at finding hate speech. —— hugely effective. that's partly because one person's hate speech is another‘s fair comment. clearly then, automation has its limits and there's still a place for old—fashioned human judgement when it comes to cleaning up the web. facebook is yet to say how often it made the wrong decision on removing posts that violate its policies. there are also many areas, such as the exploitation of children, where data remains unforthcoming. that suggests that when it comes to being completely open, facebook still has some way to go. amol rajan, bbc news. that's your summary of the news. newsday is coming up at midnight. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight with evan davies. seeing what happens when nothing happens to resolve tensions between israel and the palestinians, so what needs to happen to stop the violence and how about feeling our pain? we are a tiny country that is surrounded by many hundreds of thousands of people, many of them who want to destroy us. we will ask the spokesman for the palestinian party what hope

there is now for the peace process. denied... revisit the republican movement in northern ireland. how does one dissident troop feel about brexit? it has the potential to break up the british state and as such it offers the irish republican army the opportunity to end the british occupation and reunification of the irish nation. we will put that to theresa may's oldest political ally, the formerjeremy damian green. and it was by common consent the story which best epitomised the excess of the 1980s. we remember the author tom wolfe, whose death was announced today.

hello. there was relative calm in gaza today — with israelis and palestinians mostly counting the cost of yesterday's violence. for israelis, it's the diplomatic and reputational cost. for the palestinians, the cost has been measured in lives — they were burying the 58 people killed yesterday. at the un security council there was an emergency debate — nikki haley, the us ambassador was something of an outlier, in arguing that israel had acted with restraint. she walked out of the session when the palestinian representative began to speak. well, if yesterday's violence was a symptom of an underlying unresolved struggle between two peoples, is any attention being paid to the cause?

does president trump have a plan for the palestinians other than to tell them to live with the reality of israeli occupation? does anyone? let's hearfrom mark urban. it has been a day of grief and anger in gaza. dozens of people gunned down in yesterday's violence were laid to rest. little wonder that feelings across the narrow coastal strip have been so sombre. the mood has been extremely said. there have been a lot of funerals today, a lot of people just saying goodbye to loved ones. in my neighbourhood there have been funerals yesterday, actually, right after all during the protests, three funerals passed by my house. there were clashes today also, but of a much lower intensity. the mosques did not appeal the demonstrations and people who did turn out faced tear gas cropped by israeli drones. if they choose to send people forward to try to dismantle offence or to attack israeli troops, then the immediate consequence is that we continue to defend

ourselves and there are casualties on the other side. how to contain this violence and there were calls today not least in london for an international inquiry into yesterday's events. there is an urgent need to establish the facts of what happened yesterday through an independent and transparent investigation, including why such a volume of fire was used and what role hamas played in events. but when gaza was debated in the un security council this afternoon, the american ambassador defended israel to the hilt. i ask my colleagues here in the security council who among us would accept this type of activity on your border? no—one would. no country in this chamber would actually more restraint than israel. and then she walked out when the palestinian

ambassador was speaking. well, i have to say that trump has sent his envoy, his son—in—law came about 18 times to see the palestinian leadership, there were constructive discussions, they were emphasising that trump will come forward with a plan. instead they have received shocking news to relocate the american embassy, they have seen a total denial and more and more speeches at the un, where the palestinian riots were totally ignored chewable yesterday's embassy opening provoked a deep chill with the palestinians.

tonight they have recalled their representative in the us in protest. president trump, though, has implied there could be a quid pro quo for the embassy move. siding with israel especially on these two crucial issues, gaza can give cachet to the american administration. after all it is israel which is being asked to make concessions in the peace process, to give back territory. usually the american position has been, therefore we have to stand by israel. the trump administration can credibly say that more than anyone recently at least they are able to convey to the israelis that they have their back if they were to ask something of the israelis. the blockade, the deaths and the war of words are all facets of the current dramatic stalemate. and after so many false dawns it would take visionary leadership to revive hope in negotiations right now. earlier i spoke to michael oren, the deputy minister for diplomacy in the israeli government, and the former israeli ambassador to the us.

