this week, the bbc�*s north america editor sarah smith on the us presidential election. welcome to newswatch with me samira ahmed. coming up, there's more than eight months until voters decide on the next occupant of the white house. why have some viewers had enough of the contest already? and the peculiar challenges of reporting on one particular candidate for president. first storm isha and storm jocleyn this week caused considerable damage to many parts of the uk with heavy rain and strong winds, also resulting in two deaths on sunday. here's part of the bbc�*s coverage that day. if you do come near the coast, please make sure that

you air with caution. the idea is, is that even when it is rough, the wind and the waves will come over and they could sweep you out to sea. and it's hard in this weather to try and find anyone. so please, if you do come down or if not, please just steer clear of the sea if you can. well, the rain is here and the strong winds have already started to arrive. and the sea is on its way in. and the real warning is around coastal areas with large waves and debris posing a risk to life. professor lucy easthope was one of a number of viewers concerned about that juxtaposition between the rnli's warning to steer clear of the sea and the piece to camera that followed immediately. "this is utterly disgraceful. the dissonance it creates can kill people. explain yourself, bbc news." and john from cheshire recorded a video with his thoughts on the matter.

are those who control the bbc of the view that oral warnings cannot comprehend be comprehended by members of the public unless accompanied by pictures. if so, that's a very condescending view to hold. in any event, if they held that view, there are any number of static cameras from which views of the sea can be obtained, rather than sending a camera crew and a reporter into a potentially dangerous situation. we are just wrapped up really warm and going to go home and stay, stay inside, i think. to an untutored eye, it certainly looked like a dangerous location. apart from anything else, the effect of this report was to undermine the rnli warning rather than to reinforce it. because effectively what you were saying is, well, the rnli say that it's not safe here, but look, we're here and we're filming and we're interviewing people, so it can't be that bad, really. is it a case of do what we say

and not what we do? well, newswatch viewers will know we have raised this issue repeatedly with bbc news over the years. we did again, putting all those points to them and this was their response. "it is important to show and explain the impacts of the severe weather conditions across the uk and we take all necessary care to ensure the safety of staff." last week, we had the iowa caucuses. this week, the new hampshire primary, both of them held to start determining who the republican candidate would be in this autumn�*s us presidential election. and both with the same winner. donald trump is already anticipating that old generation rematch, withjoe biden. completely confident he will be the republican candidate. when you step into that voting booth, you are going to be signaling that we want crooked joe biden, the worst president in the history of our country. we got to get him out. donald, i love you!

sarah smith, the bbc�*s north america editor there and will be speaking to her in a moment. first, some of your responses to the coverage this week, starting with this from brian tickell. "this isjust a primary and a long, long way from the election itself. so why is it being given such prominence on your website and news programmes?" robin petherbridge added, "all they're doing is choosing the candidate to lead their partyjust because the bizarre way they do it takes months and months, that really does notjustify you dwelling on every twist and turn for all of that time." and here's andrew taylor. "the four yearly jamboree is upon us. but please, can we be spared the saturation coverage of the elections for candidates? clearly, the election proper is important and needs to be covered. but the primaries?" well, sarah smithjoins us now from new hampshire. thank you so much for coming on. thank you so much for coming on newswatch, sarah. so this week was a primary, last week was the caucus. there's just two out of 50 state contests. we are such a long way from the election itself.

has this week and last really been worth the amount of airtime that it's got, do you think? so the particular votes that were held last week in this week are really, really important in the primary process. the iowa caucus is the first one in the country and then the new hampshire primary, the first one where voters go to the ballot box and pick their candidate and they get more coverage than the rest of the race. we are not going to be giving the same level of coverage to 48 other contests. not at all. these two set the tone for the election. already, the number of candidates has been winnowed down to just two who were competing in new hampshire, nikki haley and donald trump. and the outcome of these votes is it has a huge influence on who is going to become the candidate. and essentially the question this year is whether or not it's going to be donald trump. and these are two candidates who have very, very different political outlooks, different policies, crucially on foreign policy as well. which one of them becomes the republican candidate could determine what the party's policy is on all sorts

of international events. they are particularly opposed, for instance, on funding for the ukraine defenses and whether or not america would continue spending money on that. so there is there's a sharp policy difference between the two of them that does matter, beyond the united states. and is it still important to follow candidates around the country on the campaign trail these days, or is more of that taking place online and on television? some voters, of course, get their information online and on television, and we reflect what's being seen there in our reporting. but it's vital, i think, to be on the ground for several reasons. so firstly, as we move around different states, it's by being there in person as the bbc that we can talk to the voters about how they're responding to the messages that they hear from the candidates, but also how candidates appear on the campaign trail can make a huge difference. i mean, ron desantis basically came undone because when people saw him in real life, they didn't think he behaved like a regular human being and they didn't much like the look of him. he's stiff and awkward

and finds it difficult to communicate well with voters — things that he could gloss over in television and in his advertising, but not when he was on the stump, being asked questions by people who were right there in front of him. and that is in many ways what sank his campaign. now, when it comes to former president trump, there are some viewers here who feel he's allowed to dominate news coverage too much and that there's not enough challenge of his more dubious claims. and i wonder how you approach reporting on him? so he dominates the republican campaign, and so he features largely in our coverage, but not to the extent that he obliterates anybody else. i mean, he is an important political force in the united states. he's reshaped american politics in many ways, completely transformed the republican party. is the clear frontrunner for the republican nomination, and certainly this far out polling suggests a very strong contender to be reelected to the white house,

