hello and welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. why did bbc news broadcast hours of coronation coverage when the identical output could be seen at the same time on two other bbc channels? and did it treat last weekend's events in a spirit of impartial journalism or celebration? and which would have been better? the coronation of elizabeth ii had a claim to be the first mass televised event, with many buying their first tv set for the occasion. 70 years on the audience in the uk for charles iii's

coronation peaked at 20 million. split between itv, sky news, bbc one, bbc two and bbc news. god save the king! len clarkson was among those who commended the bbc on a weekend of significant broadcasting challenges. but other viewers were less happy. in a moment, we'll hear from amy wynne morris, who found a lack of impartiality in the coverage. first, here'sjoe collins, focusing on the decision to broadcast for seven and a half hours on saturday, the same output on the news channel as was already being shown on bbc one and bbc two. when i get up in the morning,

i like to turn on my tv or my radio to get the news. but on saturday, the only way i could get news on my tv was to turn on one of the foreign broadcasters. now, the reason that people turn to news channels is because they want to discover something new about what happened in the world. and while i have no problem with how the coronation was covered on bbc one and two, we knew exactly what was going to happen in that coronation. there was no new information. and so there wasn't enough news value to justify carrying it live on the news channel as well. i get that the bbc has to report on the coronation whether i like it or not. it was a huge news event. however, to me, the coverage was so blindly positive that it felt less like news and more like the put it bluntly, propaganda.

with support for the monarchy lower than ever and multiple protests taking place over coronation weekend, the question of whether or not the monarchy should have the right to exist in a modern society is clearly a real concern for many people. but instead, i feel like the corporation were acting as a propaganda arm for the monarchy, running constant fluff pieces about just how much people were enjoying the coronation, rather than using any of the endless time devoted to the event to ask any real questions or offer any alternate perspectives besides the state approved one. another viewer who contacted us this week was joanne beaver. so let's talk to her now, along with richard burgess, who's the bbc�*s director of news content. joanne, were you dreading watching the coronation? well, no, i'm an ardent royalist. my family were all very pro the royalfamily. and i personally was looking forward to seeing it on bbc, and alsojoining in with the many village events that were organised to

support the coronation. but my disappointment was the lack of choice with the bbc. i didn't expect the coronation would be on bbc one, bbc two and the news channel. i expected to be able to take a break from the coronation, much as i was loving it, and see what else was happening in the world. well, i think, it was obviously a major news event, the coronation. and i think it's right that the bbc covers it and covers it comprehensively across our channels. interestingly, the viewing figures for the news channel this last saturday were about five times bigger than they were the previous saturday. so that does suggest that people were tuning in and sticking with the coronation coverage.

i think ultimately that was the major news story of the day. that's the right thing for the news channel to be covering. but, you know, there was no choice. where was the choice to find out what else was happening in the world? i think we have to recognise that this is an event that happens very seldomly. the last one was 70 years ago. i think part of the bbc's remit is to bring the nation together around big events. we're proud about doing that, and that's what we did with the coronation, and we saw that people came to us in massive numbers, you know, 25 million across television, many millions online plus on radio. and as i said, big, big numbers for the news channel as well. joanne, you do accept it was a major news event. can you see the case for warranting it being on all these channels? if i can say yes but no, how many channels can one person watch? if i hadn't been a staunch royalist, if i had been wavering,

i think the overdose of coverage would have actually driven me into the arms of the republicans, because itjust made the point almost, you know, this is good for you, so jolly well eat it. much as i loved the coronation, and i loved the bbc coverage, every bit of it, i was miffed that i couldn't take a break from the coronation and see what was happening in ukraine, or had prince charles, now the king, managed to stop the war in ukrainejust by the power of the coronation? because that was how it felt. it was very unfair to people that don't support the monarchy, who pay their licence fee. surely they should have had an alternative to the coronation if they don't believe

in the monarchy? well, joanne�*s raised the next issue for people who all the lives of payers who aren't interested in the coronation, where was their choice? is it acceptable for more than seven hours to have nothing? i think you need to see the coverage in the round. so if you look at all our build up to the coronation, seven and a half hours in that day, there was no television news coverage. i'll come to that. just let me make this point as well, samir. if you see in the build up, you know, we did reflect that side of the debate. we did reflect that people had contrary reviews around the monarchy and indeed around the coronation. in terms of the seven hours, i mean, what's the alternative? we're going to create a news channel, create generate news when the big news story of the day is the coronation. that's what news channels are for. i don't think that would have been good use of licence fee payers money. i really don't. and we've seen and we've seen in the figures that the viewers feel the same. five times as many people

