Newswatch, BBC1 Saturday 23rd May 2026

I think the BBC has had a number ofcomplaints about the slant they put on that report about those Afgan fathers. The girls were somewhat overlooked in the rush to sympathise with the blokes.

Regarding the couple who objected to the MAF feature, I do think there are people who would rather ignore the fact that rape happens.

I watched Newswatch this morning and felt the same. Rape and sexual assault are shocking but asking for this not to be shown is not acceptable. We need to know.
The crying fathers in the other news story didn't move me but the poor little girls plight did.

GrannyGravy, Did the people give a reason for complaining?

twaddle

GrannyGravy, Did the people give a reason for complaining?

Yes they said it was inappropriate to report on rapes in the 6pm news, despite the warning giving from the newsreader beforehand.

This gave people with youngsters time to turn off the set if they wished to.

The fact that the man said the golfer who won a tournament would have been better placed as lead story had me reaching for something to throw at the TV.

They were both very Mary Whitehouse types in my opinion. With all the high profile rape and assault stories at the moment it really was an important news item.

There should ve a full discussion/ investigation in to a number of those reality type programmes, they are frequently disastrous fir young women.

GrannyGravy13

twaddle

GrannyGravy, Did the people give a reason for complaining?

Yes they said it was inappropriate to report on rapes in the 6pm news, despite the warning giving from the newsreader beforehand.

This gave people with youngsters time to turn off the set if they wished to.

The fact that the man said the golfer who won a tournament would have been better placed as lead story had me reaching for something to throw at the TV.

They were both very Mary Whitehouse types in my opinion. With all the high profile rape and assault stories at the moment it really was an important news item.

I guess we should know there are people like that around. I hope people haven't held back with their reaction.

I found the ‘coverage’ /reporting of the incidents relating to those involved in Married at First Sight to be unwarranted - those people proffered themselves for public ‘edification’ - (which is surely indicative of their mental and moral state )with scant regard for what most people consider ‘sacred’ vows - both parties must assume responsibility for any negative consequences - which are not imo suitable material to be ‘newsworthy’ particularly as such lurid details were included in the reportage ie re ejaculation

EVEOHA2602

I found the ‘coverage’ /reporting of the incidents relating to those involved in Married at First Sight to be unwarranted - those people proffered themselves for public ‘edification’ - (which is surely indicative of their mental and moral state )with scant regard for what most people consider ‘sacred’ vows - both parties must assume responsibility for any negative consequences - which are not imo suitable material to be ‘newsworthy’ particularly as such lurid details were included in the reportage ie re ejaculation

Do you think that going on the programme justifies rape? You seem to be suggesting that the females were "asking for it".

I think that by both sexes/genders willingly and knowingly going on that awful salacious programme indicates a certain mind set - which would not make me feel inclined to commiserate with the participants should something negative happen - as is alleged. And that I should be informed on national news of the intimate details re what allegedly occurred is not ( to me) acceptable

The programmes are awful and their ethos undermines consent, but your argument makes no sense, if you disapprove of the programmes why would you not support an investigation into them.

Of Married at First Sight, the issue was the amount of time given to the story, apparently eight minutes of graphic content at six in the evening when families might have been dining together. What happened to the watershed? The man also said that priority should be given to world events specifically mentioning the war on Iran and disease (ebola) in Africa.

I don’t think anyone is seeking to diminish rape but I do think our news coverage often overlooks world events in favour of national stories and what can seem like voyeurism, which these Channel 4 shows are.

The commentators on Newswatch were just ordinary, not particularly articulate people, putting their point of view, no different to this forum really.

On Afganistan, the feature was trying to describe the plight of people so poor, sometimes in need of expensive medical care for other children that they feel they are being forced to sell their daughters.

Nobody is disputing that selling young girls to men is part of Afghan culture. Let’s face it, it’s one part of a long standing world culture where women and girls are sold and trafficked for sex. The name Epstein and his whole sordid circle, including a former British prince comes to mind.

You can watch Newwatch here at 1:49.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e

I think there has been considerable coverage of Iran in particular, there is a balance in terms of national and international news, particularly when the Iran conflict is likely to be an ongoing story for some time.
I think the watershed is an interesting issue, day time tv for example often has particularly descriptive content.

Why do families need to turn the tv off/over. i would not bother. Generally small children do not noitice these news items and if they do you just answer their uestions in an age appropriate way

I think the watershed is an interesting issue, day time tv for example often has particularly descriptive content.