who is an important figure who needs and deserves coverage. we are careful not to take everything donald trump does and says and put it on the air. i mean, when he is making important speeches in electoral contests, of course we cover them so we can talk about what his message is, what his policies are. the court cases in which he's embroiled are tremendously important as well, because they could have a huge impact on this campaign. they could have a huge impact basically on whether or not if he's re—elected to the white house, he's able to govern from there or whether he'll be in prison or under house arrest. i mean, the consequences of this are enormous. so of course, we cover those court cases as well. and often some of the statements that he makes on the steps of the court, because they are vital historical event that deserves coverage. what we don't do is put on air absolutely everything that donald trump does. i mean, you might feel you see so much of him, you wonder what else he could be doing in the spare hours. but he actually does do a number

of events, of rallies, of different meetings, all kinds of things to talk to his supporters, which we do not put on air unless they have a genuine purpose. unless we are looking at an electoral contest or some significant point in his legal problem. so although you might think you see a lot of him, trust me, it's not as much as you could. and sarah, in the us, about half the country support trump. in britain and europe he's generally regarded, i think it's fair to say, far more negatively. so in terms of impartiality, do you think about british viewers or the us electorate in your coverage? well, when it comes to impartiality, it's not ourjob to decide whether or not these people are popular and report them in one particular way or give them more or less coverage because the audience may have a favorable or unfavorable view of them. i mean, there's a wide spectrum of opinion in the united states. as you say, there are a lot of people who are very, very keen on him and excited to vote for him. and there are huge numbers of people who absolutely detest him. he is a very polarising figure, and i'm sure that has wider spectrum in other countries, including the uk.

but impartiality doesn't mean pandering to the majority view or deciding what our audience wants to hear. it means covering it totally impartially, simply saying, this is what donald trump has been saying. these are the parts of it that are accurate and inaccurate. and this is the impact. we don't make a decision to to report in a favorable or unfavorable light, the things he's done are said based on how the audience might be feeling about him. that would be that would be the antithesis of impartiality. sarah smith, thank you so much. finally, we know you newswatch viewers have a real attention to detail and accuracy, and one eagle—eyed viewer took exception to this piece of output on the news channel last week. keep an eye on the text in the red banner. and councils changed the lighting around the towns. some have been dimmed. others are on timers. it all cuts down on light pollution without compromising on safety, they say. if you didn't spot the mistake there, listen to what paul bowden had to say.

"the breaking news display at the bottom of our screens often has to include a possessive. i noticed that the standard bbc news practice these days is to simply add an apostrophe to singular words that happen to end in s, but in english this is only done for plurals. your approach is simply wrong. you today use the word wales' note the apostrophe to mean, of wales. no, it's wales's add an apostrophe s, please." thank you for all your comments this week. if you want to share your opinion 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 newswatchbbc. you can call us on 03700106676 and do have a look at previous interviews on our website, bbc.co.uk slash newswatch. that's all from us for now. thank you forjoining us.

do think about getting in touch and perhaps even coming on the programme. we'll be back to hear more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news next week, goodbye.

hey, welcome back to las vegas. this is one of the most famous skylines in the world. and one thing about this sight is it's constantly changing. see, whenever they get fed up with a hotel, theyjust gut it and turn it into something that looks completely different. but in the last year, something really unusual has lit up the horizon, literally. it's that thing over there. yeah, it's called the sphere, and it is a monster. inside, it's an entertainment venue. 0utside, it's the world's largest video screen, covered in 1.2 million leds. and it's become an instant landmark and a huge talking point since it opened last year. alasdair keane's been taking a look at how graphics are bringing it to life. 0ur senses are constantly

being bombarded by the sights and sounds around us, including advertisements that have been carefully crafted to grab our attention. but in a busy world... ..do we always notice? if everyone is looking at their phone, what we are trying to do here is to convince people to stop looking at their phones and recall what they have in front of them. bcn visuals are based in barcelona, creating sd displays all around the globe, and now they have a new canvas to work on. and it isn't without its challenges. when it came to the storyboards, it was quite challenging. instead of doing the pre—production on this round sphere, we made it look as if it was flat, so it could be easierfor us to think about ideas. and wrapping the content around the sphere wasn't enough. we needed to make it look like...the sphere would open up as if it was a gate,

and it would show you everything the company made its name over the past few years with campaigns in new york's times square and other major locations around the world. they specialise in a technique which creates the optical illusion of three dimensions, but now that's taken to the next level. i mean, it's huge. people can't miss it. it's huge. you have to get what's on the screen right as well. yes, it's huge. every little detail is a three—metre detail. you know what i mean? like, it's not like, "oh, there was, like, a kind of mistake. "let's hide it with this or let's add a layer." you cannot do that. everything needs to be perfect, and it needs to be seen from all angles, even from a plane. this is a lucrative ad space which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for companies to take over.