watched the news channel on the saturday than they did on the previous three. all those viewers might have well tuned in to bbc one or bbc two if those had been the only two channels. we don't know. we know they're spread across three. but what was interesting was the two viewers who we saw on video camera, they're both young and we know that a lot of younger people tend to skew higher in terms of being more sceptical about the monarchy. and the issue was raised whether the overall tone as well was very celebratory and not impartial. journalism, which is the bbc supposedly is supposed to be about. is the bbc not impartial when it comes to the royal family? no, i think we showed you impartiality. clearly, the coronation in itself was an event that there was a lot of celebration. and for a big part of the population, it was a reason to be happy and cheerful and celebrate. but equally, we reflected the debate around the monarchy. so we did a panorama on the future of the monarchy, which included a poll, which i think one of the viewers was referring to. it's a day programme debate. we did a world this weekend on it. we interviewed protesters around the event. on the day?

so, yes, indeed, we had a home affairs correspondent who was on the ground when the protesters were arrested. we were sharp on that story, covered it across our platforms. so so i don't think it's fair to say that we were celebratory, but of course, we did reflect that there is a celebratory nature to this event. 0k. joanne, what would you like to see bbc news do differently for the next big royal state occasion? please don't do anything different to what you do now. i thought the coverage was absolutely brilliant, and i felt that it was an uplifting and celebratory event, and i think the bbc were quite right to hold that up as being, you know, a wonderful event for this country. what i objected to, and still do, was the fact that if i hadn't wanted to watch the coronation, my bbc that i pay licence fee to, didn't offer me an option.

and i didn't care whether it was on bbc one or bbc two or if it was on bbc one and the news channel. but leave me a channel with something else to watch, please. very well expressed, joanne beaver. thank you. and richard burgess as well. finally, regular viewers will know the complaint, "that's not news," which often comes about a story on the bbc. and we have another entry in that category this week with this article, which appeared online on friday headlined... not everyone was convinced that the purchase by the former oasis singer in a fish and chip shop in derbyshire merited a place on the corporation's news website. grace west was one of a number who asked, for those less familiar with oasis lyrics, pete trainor wondered but phil davis apparently

wanted more from tv news. thank you for all your comments this week. following the coronation, this weekend again sees significant demands on the bbc�*s outside broadcast and technical teams where the final of the eurovision song contest in liverpool. if you have any views on how bbc news has covered eurovision or about anything you see or hear on bbc news, on tv, radio, online and social media, email newswatch at bbc.co.uk or you can find us on twitter at newswatch bbc. you can call us on 37016676 and do have a look at our website for previous interviews, bbc.co.uk newswatch. that's all from us. we'll be back to hear your thoughts about bbc news

coverage again next week. goodbye. rhythmic marching it was a sunday, i was in church with my mother and father. and... i remember hearing the bishop

getting up in the pulpit before his sermon and saying, "we're now at war with germany." and i thought, "how exciting, gosh, an adventure." and little did i know what was in store for me, but... so that's how my war started, in a church at lancaster castle. at october 1942... we got embarkation leave, and we all went home for a week, a week's leave. and then we sailed for north africa... ..early november. our division was put in, told to capture the range of hills to the north of tunisia. and, ..we captured hill after hill. but it took time. it took a month of solid fighting. you were attacking probably twice a week... ..another hill. and we were never out of the line at all.

we were in action the whole time. and when you captured one hill, you peered over the top of it and there was another hill in front of you. so you just went on and on for a month. you were shot at, shelled, bombed... ..mortared, everything. and you got that dreadful feeling and sickness in your tummy. "oh, god, is this going to be the last time?" and you didn't know. and... sometimes you were lucky, sometimes you weren't. i was lucky. i think i should have been killed five or six times. i don't think i should be talking to you now. i think i should have been buried in a north african field, 75, 80 years ago. when you have a shell bursting three feet away from you, by where you are now...

..you don't expect to live. there's an awful lot of metal flying around. and it happened to me in... ..in my first battle when i was hit... ..hit in the chin by a piece of metal which lodged itself in my jawbone. and i should have been killed then. my four companions... they were... they were working class men. you had a bond with those four. it couldn't be taken away from you. you and the other four had gone to the brink of death and come back. and that happened four

orfive, six times. and you got...