hey, i'm julia with the catch up. bus overturned on the m53 in merseyside. police say that 58 people were involved. a 14—year—old boy also suffered life—changing injuries. pupils at the schools

are getting special support. some other stories now from sunday. plastic like cutlery and polystyrene cups. about the ban, and haven't prepared at all. facing financial stress, more than half of uni students are balancing their studies with paid jobs. the higher education policy institute, which did the research, people born using sperm or egg donors in the uk who turn 18 is, because of a law from 2005. matthew and phoebe were conceived via sperm donor. they've known since they were two, but only the bare minimum. his, like, build. eye color, hair colour, age, some of his hobbies. so when we have a conversation at home, he's usually referred to as the colombian guy orjust...

or "the dad". and we'll leave you with 10 seconds of pioneering pipes. yes, thanks to her tiktok fame, royal albert hall organist anna lapwood has given the instrument a whole new fanbase, and now she's releasing an album. you're all caught up now. see you. how should one tv channel cover the troubles of another tv channel? welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. coming up, gb news is underfire over offensive comments made on air. but was newsnight fair to the channel in the way it covered it on wednesday? and why were bbc one viewers treated

to some of a 2017 edition of newswatch last weekend? first, has brexit disappeared from the public discourse? for many people, the decision to leave the uk is now history and the country has moved on. but for others, it's still very much a live issue, as was reported on saturday afternoon on the news channel. pro—european protesters are marching in central london today. the national rejoin march is due to culminate with a rally at parliament square. they want the prospect of britain rejoining the european union back on the political agenda. but that 20 seconds or so was pretty much the limit of bbc television reporting of the national rejoin march, which did not feature on bbc 0ne's news bulletins. as well as the thousands in the streets of central london on saturday, hundreds of others then contacted the bbc to complain about what they saw as insufficient coverage of the event.

one of them was sue barnard, who recorded this video for us. this march was covered by various foreign news channels and also various uk and international newspapers. who made the decision not to cover it, and why not? is there... has there been a deliberate decision to downplay the effect of brexit on the lives of everyday people? or is it more sinister than that? is the bbc under instruction not to broadcast anything which could be critical of the government? i'd like some answers, please. well, this was the statement issued in response.

perhaps to the bbc�*s relief, another news broadcasting organisation has been in the spotlight this week. gb news, who have suspended contributor laurence fox and presenter dan wootton after what the channel themselves called "unacceptable on air comments" by fox about a female journalist, which they said were insufficiently challenged by the presenter. the channel was the subject of a discussion on wednesday's newsnight on bbc two. these are poundland fox news channels. these two... these, these right—wing channels. what you do is you shock and awe, and that's what this is about. frankly, what 0fcom should do is shut it down, like it shut down rt. i actually agree with adam. i think it should be taken off air. it was entirely predictable that i laurence fox was going to come out with a statement i that was that offensive. the political blogger known as guido fawkes invited his followers to complain to the regulator 0fcom,

about what he called newsnight�*s extreme unbalanced coverage of gb news, arguing that impartiality rules had been breached. 0ne viewer, known on x as gary foxtrot vet, followed their advice and submitted an 0fcom complaint. he wrote: well, the reason why there was some unanimity among the panel could be explained by what presenter victoria derbyshire said at the start of the discussion. we did ask for an interview with the boss of gb news. he said he couldn't come on until he had completed his investigation. later in the week that boss, angelos frangopoulos, told radio four�*s today programme that he was "appalled" by the remarks made by laurence fox. fox himself apologised, and 0fcom launched an investigation into whether the gb news broadcast had broken its rules on offence. let's talk now to the editor

of newsnight, stewart maclean. thanks for coming on newsnight. so, three voices, no—one giving the gb points of view — gb news points of view. shouldn't you have got someone? well, i think the starting point is that we would always seek to ensure that every discussion we do on a live issue like this is as balanced as possible, with a range of voices. and as your clip showed, victoria was very clear on the programme that we did invite gb news to appear on the programme, and we understood that, at the time, they were unable to because they were conducting an investigation into some of their own screen... well, you could have gotten someone else, who could have... well we did... ..expressed their point of view. well, well, thank you. absolutely. and of course, we have a production team at newsnight who spend many hours a day working to find guests from across a range of views. and we tried many, many people, people who used to work for gb news, many others who might be sympathetic to gb news. and unfortunately, on wednesday, we weren't able to find anyone who could come on. i do think it's worth saying — we don't get everything right all the time.

