the importance of terminology in reporting on the conflict in the middle east. welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. coming up — is it time bbc news started calling hamas a terrorist organisation? and information overload — is there just too much going on on the screen here? criticisms of the media's coverage of the war in gaza started almost immediately after the hamas attack on israel on october 7th — and top of the list of objections to the bbc�*s reporting was the corporation's refusal to describe hamas as a "terrorist organisation". the issue was raised again last weekend in the wake of a video released by hamas showing the british israeli hostage nadav popplewell, who the group said had died in gaza. here's the foreign secretary, lord cameron, speaking on sunday

with laura kuenssberg. when you see what hamas are prepared to do, you just realise the terrible, dreadful, inhuman people, frankly, that we are dealing with. and maybe it's a moment, actually for the bbc to ask itself again, "should we describe these people as terrorists"? they are terrorists. if you kidnap grandmothers, you kidnap babies, you rape people, you shoot children in front of their parents — what more do they need to do for the bbc to say, "look, these are terrorists"? they really are. bbc news has instead used a formulation picked up on by a viewer named mark, from aylesbury, who asked... but kate prasher observed recently...

well, we'll be exploring that question in a moment — but it's not the only use of terminology in this area which has caused concern among newswatch viewers. the bbc regularly describes the conflict as the israel—gaza war — unlike other organisations such as sky news, who refer to it as the israel—hamas war. anthonyjones asked... another use of language which has proved controversial is the frequent reference to the "hamas—run health ministry" as a source of statistics quoted on the news.

jack berger wrote to us, saying... well, let's discuss those questions with richard burgess, the director of news content for bbc news. thank you, richard, for coming on the programme. now, we've discussed the way the bbc describes hamas at the very start of this conflict. can you see why people like the foreign secretary are thinking the bbc needs to think again now? well, we've always understood that many people don't agree or necessarily understand this policy, but we think it's an important one. it's in our editorial guidelines, and we think it's an important point of principle, and let me explain why.

you'll have heard hamas referred to as terrorists on many occasions on the bbc, but that we attribute that. we say, "who is calling them terrorists"? and the reason why we don't do it as the bbc labelling them is if we start to label one group and make a valuejudgment about them as terrorists, we would then have to do exactly the same for every armed group, every army, every government, every violent act across the world. and that's not a position that we, as an impartial broadcaster think we should be in, we don't think it's an appropriate position to be in. so we think it's an important principle. ok, now, you always used to use the phrase "designated a terrorist organisation by the uk government" — aome viewers are thinking that that phrase is often dropped now. what is the policy? there isn't a policy. i think it's all about the right context for the programme. it's about trying to make the coverage as understandable for audiences as we possibly can. and so, yeah, we will still use that phrase when appropriate, but there's no policy that we have

to always use it. the trouble, i suppose, with this approach is that it kind of pleases no—one, saying the word "terrorist" but distancing yourself from the uk government — either they are the terrorist group, or they're not. i think what we're doing is trying to use attribution and being as clear as we possibly can be about who is describing this organisation in the way that it is. i actually think the more important thing is our coverage of what happened on october 7th, and what has happened to hostages since. i don't think anybody could be in any doubt about what happened then, and what hamas has done — and for me, that is the most important thing. right, another piece of terminology viewers are concerned about is bbc news referring to the "israel—gaza war". other broadcasters like sky say the "israel—hamas war" — would that not be better? look, we made the decision that we think israel—gaza war is a better description of the conflict, and i think it's

stood the test of time, because the war does go beyond just hamas — as is clear when you see the destruction in gaza, the fact that many thousands of gazan civilians have been killed in the conflict. and of course, there are other armed groups beyond hamas in gaza, as well. so we think that israel—gaza conflict, or israel—gaza war is a better description and one that better encapsulates what's happening right now. the other phrase is referring to the "hamas—run health ministry" when quoting palestinian civilian casualty numbers. why that phrase? it's the same thing, it's about attributing, it's about being as clear as we possibly can be to the audience about where we're getting our information from. i mean, in previous gaza conflicts, we've had people on the ground who've been able to validate the figures that we've been getting from the health ministry. on this occasion, that

has not been the case. and so, we think it's best to be as clear with audiences as we possibly can be where the information is coming from. it does feel like the bbc�*s under pressure afresh around this kind of terminology. are you confident that you'll hold your, position or do you think it might need to be reassessed? i think all the time, we think about, how can we make our coverage as clear as possible for audiences? and on this story, we well know that we will be heavily scrutinised and often criticised. our aim is to provide as impartial coverage as we possibly can do — and that's about listening to both sides, but ultimately taking what we think are the right decisions about having clear—headed coverage. richard burgess, thank you. it's fair to say the duke and duchess of sussex divide opinions — and some strongly felt reaction towards them and towards the bbc�*s coverage of them has been expressed over the past week. it started with an item on last friday's lunchtime news.

prince harry says it's been great to be back in the uk at the end of a three—day visit from america. the bbc has been given exclusive access to a charity event in central london he attended — and daniela relph was there. it's a side of prince harry we've not seen so much of lately, as he mucked in for a very special party. every child in this room has lost a parent who served in the military. the programme went on to report live from nigeria, where prince harry had arrived to meet his wife, meghan — and their trip there featured on news bulletins through the weekend and into tuesday. here are the reactions of two of the many viewers who contacted us. the prince of wales is on official duty today. nothing on the headlines about him, but covering the ridiculous meghan and harry continuing privacy tour, it's absolutely ridiculous.

please stop using our money on covering this pair, thank you. he may be the son of the king, but they walked away. you don't feature princess anne when she's out working, or prince edward, duke and duchess of edinburgh. they are very rarely featured when they're working. why is it necessary to feature the duke and duchess of sussex? we asked bbc news for a response to those views, and they told us.

finally, linda robinson got in touch with us this week and recorded this video for us. i was trying to watch the evening news on 12 may. it was 6.15pm in the evening, and it was very difficult. i had three video panels across the main part of the screen — one featuring a lady who was being interviewed from tbilisi, about the problems there, another feed from tbilisi in the middle, and a third panel on the right showing the bafta awards advert. citizens responded to this state—sponsored terror with humour... below that, there were two breaking news panels giving totally different information again. really, this is totally unhelpful. you obviously don't know how

much processing people can do at one time. please, please, please, don't put quite so much information on the screen at once. thank you. let us know whether you agree with linda about that screen overload. and thanks to her and to everyone who contacted us 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 — at @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 you think about getting in touch, and perhaps even coming on the programme? i'm afraid i am away next week, but newswatch will be here to hear

more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news, and i will definitely be back in a fortnight. goodbye.

let me take you up. up into the air. up above the clouds, above the weather, above all the aircraft. this is the stratosphere — a place yet to be conquered by humankind. up here, the air is thin and calm. and it is here that you'll find the zephyr. this is a strange beast — and the fact that it flies this high is the least strange thing about it. see, it only travels at aomph, it only weighs 75kg.

it's launched by hand, it's completely solar—powered —