i asked him about the palestinians who believe eastjerusalem should be the capital of their state. can he understand why they are angry if that's not on offer? israel annexed east jerusalem injuly 1967. 51 years ago. this is not new. that has been our policy since then, there is one jerusalem, we don't even consider eastjerusalem eastjerusalem — there's only onejerusalem. yes, the world has not accorded with it. right now we have the united states being the first country to move its embassy there, and we are very grateful for it, and other countries will follow. what can i say? if the jewish people and the jewish state did everything according to the international community, i wouldn't be sitting here and you wouldn't be interviewing me. well, the question is, is it on offer, are you willing to make the serious compromises that the palestinians feel need to be made to get them back into negotiations? now, i know you will say, well they have got to make compromises too. but at the moment, they are the weak ones, they don't have the weapons, they don't have one contiguous piece of land.

i just wonder whether you're willing to be kind of the big guys in the room and say, let's sort this out and make some grand gestures. now, is israel willing to do that and by the way, also address issues of settlements in the west bank? it seems to me if the palestinians really wanted a state, if they really wanted to live side by side with us in peace, they would come to the table without making concessions. we understand that once they get to the table, everybody‘s got to make concessions, that's the nature of negotiations. it won't be easy for us, i'm speaking now as a member of israel's government, a member of the parliament. trust me, it won't be easy for us. but it won't be easy for them, too. no—one‘s going to get anywhere unless they come to the table. they worry that israel is just getting a little bit too comfortable with the status quo. palestinians trapped behind walls, locked behind fences, kept away and israel just carrying on occupying a lot of land, a lot of land that does not belong to israel. and they are just thinking, this is just getting stuck here. what would you do, dr oren, what would you do if you were

an angry palestinian who wanted to change the status quo and sees israel all too comfortable with it? that's a legitimate question. if i were that palestinian, i would come to the negotiating table. and i'd say, i'd take up president trump's offer. president trump offered publicly, twice, to exact a concession for israel in return for opening that embassy. but the palestinians are not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. israel's got to be the only country in the world which on repeated times has offered to redivide its eternal capital, offered to divided with the palestinians. and the palestinians not only rejected it, they rejected it with violence when we offered them that deal in 2000 and again in 2001. with violence when we offered them that deal in 2000 and again in 2001, we had 1000 israelis killed by terrorist bombings. many of them injerusalem. so you know, i understand you feel,

you want to feel their pain. how about feeling our pain here? and, you know, i know we appear to be the big goliath, we are a tiny country that is surrounded by many hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom want to destroy us. i'm dr 0ren, you're asking me to feel your pain when 60 palestinians have been killed by israeli guns yesterday and one israeli troop was slightly injured in that day of exchanges. and you're saying, feel our pain, don't feel the pain of the palestinians? come on. i'm trying to get from you that you are big enough to say, guys, we're going to make concessions, because we are the power here and you are weak. but it sounds to me from everything you are saying that you're not up for that. i actually said, israel has repeatedly come to the table. repeatedly offered to make concessions. has put maps on the table. they've all been rejected by the palestinians. you know, they're not taking us up on this and i don't know why you're not hearing them because they keep on saying it over and over again. it's like what's happening in gaza. hamas burns the food, burns the fuel, creates a humanitarian crisis, sends people up to the fence to get

shot, because they're going to break through the fence. because we have to defend our fence. and what does your television station do? you're basically an accessory to terror. you say to hamas, hey, this is working great. this is a great tactic. keep doing it. send some more kids up to the fence. we actually don't say that, and i would stress, a lot of people worry about the broken government or the broken state that exists in gaza and you know, there will be multiple reasons for that. but fixing palestinian society is a task for everybody. look, let me just ask you one last one. nikki haley got up at the united nations security council and leftjust as the palestinian representative started speaking. is that a way, do you think, for israel and the united states to show that they are listening and feeling the pain of the palestinians in a way that is going to advance a settlement of this awful crisis? i'm not a spokesman for nikki haley, nor for the american administration. all i know is i sat around and listened to a lot of abuse by palestinians and others. but i do have this one question.

