is this microphone on? better be careful what i say. welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. coming up, was it right to broadcast gillian keegan's sweary outburst after she finished giving an interview, and what can we learn from other politicians who've embarrassed themselves with comments caught on mic? many of us have regretted things we've said being overheard, but for politicians in their dealings with the media, the stakes are higher. so it was with the education secretary, gillian keegan, on monday when talking to itv news about closing schools whose buildings might be at risk because

the concrete they were built from. here's chris mason reporting on the bbc�*s news at ten. it's the education secretary who's decided on the need for greater caution, but there wasn't much caution when she went all potty mouthed after an interview this afternoon. does anyone ever say, you know what, you've done a bleep good job because everyone else has sat on they're bleep and done nothing? no, no... no signs of that, no? it turns out no, not really. a few hours later, a new outfit and a rather different tone. i'd like to apologise for my choice language that was unnecessary, but it was an off—the—cuff remark. so was the bbc right to show that off—the—cuff remark? martin hach sent us a video with his reaction. my problem is that this was a moment of what i consider privacy. between gillian keegan and other people in the room and was not necessarily subject to transmission to us, the public.

i believe this is what i would call underhand journalism and perhaps dirty journalism. had, they asked gillian keegan's permission, had they asked the other people in the room whether they wanted to be televised, i doubt it. even phyllis agreed there was a problem with the clip being shown. "granted, ms keegan should have been careful, but this is about ethics and privacy. the interview was over." but nana jay thought it was spot on to broadcast it as... "people can see what our elected representatives are really like instead of what they want us to see." the education secretary is just the latest in a line of politicians and public figures who've come a cropper by forgetting that the cameras or the microphones are still on. after an awkward conversation with the voter, gillian duffy during the 2010 election campaign,

gordon brown vented his frustration in his car on the way home while still miked up by a television crew. when brown drove off, he was still wearing the live radio microphone provided by sky tv for coverage, which is shared by all broadcasters. he then complained about his adviser, sue nye, whom he thought had brought mrs duffy over to speak to him. good to see you. thanks very much. it's a disaster. well ijust... ..should never have put me in with that woman. what did she say? 0h, everything, she wasjust a sort of bigoted woman. that phrase, "bigoted woman" haunted brown, and he went on to lose the general election. but four years later, his successor, david cameron, was also embarrassed after comments he made following the referendum on scottish independence. the camera caught the prime minister recounting the private conversation in which he told the queen, scotland was staying in the uk.

it's notjust british politicians who've got into trouble via a hot mic moment. take president reagan at the height of the cold war in 1984. mr reagan was at the ranch preparing for the weekly radio broadcast, testing the microphone. he made a light—hearted remark that may come to haunt the campaign. for the networks, recorded it and last night broadcast it. all right, my fellow americans, i'm pleased to tell you today that i've signed legislation that will outlaw russia forever. we begin bombing in 5 minutes. well, very much on camera and on microphone for us is richard burgess who's the director of news content for bbc news. thank you for coming on newswatch. again, it's obvious that the education secretary in that example had finished her formal interview, and i wonder how much of an editorial discussion there was within the bbc before the decision was made to broadcast it. there was some discussion, but it was an interview done

by itv news, and itv news decided to broadcast it. and once they'd done that, it was out in the public domain. downing street reacted. it was therefore a fairly straightforward decision for us about "is this editorially newsworthy and should we broadcast then?" we made the decision that it was newsworthy. and as you saw from a couple of the viewer whose comments were used, some people clearly think that there was a clear demarcation in her mind and therefore broadcasting her comments was an invasion of her privacy. yeah, i think there's always a balance in these things. you've got to balance the circumstances under which you've got the audio or video and the public interest in broadcasting those comments. and i think in this circumstance, look, i don't know all the circumstances. it was an itv news interview, but it seems to me, yes, the interview was over, but she still knew that the mic was there. you can even see a kind of touching it. i think on that basis,

she should have expected that she was being recorded. and the comments are clearly newsworthy on an issue of significant public interest and giving insight into actual views on things. there might be some viewers would think, is there a bit of a taste issue actually as well? like in the end, wasn't there mostly a shock value in showing a politician swearing and bleeping it out? i don't think... i think it was less about the shock value. i think it was more about the insight into what she thought the her sense that she was getting unfairly blamed for this situation and not, infact, getting the credit. and i notice she herself hasn't certainly hasn't publicly complained about the decision to broadcast it and has said, you know, that the decision...the comments that she made were off—the—cuff and ill—judged. so that suggests that the difference between how some of the public feel, who someone even felt, they thought it was kind of low or dirtyjournalism. and the fact that you think