i mean, i've watched back the discussion and it's... quite happy to accept that that discussion would have been better. and, had we had that range of views and had we had a robust defender of gb news. i'm sure your viewers will understand that when we're putting out live news programs, two things are true. out live news programmes, two things are true. one is you never quite know the direction in which any discussion might go once you're on air. and the second thing is, it's often very hard to pin down guests, particularly for a late night news programme who were available and able to come on. so, not every item can be absolutely perfect. we strive for total balance and to bring in as wide of range of views as possible at every time. and that's really our guiding principle, every programme we make. as we saw on wednesday, we don't always hit that mark. it's not for lack of trying, ever, but when we don't quite get it right, it's important that we acknowledge that we haven't. and that's very much appreciated. so why didn't you ask laurence fox? so, at the time of our broadcast on wednesday, laurence fox had made it very clear that he...

he wasn't prepared to apologise for what he'd said and that he was questioning the motives of media organizations that were covering the programme. so, on that occasion, he wasn't somebody who we invited on to the programme. we did invite many other people who worked at gb news, including dan wootton and the station's boss, angelos frangopoulos, none of whom were able to come on. but we... i assure you, we did invite a whole number of people who would speak in favour of the channel. but given the difficulties at the time, none of them were available to come on. you could have asked laurence fox and pre—recorded him and then made a decision. well, laurence fox had been very clear in the course of that day on his social media that he wasn't prepared to do any pre—recorded interviews and would only do live interviews, so that wasn't an option. did you have a discussion with more senior editorial figures at the bbc about whether it was ok to go ahead without that missing point of view, which, as you said, would have made for a better discussion?

no, we didn't. and the bbc doesn't often work in that way. i mean, the discussion it's worth saying wasn'tjust about gb news. it was a broader discussion with three very, very well—informed people who know a lot about the broadcasting landscape. and although the discussion started focusing on gb news, it was broader in scope. and we were talking about the regulatory environment, and each of those people on the panel had a lot of experience in the area. so, although we didn't have anyone who was on there representing gb news, there were a range of views on there, including a conservative mp. we often get complaints that programmes like newsnight are obsessed with talking about the media, and given that you didn't have all the sides, perhaps there's a question of was itjustified to give so much discussion time? and there are people who just think, you're always just talking about yourselves in some way. i'm not sure. i think i'm not sure whether that's a fair critique. a programme like newsnight generally

covers two or three stories in depth every night. we actually led our programme on wednesday with a very long film from the front line in ukraine, and we've done a lot of coverage of foreign news all this week. i think on wednesday the row about gb news, and for us, the broader questions that it raised around broadcasting in the uk and some of the rules around that, was one of the hot topics for discussion and i think it's perfectly relevant area for us to explore. stewart maclean, thank you so much for coming on newswatch. it's really appreciated. you're welcome. finally, when things go wrong somewhere on bbc news, we sometimes feature those moments on newswatch if they've elicited complaints or comments from you. so, it's only fair that when there's a problem with newswatch itself, we should highlight that, too, and explain what happened. so, let's have a look then at last saturday's transmission of the programme on bbc one,

as part of breakfast. hello and welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. how does the bbc source and verify the flood of user—generated content it gets after a terrorist attack or a natural disaster? regular viewers will immediately have spotted that that's not our current studio or title sequence, and irregular ones won't have taken much longer to realise that a clip of home secretary amber rudd speaking to andrew marr meant this was an old edition of newswatch. exactly six years old, in fact, originally shown on the 22nd of september 2017. human error meant that similarly—dated edition was played instead of last week's programme, which had already gone out correctly in our 11:30pm slot on friday evening on the news channel. mark pawlett posted this.

maggie's human was similarly troubled. and annette glaser smelled a conspiracy. well, yes. the old edition was pulled off air after a couple of minutes when the mistake was realise,d and the right version appeared on sunday's breakfast instead. so, no sabotage, annette. our apologies for the error. we've taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. and just a reminder that we are always watchable on the bbc iplayer, where you can catch up on that edition about the coverage of russell brand if you missed it, and any edition from the whole of the past year. let's just hope you're watching the correct programme right now.

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 0370 010 6676, 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 for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme.

you're filming a standard street scene. and then a robot wanders past your camera. "who is this devilishly handsome machine?"