do you know what is happening in syria today? the syrian army is attacking the palestinian refugee camp outside damascus. there are hundreds, maybe thousands of palestinians being killed. do you care when arabs, do you care when arabs kill arabs? it is only whenjews have to kill arabs to defend themselves. dr 0ren, i preferto ask them, not answer them. of course you don't. it's been a pleasure talking to you, thank you so much. of course you don't. thank you, goodbye. now i'm joined from jerusalem by ziad khalil abu zayyad, who is the international media spokesperson for fatah — that's the palestinian party which dominates the west bank and is headed by palestinian authority leader mahmoud abbas. very good evening to you. i wonder whether you have any sympathy for the israeli position, that they do actually feel and they can quote words which are listing means say, that they feel the palestinians do not mean them well and it makes it difficult for them to negotiate

and deal with attacks on the border? it's actually like asking from the victim to sympathise with the occupation force which just killed 60 palestinians, including three children and one baby child which was only a few months old. and then today to come to the news and see such a statement that came by the interior security minister, the israeli one, who said when he was asked, what is the reason for killing so many civilians, saying that there is no difference between those killed on the palestinian side and people who would be killed in any war such as the second world war. when we hear such statements it is a complete denial of the palestinian right to go out and have the freedom of expression, to go out and say that enough is enough, gaza is not a state, gaza is a city which is under siege from all directions around it

and israel is responsible for the situation that has been going on there. the people who went out into these demonstrations are sick of the situation that they have been living in for a long, long time now and wanted to say to the world that we have the right to go for equality and our basic rights. let me put this to you. and our basic rights. if you could persuade the israelis that you meant well, to a certain degree, the whole thing might be unlocked. but at the moment may be the palestinians are giving the israelis a pretext to use violent force to keep the palestinians behind those fences. let me ask you this — do you, for example, accept the existence of israel unambiguously and clearly in it, so, knock 67 borders or something close to them? if you go back to 2006, the committee demanded from mahmoud abbas a lot of sacrifices for reaching some stage in the negotiation process,

which was used by the israeli government to administrate the conflict. if you go back to the arab peace initiative signed by more than 50 arab and muslim countries, who said they were ready to go into an immediate risk treaty with israel in exchange for recognition of the palestinian existence on the occupied land. and the only answer we got until today is just a negative answer. i'll take that as a yes, you do recognise the right of israel to exist. why is there not an arab peace process? they say you must come to the negotiating table, but i want to understand why there is no process, what is your explanation for that? the explanation is that we negotiated the peace process for more than 25 years and the only thing that we got from the israelis was continuous

process of inflating the conflict until we reached the situation where the government today says that it does not even recognise the right of palestinians to live in a state of their own. the question for the israeli government, in a few years, they will face a new reality being surrounded by millions of palestinians and they will be calling for equality and basic human rights. it will be a conflict similar to south africa that will lead us all into a more difficult position because of the stubbornness and unbelievable belief that the israeli government holds which denies completely the palestinian right to their lands and their basic human right. thank you for talking to us. and we did put some of those counter questions to the israeli minister as well. thanks. if you saw the programme yesterday, you'll know that all this week we're taking a close look at brexit and the irish border. the government is doing the same — not quite sure how to reconcile its vision of a clean break

with the eu, without having no material border at all between northern ireland and the republic. we'll talk more about the politics of that shortly, but first, a fear that hangs over the debate is that of renewed sectarianism and violence. the chief constable of the police service of northern ireland has told newsnight that he wouldn't want anything that looks like physical infrastructure at the border, lest it could be targeted by violent, dissident republican groups. so how serious is the threat? peter taylor has this report exploring the new republican dissidents. i've almost lost count of the number of republican easter commemorations i've filmed in belfast over the years. marching up the falls road to milltown cemetery, where the ira's dead lie buried. you would have thought that such semi—paramilitary displays had been consigned to history in the wake of the good friday agreement 20 years ago. you would be wrong.