politicians understand that if a microphone is on them, you know, it's fair game? yeah, well, i think there have been quite a number of incidents like this down the years. and i think increasingly, politicians understand that if there's a microphone on them, they need to be careful about what they say. well, you've raised the issue. we showed some examples. i wonder with the benefit of hindsight, they're actually quite different, aren't they? the cameron example where he's walking towards the camera but isn't actually miked up at that moment. and gordon brown, who's forgotten, he's got a microphone on. do you feel differently at all about the decisions to broadcast them? should there be any difference? i think each one you have to take on their individual circumstances. you know what. . . ? how was the audio obtained? did the individual have a reasonable right to expect that they might be being recorded? and then there's the public interest. you know, does the public interest outweigh those considerations of privacy? and i think sometimes they're really finely balanced decisions. but as broadcasters generally, we want to broadcast and let the public know things we don't really want to know stuff that we then don't broadcast or let

the public know about. well, another interesting example isjohn major, who, of course, didn't think he was being overheard or recorded or said he didn't think he was being recorded when he made criticisms about unsupportive cabinet colleagues and used a kind of strong word. is there a difference between that and i mean, do you think gillian keegan clearly knew why she'd been caught on camera and on mic? she just hadn't expected maybe that it would become the story it did. yeah, i think then the bar for public interest is much higher, but we do on occasions secretly record people. if we think there is a sufficient public interest, it's normally around, we believe there's evidence of criminal wrongdoing, then we will secretly recall people. then we will secretly record people. there's a significant editorial process we have to go through in the bbc before we will do that. so it all depends really on what the public interest is in broadcasting those remarks. and in the major example, i think, you know, that is still something that people talk about to this day

and gave a real insight into his views of his cabinet at the time. yeah. if gillian keegan had said, "i don't want you to use that." would that have made a difference, do you think? well, she would have to have said that to itv news and they would have known about the circumstances under which it was filmed. i think they would have taken that into account. of course they would. but ultimately, i think it comes down to this consideration again, just balancing up those various public interest versus the right to a private conversation. richard burgess, thank you so much. before we go, we asked you last week what you thought about our new branding and the changes to our studio backdrops. so in the newswatch tradition of full transparency, here's a selection of your feedback. michael keaton had this objection...

tobyjames was more positive, but with one proviso... it is known as a kidney—shaped table. so we know what you mean, toby, and we're sorry you're not keen on it, but it was already part of the studio furniture, and we're still working out how to make ourselves at home with it. meanwhile, richard from birmingham was more concerned by the positioning of the text on screen... and another issue with text positioning cropped up for viewers on the news channel for whom the news banner at the bottom of the screen partially obscured the word "news" on our programme. at least gary osborne welcomed last week's return of newswatch.

many thanks for your detailed observations and suggestions on our new look. while i'm sure we won't be able to satisfy everybody, we will definitely pass on your suggestions for tweaks. and if you want to share your opinions about what 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 x formerly known as twitter at newswatch bbc. you can call us on 03700106676 and do have a look at previous interviews on our website bbc.co.uk/newswatch. that's all from us for now. thank you forjoining us. we'll be back to hear more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news next week. goodbye.

hello, desdemona. how are you? hi there. i'm doing great. just learning and exploring the world around me. how about you ? i'm good, thank you. actually, iam having a whale of a time. i've made it no secret that in the past, robots like this have left me very cold. they were misleading, speaking, pre—prepared answers, they were misleading, speaking pre—prepared answers, and giving the impression that we're

on the verge of an ai revolution. however, since chatgpt, everything has changed and this robot is not being puppeteered. it's genuinely the mouthpiece of a large language model programme of a large language model chat programme that is responding live to my unrehearsed questions. how does bob marley like his doughnuts? bob marley likes his doughnuts with a little bit ofjammin'. i think my line of questioning says more about my mindset than yours, to be honest. don't worry, i'm sure you're not the only one feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this ai stuff. let's take it one step at a time. ok, let's. i'm at ifa in berlin. it's europe's biggest tech show. where in hall 20, the robots are doing their thing, whatever that thing actually is. ifeel like i'm about to have my

brain operated on or something. the lasers are going to come out and suddenly it's going to yank the top of my head off and do some kind of minority report stuff. it's notjust the bots, though. every type of tech is here for every part of our lives. it is a real spectacle, with attention grabbing booths, gravity defying demos, and any attempt possible to make the hottest tech look extremely cool. it's definitely one of the more colourful shows that i get to go to. more of the rainbow next year. just a personal request there, but it's maybe the white goods that have the biggest outing here. home appliances are well represented. and this is a place where they deliberately break an egg on your floor so they can vacuum it up again. eh, sticky roller, though.

tell you what else is cracking — tv screens. not literally, mind you, but the latest 0led tvs are big, bright and sharp, and they also turn up in the most unusual places. this could get in the way of shaving, if you ask me. from the bathroom to the bedroom, there is something weird lurking around every corner and if it's your kind of thing, then this place can be fun for all the family. 0ops. that's what ifa is. but what ifa isn't is a place where you are guaranteed to see the next big thing. certainly don't come to ifa expecting there to be new ideas and new inventions on every single store. on every single stall. i mean, they are here, but you have to know where to look. this is as much about manufacturers and retailers selling their version of the latest tv or vacuum cleaner or toothbrush or toy or washing machine.

but one thing you can do at shows like this is take the temperature