It is interesting because for free-to-air TV, the watershed begins at 9:00 PM and ends at 5:30 AM. Before this time, ALL programming is supposed to be family-friendly, free from graphic violence, strong language, and sexual content.

Discussing rape at 6:00 pm is both violent and sexual content.

Therefore the complainers on Newswatch did have a point.

OTOH, ITV3 seems to have crime dramas on a 24/7 loop. Even the “cosy” Midsomer Murders has graphic content in its never ending quest to find novel ways to murder people. Adults know the world of DCI Barnaby and his sidekick is hooey but a child might not when it sees people impaled by spears and pitchforks.

Midsomer Murders is weird, really weird. I think it slips under the radar somehow.

Graphite

^I think the watershed is an interesting issue, day time tv for example often has particularly descriptive content.^

It is interesting because for free-to-air TV, the watershed begins at 9:00 PM and ends at 5:30 AM. Before this time, ALL programming is supposed to be family-friendly, free from graphic violence, strong language, and sexual content.

Discussing rape at 6:00 pm is both violent and sexual content.

Therefore the complainers on Newswatch did have a point.

OTOH, ITV3 seems to have crime dramas on a 24/7 loop. Even the “cosy” Midsomer Murders has graphic content in its never ending quest to find novel ways to murder people. Adults know the world of DCI Barnaby and his sidekick is hooey but a child might not when it sees people impaled by spears and pitchforks.

There was a clear message before the news bulletin that it was about rape and sexual assault and may not be suitable for all viewers

News is often troubling and graphic.

Rape and assaults are in the news at the moment due to the prevalence of these crimes.

There is a really nifty gadget that can turn over the channel or switch off the set…

EVEOHA2602

I found the ‘coverage’ /reporting of the incidents relating to those involved in Married at First Sight to be unwarranted - those people proffered themselves for public ‘edification’ - (which is surely indicative of their mental and moral state )with scant regard for what most people consider ‘sacred’ vows - both parties must assume responsibility for any negative consequences - which are not imo suitable material to be ‘newsworthy’ particularly as such lurid details were included in the reportage ie re ejaculation

Oh dear, are we back to the days of she asked for it because she had on a mini skirt, tight trousers, red nail varnish

No means no, no ifs or buts, end of!

I got the impression that the woman was not complaining that the rape was reported but how it was reported.
I must admit that I didn’t see the news report so I shouldn’t really comment but I have! The man who complained went off on a bit of a tangent. Some people aren’t great when they are interviewed.

I hope the women involved immediately left, went home and made their complaints there and then?

No one is talking about ‘asking for it’ but from the sound of it women putting themselves forward for a programme like this would need to be wary and ready to walk away immediately.

There is a really nifty gadget that can turn over the channel or switch off the set…

Indeed there is but if you happen to settle your children down with the TV on and leave the room for a few minutes you should be able to trust a broadcaster to adhere to Ofcom rules.

News broadcasts before 9:00pm do have a certain degree of exemption from watershed rules. However, Ofcom states that what is broadcast must be editorially justified and must not cross into graphic or gratuitous territory.

I did not see the news broadcast being discussed and it is no longer available but it does sound as though it crossed that line.

And, as the critics said, it sounded like a promotion for the Panorama programme that was going out that same evening just two hours later so why the need for an eight minute segment in a news broadcast only 30 minutes long especially when there are (as the male critic said) world events to report on. Why was it the lead story?

Panorama itself went out at 8:00pm so still before the watershed but on a schoolnight one would expect younger children to be in bed by then.

Graphite as all my GC could work the TV remote before they started school, with streaming, Sky etc there is far more harmful content available 24 hours a day than the 6pm news.

Who on earth settles down to watch it with their young children to watch the news? Additionally if they are that young they would have no idea, if they are old enough to ask questions re the item, they are old enough to be told the answers.

EVEOHA2602

I found the ‘coverage’ /reporting of the incidents relating to those involved in Married at First Sight to be unwarranted - those people proffered themselves for public ‘edification’ - (which is surely indicative of their mental and moral state )with scant regard for what most people consider ‘sacred’ vows - both parties must assume responsibility for any negative consequences - which are not imo suitable material to be ‘newsworthy’ particularly as such lurid details were included in the reportage ie re ejaculation

Agree.