this march is organised by a legal political party of dissident republicans called saoradh, irish for "liberation". its supporters include prominent republican dissidents like the duffy brothers. brexit, in the context of ireland, identified the failure to address the root cause of the conflict that exists between britain and ireland. which is? well, partition itself, and the denial of irish national sovereignty. saoradh rejects the good friday agreement and regards the ira and sinn fein‘s decision to embrace constitutional politics of stormont as "the great betrayal". this isn't really a paramilitary display, but it's pretty close to it. as you can see from the military uniforms. there are no balaclavas and no weapons, but the message is quite clear.

for these people, or many of these people, the war is not over. and the dissidents, have they got support? no, they don't. none at all? they may have the ability to carry out individual actions, but all thinking republicans are committed to peaceful and democratic means. the ira's gone. some of the leaders of one of the largest dissident organisations are your former comrades. what would you say to them? go away. i will respond back to mr adams, "we have no intention of going home, gerry." the chief constable believes that the threat from the wider dissident movement is a real danger. the threat that they pose is assessed as being severe. that is that an attack

is highly likely. severe? yes. but their capability is quite limited. we're confident, for example, that we disrupt or stop more attacks than they get to actually carry out. the police and m15 have monitored and infiltrated the movement, as they once did with the ira and sinn fein. republicans have always been adept at exploiting issues that fuel their cause. for saoradh and the dissidents, brexit is manna from heaven. brexit has the potential to break up the british state and as such, it offers irish republicans an opportunity to realise our first great objective, the ending of the british occupation and the reunification of the irish nation. and as history teaches us, it will inevitably stoke the fires of resistance against british rule in ireland. that resistance is now carried out by what saoradh‘s supporters call the ira. that's different from the ira that ended its military campaign in the mid—1990s. the police and m15 now refer to the dissidents' armed wing

as "the new ira". the new ira was formed in 2012. it was a loose network of people who were still trying to develop violent attacks. they have carried out in and around a0 attacks in the six years since they've been in existence. a number of the people in the leadership positions would have been people who previously had an association with the provisional ira and couldn't bring themselves to support the peace process. just over 70 people have been murdered by dissident republicans since the good friday agreement, that was designed to bring an end to the violence. prison officer david black was shot dead on his way to work. another prison officer

died in a bomb attack. dissidents have also murdered two police officers and shot dead two soldiers. most of the dissidents' victims are from within their own community. unlike the provisional ira, the new ira has limited weaponry. it's sufficient to wage a campaign, but not on the scale of the ira's. after it called its ceasefire “119911, the ira decommissioned its huge arsenal — much of it from libya. but not every weapon was destroyed. we have seen it through forensic examination, that some of the weaponry that we have seized off dissident republicans would have had its origins in the stockpiles of the original pira. you've got some key figures, leadership figures, who didn't buy the dream of the peace process, who moved across, created these violent dissident groups, may have had access to some weaponry that was still available to them.

ek§§=iil¥u§§r§i¥06l zufi’a’hi’; “7 ’ " ’ ’ ’ w there are armed groups out there who are involved in actions against the occupying forces. do you support those actions

by those armed groups? the first thing i will say and i want to make quite clear is that i am not a member of any armed group and not involved in any armed group. saoradh as a political party are not involved in armed actions, but i understand why those activities are carried out. and i understand why an organisation such as the irish republican army exists, and exists today. but you cannot say that you support it? no, and i — legally it prohibits anybody from getting into an engagement in an argument or debating or offering an analysis and support for any of those groups. but i assume that you do? well, you can assume away, peter. looking at the saoradh march with its semi—parliamentary trappings, you could be forgiven for raising an eyebrow over paul duffy's comments. —— semi—paramilitary. saoradh is the political voice of the new ira.

