate is that we want some humanjudgment 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 makes the final decision. 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 0fcom 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 being talked over. and not getting their fair share. you will always get complaints from people who actually see the news through their own lens, of what they think is right and wrong.

particularly in some of the biggest views, like referendum or brexit of the middle east. 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 traditional tv and radio output. but 0fcom are not going to regulate it. how does that work? what has been coming on behind the scenes of the 0fcom have been pushing back to the government about the idea that they should regulate, notjust 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 response get the chance to go to 0fcom. but to go to 0fcom. if you see the same story covered 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 0fcom. the reason is that 0fcom 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 0fcom 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 0fcom form and it is dead simple. the actual process is not going to be any more confusing. ido not going to be any more confusing. i do have a fear about what it might do to the culture of 0fcom, 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 0fcom come—down in some of those judgments on the side of the bbc, which they will, i suspect we will see more criticism of 0fcom 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 dojoin only the easter —— we are off over easter but do join us again in a fortnight. coming up: a detailed forecast in weather for the week ahead. followed by the day ‘s main stories in the news at 10pm. then add 10:40pm, a look at tomorrow's headlines in the papers. coming up in sport, we will have the latest from the masters plus great britain's davis cup team on the verge of going out in the quarterfinals. they are 2—0 down to france after evans lost their opening single. we'll also have the super league results, all at 10:30pm. now it's time for the film review.

hello and welcome to the film review on bbc news. to take us through this week's cinema releases, as ever, is mark kermode. lovely to be with you. and you. nice to see you. what do we have? this is a really, really good week. we have i am not your negro, which is an oscar—nominated documentary about james baldwin. we have raw, which is a real breathtaking debut feature. and a quiet passion, terence davies' film about emily dickinson. and i am not your negro, billed as a documentary. is it solidly a documentary, a funny genre? well, basically what it is if it's based on an unfinished project that james baldwin had started working on, to tell the story of america through the story of three men, medgar evers, malcom x

and martin luther king. and so what you get is the film is narrated by samuel ljackson, and it mixes news footage, reportage, clips from movies, clips from television programmes and it puts together basically a narrative which tells the story in a way which is both polemical and i think rather poetic. one of the outstanding features is some of the footage of baldwin himself, who comes across as a brilliant orator with an absolutely mesmerising mind. let's see clip. let's see a clip. i have more in common with a black scholar than i have with a white man who is against scholarship. and you have more in common with a white author