allegations of rape and sexual assault against the comedian and actor russell brand, which he denies, first surfaced on saturday afternoon following a lengthy investigation conducted by the times, the sunday times and channel four�*s dispatches programme. they related to a period between 2006 and 2013, as lizo mzimba described on bbc one's tea—time news bulletin. now, during some of this time, brand was a presenter for bbc radio 2 and channel 4 as well as acting in hollywood films. he was undoubtedly one of the most famous celebrities in the country. the programme then went into some detail about what russell brand is accused of doing. the nature of those descriptions, the time of day they were broadcast, and the extent of the coverage that followed all concerned annie saviano. it seems that today, your top news story concerned the alleged historic actions of russell brand. now, whilst i understand that the women involved need a voice and their story should be heard, it is not a top news story. at tea—time on saturday, just before family programming, why were we subjected to such lurid

details of these offences at such a sensitive time? obviously not so important to the bbc and therefore in second place came the devastation and loss of life in libya. and this is followed by a few lines concerning the melting of the ice caps. so does the bbc consider the titillating story about russell brand to be more important than world disasters and the potential catastrophe of rising sea levels? now we'll doubtless be told that this piece was of public interest and therefore important but i beg to differ. an anonymous viewer echoed that point about the nature of the descriptions provided on that bulletin. "the graphic, intimate details of brands alleged assaults on women were shocking for most to hear, let alone our young grandchildren,

on a corporate level, the bbc, along with channel 4, who also employed russell brand at the time of the alleged incidents, has questions to answer over what it knew about his behaviour. and its director general, tim davie, announced an internal review into complaints against him to be completed within weeks. we'll look at any complaints made about russell brand's conduct during his time, what was known at the time, what was done. so full transparency, we're going to dig into anything that we've got there. meanwhile, there were other complaints about how bbc news covered the story, with one outlined here by dennis taylor. my concern is over the way russell brand is being treated by the media. he should be subjected to the investigation by the police and, if necessary, being brought before the courts so that the full majesty of the law can be initiated, not by what's happening now, which is why the media are doing

trial by television, by newspaper, by editorial or whatever. it is not right. let's talk about the journalistic challenges for the bbc around russell brand with richard burgess, director of news content. hello, richard, and welcome back to newswatch. this is an issue that's coming up more and more, isn't it? detailed allegations about inappropriate behaviour against a named person but without them being charged with any criminal offence. are you worried this could be trial by media? no, i think it's important when there are serious allegations and a number of serious allegations of this nature thatjournalists and the media report on them and investigate them. and i should say i think this was a really robust and significant piece ofjournalism by the times and channel 4 dispatches. and you've seen the rest of the media has followed it up and investigated it themselves as well. well, of course, you did follow it

up with extensive coverage. and some viewers feel that that's what gives an overwhelming sense of russell brand being put on trial. should you not have maybe limited how much airtime you gave it? well, i think brand is a significant figure. he's worked for major broadcasters, channel 4, the bbc. of course, he now has a big following on youtube, many millions, not to mention having worked in hollywood as well. so this is a significant figure. these are really serious allegations. so i think it was worthy of coverage. but of course, we were mindful about the level and the prominence of that coverage. some viewers felt that that prominence showed a kind of obsession with one celebrity's private life. when major disasters like the libya flood were pushed down the running order, how do you respond? well, i think as ever with these things, there are editorialjudgements. and we know not all viewers and listeners and readers will agree with the editorialjudgements

we make, and they won't all agree among themselves. we've given significant coverage to the story in libya. it's obviously a shocking and terrible story. and we've had a team on the ground there to to cover it itself. but then there are times when the editorial gender shifts and other stories go to the top of running orders. you talked about being mindful of the audience's reactions. and on that saturday tea—time bulletin, when the story had just broken, we saw graphic quotes about details of alleged attacks read out and the quotes on screen. and there were no warnings. did you think about who would be watching? i'll be honest with you, i think we should have done a warning on that on that bulletin. i think whenever we look and do stories like this, we are really careful and really mindful about a number of considerations that obviously what time it's going out, the audience, the prominence of the allegations and and the warnings that we should do ahead of them.

so i think this is a story where you need, i think, some detail to understand it. and that's important. and it's important that alleged victims�* accounts are heard. but equally we are mindful that there are different audiences consuming our output at different times. it went on the days that followed on daytime coverage, lots of fairly explicit detail. can you understand viewers feeling that this was just not acceptable, given that children might well be watching? i can understand that. and i think that is why it's important that we make those judgements around volume, about the type of terminology we use on some programmes or not on others, about the importance of warnings ahead of offensive or distressing content. but equally it is important that we tell the details of these stories so that people properly understand. given we know that stories like this will recur again, will you rethink how much explicit

detail you give? genuinely, samira, we take this really seriously. we really think about it. and you know, viewers might be interested to know ahead of the story that we did ourselves this past week. you know, we had significant number of meetings where we discussed these things in details with editorial policy, senior editors, lawyers. and so these aren't things that we just throw on to air. we take them seriously. we makejudgements. and it's always this kind of weighing up between the editorial justification, plus the danger of offending the viewers. and, you know, we accept we won't always get it right, but we do take these things really seriously. richard burgess, thank you. as summer disappears, wednesday was the time for most of us to be inside, away from the wind and the rain, but that was the day chosen to take bbc one's evening news bulletins out on the road again with sophie raworth presenting.