saoradh say that they have no connection whatsoever. it's not my assessment. i think there's significant overlap between the leadership of both the new ira and saoradh. as there was with sinn fein and ira? yeah, it's just history repeating itself, it's the same old rhetoric where people are trying to justify terrorism but distance themselves from it. so, it's not an assessment that i think has any credibility, they are pretty much one and the same. and your assessment of the leadership of saoradh and the new ira? not quite one and the same, but significant overlap between the leadership of the two components, so there are a number of people who are very senior in the new ira who are also senior in the leadership of saoradh. that would be our assessment. saoradh denies the connection made by the chief constable. don't be fooled by votes, don't be fooled by talk of border polls and referenda. the irish people have not had democracy since the 1918 general election. british imperialism,

since that date, has ruled ireland on an alternating basis of military force or coercion. the only fly in the ointment is the looming storm that is brexit. although all parties to the brexit negotiations are agreed on the need to avoid a hard border, with customs controls and checks, as yet, there is no agreement on how that may be achieved. but there is agreement on the dangers and the risk to peace that was established by the good friday agreement. its 20th anniversary was celebrated in belfast last month. senator george mitchell was its architect, wringing major concessions out of all the parties involved in the negotiations. senator, does brexit threaten the good friday agreement? yes, it does. if not done the right way. why then must there not be, in your view, a hard border?

brexit was a decision democratically taken in a democratic society, and therefore must be respected. i believe history willjudge this to have been an unwise decision for the uk and its people. but in particular, for the republic of ireland, if there is a hard border. and i think a hard border will be devastating for the people of ireland, who didn't vote for it, who don't support it. the determination to see the unfinished revolution through to a successful conclusion burns stronger than ever. comrades, go from here today and advance the slogan for freedom. sinn fein would argue that they too are struggling for freedom, but in a constitutional way. in terms of them having the capacity, the ability, the strategy and most particularly, the support, there is no support within the broad republican section for any return to conflict. those who are prepared to use violence to achieve their political objectives will seize on any

opportunity to use violence to advance their interests and try to stir up a return to sectarian conflict. i don't think that they will gain any significant support in this society or in the republic. but the possibility remains that they may try, and it is that against which we should guard. the dissidents' prediction that brexit — england's difficulty — will be ireland's opportunity, is likely to be a fond hope. a hard border is unlikely. nevertheless, dissidents will probably be undaunted. as gerry adams once said of the ira, "they haven't gone away, you know." with regards to the new ira, the dissidents could say the same. peter taylor reporting.

well, the customs union has been at the heart of a government division on brexit and the border, and today the cabinet brexit committee agreed there'd be a white paper on the issue in the next few weeks. which is strange because we had one 15 months ago, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. nick watt is with me now. interesting to hear what the chief constable were saying, quite clear he does not really want any physical border, because itjust becomes a target? no physical infrastructure, the exact wording the prime minister used in her mansion house speech in march but interesting and not the language she used in the sunday times at the weekend when she talked about how there should be no hard quarter. i was reporting yesterday that the language i had heard was that there should be no hard infrastructure. physical but not hard? exactly that there is a slight change in the language the prime minister is using and i am told this is the prime minister reaching out to brexiteers and saying, i'm hearing your concerns. but fundamentally on northern

ireland the prime minister i am told believes this is an acutely sensitive issue which must be got right and ministers are being told in no uncertain terms that if brexiter goes wrong then you could imperil the future of the united kingdom, because ministers have been told that that could get it wrong and you could increase support for nationalism in northern ireland, and in those circumstances the northern ireland secretary would have to under the terms of the good friday agreement call a referendum on northern ireland's future. let me just ask you about windrush, had a new admission today from sajid javid, new home secretary, on deportation? that's right. saying that 63 members of the windrush generation could have been wrongly deported. to which we say how did that not happen under amber rudd when she said she did not think any had been wrongly deported? sajid javid has taken over and has been asking the big questions,

8000 cases being examined, basically anyone born before 1973 they're saying could have fallen into this category. 32 are foreign national offenders, 31 as an administrative movables, people who were enforced returns, and the view in the home office is that the latter group, the government is going to make a huge effort to reach out to those and if they want to come back they should be encouraged to do so. the government will be doing nothing for the foreign national offenders but if they apply they may well have the right to come back. i'm joined now by damian green — theresa may's oldest political ally and a former first secretary of state in her government. and actually an immigration minister sometime back. i want to get back to the border issue first of all. so, the british did say, theresa may said, no physical infrastructure. are they going to stick to that, is that your understanding, there will be no physical infrastructure? it sounds like a bit of wordplay? i think it is possible to overanalyse words but yes,

there is no desire to have... no desires, there will be no... if the government does not desire to do it then they will not put it there, because for all the reasons... that was a quite chilling film, i think that is a tiny sliver of northern ireland society. but nevertheless there is a genuine fear that people who, catholics in the last order poll who voted to stay in the uk, we want them to keep doing that, this is a conservative and unionist government. theresa may actually has been warning the brexiteers, look, guys, if you push this to heart, we will get a border sundeck and we may lose northern ireland. are you saying that is not a bluff, because i think a lot of the brexiteers saw this as a silly attempt to bully them into making concessions? i think it is not a bluff, absolutely not. but it is almost equally important, the practicality of it. i think a lot of this border dispute

the idea ireland or other parts of the uk, you have to look at the practicalities. we now know there are more roads which crossed the irish border than there are between the eastern border of the european union and every other country on that eastern border. the idea that you can have a traditional border there would not only be politically disastrous, it is a nonsense in practical terms. if by some set of circumstances the government agreed on something which involves physical infrastructure, and that was the assumption, some illogical means, but you needed number plate readers, would you vote to stay in a customs union to say we can't have that? the government has said it is not going to do that so that hypothesis just does not obtain. and you've heard the chief constables saying that he would be very against that. would you vote for a customs union in any circumstance? no.

i fought a general election on a manifesto that said we were leaving the customs union. what this current debate is about is finding a practical way of doing that. what i think is in a sense frustrating about the current debate is that people faced with maximum facilitation or a new customs partnership appear to be getting ideological about it. i think we just need to be practical. both of these ways of doing it have their advantages and disadvantages. you can mix and match to some extent. but what i really care about is allowing trade to flow freely. notjust in terms of national prosperity, though that is hugely important. think about dover—calais, if that border goes wrong then i feel this personally as an mp in kent because kent will block up and we cannot have that. you're telling the brexit mps,

just compromise more and they feel brexit is on the line, there is not going to be a proper brexit if some of these plans...? notjust them, i am telling everyone to compromise, to be practical, to stop getting in ideological camps and say, what we all want is for britain's trade to flow as freely as possible. we're not yet sure how best to achieve that and we have to negotiate with the european union, that's what matters. what do you make of the way government is being conducted, borisjohnson calling one idea crazy... it is a pretty strange time, isn't it? the european research group, this group with a few tens of tory mps, talking to each other on whatsapp, talking about theresa may being weak and suchlike, maybe there will be gossip this weekend... i mean, brexit in a sense has changed politics. but nevertheless i think some certainties should remain, one of which, as others have said, is that cabinet ministers should have their disputes in private and shouldn't do it in public. that's just the way of running the government properly.

that should certainly happen. groups of mps throughout history have got together and said, we think really strongly about this, so we're going to discuss and plot and that kind of thing... none of this is new. there was no whatsapp ten years ago but it does not change the underlying point. if somehow boris became leader, basically, brexit... the commons, the tory rebels would erupt, they would feel liberated and say, we do not need to be loyal any more, we can just vote without consciences? you can enjoy a hypothetical speculation, i am not going tojoin you on that! because i think it is very, very important that we reach a practical settlement on customs and on everything else. you talk about that white paper, that's going to cover a range of issues. and there is a narrow landing strip but there is a landing strip where we will brexit and having a practical brexit... somebody like me, i was a remainer at the referendum but i think it's really important to get the best brexit. just a couple of sentences on windrush, the home office seems to be changing more than we might have realised when sajid javid came in, changing its definition of what was a faulty deportation,