good evening. on a day of significant developments for the environment and the economy, i'm in plymouth as we continue to report from different parts of the uk on stories that impact all of us. some viewers were unconvinced about the decision to take the programme on location. lynne olney emailed us to say we were wondering what on earth she was doing there. how much extra did this all cost? sending her and her production team to plymouth with the bbc strapped for cash and bbc schedules full of repeats, mike gail also wondered what was the point? graham ford took up this perennial newswatch complaint, and it wasn'tjust sophie hayworth's

location that he was concerned about. so i'm watching the bbc news at ten o'clock on the 20th of september. and to my incredulity, we've got sophie raworth on the roof of some building in plymouth. ..westminster, who's been hit by a downpour. i hope you can hear me. all right, chris. we then moved to chris mason outside parliament, who is under his umbrella looking like a completely drowned rat. you've got to feel pretty sorry for the guy. what on earth is he doing out there in the pouring rain? well, it seems as if the hospital system's been under— considerable pressure today. then we move to hugh pym, who is also under an umbrella, which is quite ridiculous, because he's getting soaking wet as well. don't the bbc have studios? why is it necessary for them to be outside? the only man who got it right was the weatherman. he knew the forecast and he was inside delivering his take on the weather. well, we asked bbc news about the decision to broadcast the news at six and the news at ten from plymouth this week. and here's their response.

thank you for all your comments this week. 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@bbc.co.uk or you can find us on x, formerly known as twitter, @newswatchbbc. you can call us on 0370016676 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.

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. this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. in the centre of london, there is a building like no other, an empty space where the public can sit, relax, and look up.

i have to say, of all the giant led screens i've seen in my time, this one's right up there. i mean, it's literally right up there. well, yes, it seems like it goes on and on and on. and it also makes you feel rather dizzy looking at it. this is alternet, the largest digital exhibition space in europe. here, an array of artists�* work is displayed in its full panoramic glory. there are a few other spaces dotted around too, which are used to showcase specific exhibits. this room celebrates the role that women from all backgrounds have played in shaping the creative industries. and it's just one example of immersive technology bringing us closer to the events of today and the past. but some events are hard to face, even though it's important to do so. and one of the most important is the holocaust. it's now been many decades since its horrors took place

and as time goes on, fewer survivors are around to be able to tell their stories. for a while now, researchers have been documenting them digitally so the legacy can live on for future generations. and of course there are now new ways to breathe new life into those memories. nick quek has been to meta in berlin to find out more. a stone's throw from the memorial to the murdered jews of europe, i've come to meta's offices to try its latest extended reality project. i'm the first journalist from outside germany to see the new interactive holocaust education tool. tell me inge takes users on an audio visualjourney into the memories of inge auerbacher a survivor of the nazi regime. you ask inge questions by simply talking and the artificially intelligent system will play out her response. tell me about the terrible journey. one morning when i was seven... it's a real recorded answer,

not a digitally doctored version. inge is howing me something, she's opened up a box. but it's presented to you like you're inside a video game, a moving storybook with your environment changing around you, as inge recounts more anecdotes and details from her past. that's pretty cool. so she's opened a book and then we can see flowing up over her right hand shoulder the book. it's a joint project with hollywood start—up storyfile, which is now moving beyond computer screens and is stepping into uncharted virtual territory. the experience was made in partnership with unesco, claims conference, and world jewish congress. you can take the story wherever you want to take the story, you can ask for in whatever order you want to ask. i mean, you can't really ask for something more engaging at this point than that. you know, we used to sit in in memorial museums and kind of read the text and be told some of the stories behind them but this is a completely different level.

there was absolutely, almost no chance to get out. it's really sad. well, is there a fine line, though, when it comes to saying an experience where you want to make it engaging but maybe not too immersive? you shouldn't overwhelm someone, emotionally. and i think especially because of this, we decided to use 3d animations. it makes things real, but it's not realistic. and so you get a sense of what was going on and of course you hear from inge first hand, but still, you know, there's some sort of a distance because it's not like you see real soldiers, it's not like you see real people getting hurt. i've been working on genocide and holocaust commemoration issues for many years. these topics are not easy. the immersive part of it really makes you also feel like you're part