and maybe we are in for a completely new era now in the home office? i think it is genuinely too early to say. notjust since sajid javid took over but when amber rudd was there as well, they were investigating these cases which i think the home office institutionally did not seem to know about until it did this the dive into the. the individual cases need to be sorted out. the writer tom wolfe has died. he was 88. hard to believe that his novel bonfire of the vanities is over 30 years old now, because it seems to satirically capture something of public discourse today, particularly the identity politics that animates it. he was also amusingly scathing of the rich finance guys — the masters of the universe — 20 years ahead of the crash. he once said... "i have never knowingly written satire. the word connotes exaggeration of the foibles of mankind. to me, mankind just has foibles. you don't have to push it!"

well, he wasn'tjust a novelist — as a long—form journalist he wrote the right stuff about the test pilots and early astronauts researching rocket powered flight. so—called "newjournalism" was his genre — journalism written in the present tense, for one thing. our culture editor stephen smith is a fan. this is how tom wolfe began a book—length essay on las vegas, the word or sound "hernia" repeated 56 times, meant to capture the running singsong, as he called it, of the dealers at the crap tables. that kind of detail had always been there, wolfe liked to suggest, but people hadn't been paying it close enough attention. i love to find things that

are really extraordinary, everybody knows about but they haven't been written about. and whenever a young writer, and there are not many of them, pays me the compliment of asking me, how did you get started in this field of writing, i would say, first, leave the building! and just take a look at what's out there. tom wolfe's beat took in architecture, the art market, the counterculture, high society...and dragracing. i don't know why anybody objects to the megalomania of the american automobile. they're not built to move your body in the first place, they're built to transport your mind. wolfe was an outlier of what became known as the newjournalism. he said that what he wanted to do was just get the reader as quickly as possible into the eye sockets of the people he was writing about,

and all of that kind of stuff helps him do that. and i guess the other thing that we need to emphasise, whatever else he was doing in terms of all the kind of fireworks, there was always this incredible emphasis he put on the job of reporting. so, tom, what is the basic question you have...is there something we would know about? i could ask you where in the house would you typically find these figures, they're big figures. $600 million deal... the writer is probably best known for the bonfire of the vanities, his prescient account of wall street hubris and identity politics. untouchable, insulated by wealth and power, a master of the universe. a great height from which to view the rest of the world. a great height from which to fall. people keep telling me that it's satire and i'm being a gadfly and... in my mind i'm like alex, i'm just running as fast as i can to try to catch up with events.

lionised writers including john updike were scandalised that wolfe's stuff was now sold as fiction. john updike, he said, your book's not literature, it'sjournalism. i think, god, that's great! wolfe coined neologisms that defined the times we lived in, and the newjournalism of wolfe and his contemporaries was thrilling to many. the sort of voices of these people, wolfe himself, gay talese, truman capote, hunter thompson — it seemed so exciting and so different to the tone that wolfe said had characterised journalism up to that point. he said it was like this sort of beige tone of a kind of tennis commentator. that's all we have time for. emily's here tomorrow. til then, a very good night. hello.

today was almost idyllic. temperatures in herefordshire and eastern scotland, above 20 degrees quite live —— quite widely but into the north—west, a band of cloud coming in. it is has clearly now and we have clear skies. this line of brain is pushing into northern england and wales. nothing very much but ahead of it, a fair bit of cloud. across scotland and northern ireland, chilly overnight. forall of us, a colderfield. not a great deal of rain. further north,

sunshine developing more widely. temperatures lower than today. 10 degrees lower than today for eastern parts of scotland. this is newsday 0n the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: after weeks of improving relations between north and south korea, pyongyang suddenly cancels talks with seoul in protest atjoint military exercises with the us. palestinians bury their dead, after clashes with israeli forces on the border with gaza. politicians and diplomats abroad call for peace, but real peace talks ended, failed a long time ago. i'm kasia madera in london. also in this programme: myanmar‘s forgotten crisis. kachin‘s christian minority forced from their homes by an upsurge in fighting. and doubts continue about whether meghan markle‘s father