in an attack on a military parade in iran, that killed 25 people. iran's president hassan rouhani has accused us—backed gulf states of supporting the groups behind the attack. the opposition contender in the maldives‘ presidential election has claimed a surprise victory. ibrahim mohamed solih said it was a moment of happines and hope. provisional results suggest he has over 58% of the vote. and this story is trending on social media: ajournalist in saudi arabia has made history by becoming the country's first female news anchor. weam al dakheel presented the main news bulletin for al saudiya, a state—run tv channel. it was just it wasjust gone it was just gone half past midnight. now on bbc news, hardtalk. i'm steven sapper. what is

journalism for? to inform and bear witness? to uncover inconvenient truth and hold power to account? those are surely values most of us share. but have we collectively lost faith and trust in the news. and those who report it? my guess is yea rs those who report it? my guess is years alan rusbridger who edited the uk's guardian for 20 years in the midst of a digital revolution that transformed the news business for ever. if the established media is no longer trusted, who is to blame?

alan rusbridger, welcome to hardtalk. there is a sense hanging over your recent writings that you sort of feel you got out of the news business just before it went into meltdown. would that be then? business just before it went into meltdown. would that be themm business just before it went into meltdown. would that be then? it was a tough period economically for news. the model that almost accidentally attached advertising to news, which you could say lasted for 200 years, is melting fast under tremendous competition from digital giants. 0n the other hand, i think journalism has never been more important. there is a great battle going on at the moment for truth versus fakery going on at the moment for truth versus fa kery and going on at the moment for truth versus fakery and falsity and rubbish and i think it is an exhilarating time to be a journalist

and to try to work out how you remake ofjournalism. it and to try to work out how you remake of journalism. it is and to try to work out how you remake ofjournalism. it is an interesting phrase that an journalism has never been more important. but in all honesty do you feel that traditional news organisations such as the one that you lead for 20 years, would you argue that it and others like it have never been more important or is the scenery shifting? the big difference is, obviously, the insipid term, social media. in the last dozen yea rs insipid term, social media. in the last dozen years the image i had, as i was writing this book was of the world that had been arranged vertically. we had printing presses and we literally handed down the news on tablets of stone and people handed out their money. value have 4 billion people talking horizontally. the relationship of authority. you, and you as editor were the ultimate authority. and the would accept that. we were certainly the

gatekeepers. we were the gatekeepers of news and we handed it down and then you had to decide if you trusted it or not. what is happening at the moment is that there is a big battle for trust. do they trust each other or the old gatekeepers? as we get into a complex discussion i think it is important to set out some parameters and backgrounds. here is a simple one. what did you personally get into journalism for? ifiam personally get into journalism for? if i am honest, i got into it could i thought it was an enjoyable life. i was i thought it was an enjoyable life. iwasa i thought it was an enjoyable life. i was a curious person and i was never going to be a brain surgeon or a concert pianos to. so it was a nice life. by the time i was editor, i became very conscious of the responsibility and duty of journalists as people who, in a society, can say that this is true and that is not true. this happened in this did not. that is what journalists do. you always had and

you still have a fundamental belief in an objective truth. that is a more complicated question. as you know if you lived in america you would believe that that objective truth. in a british newspaper it is much more subjective. in the bbc you are obliged to be impartial. and you we re are obliged to be impartial. and you were never that at the guardian. 0ne would argue and, perhaps you would disagree, maybe not, there was a collective mindset at the guardian and there still is. it is progressive small l liberal. 0ne would have to say probably metropolitan rather than anything else. that is the voice of the newspaper. and what the audience expects. to some extent. and i do think that news from comments. comment is free, facts are sacred, thatis comment is free, facts are sacred, that is an important mantra. that i would accept that the guardian was on the liberal side. that is because

for 200 years there was a polemical press and many people with the opposite view in britain. you saw it as part of your remit to hold power to account. in your memoir strip rumination on the nature of journalism you speak in great detail about the specific showdowns you had with the british government. and perhaps the most significant... there are couple, was over edward snowden and his revelations given to you about a massive electronic secret surveillance operation being conducted by us intelligence, specifically the national security agency. to be brutal, your mantra was published and be damned. you should never, in my view stock, exceptin should never, in my view stock,

except in the most exceptional circumstances, stop an editor from publishing. it is not the duty of the state to stop the free exchange of news. but the editor must think carefully before publishing and perhaps consult with those who can tell the editor whether there was a genuine and real—time risk to national security. and we did all that. damned bit is that you take the consequences. in the end we ended up publishing from america because the pentagon papers case of 1972 when the edward snowden of his day, daniel ellsberg, told the truth about the vietnam war and the american government tried to stop him in the supreme court said no. that is not the role of government. the press must be independent from government. who did you consult? the big damned element of what i said, the mantra publish and be damned, the mantra publish and be damned, the damned element is severe. you we re the damned element is severe. you were castigated and accused of treacherous behaviour by government

figures including the head of intelligence and by fellow journalist. who did you consult before deciding to publish? multiple people. we were in touch with the white house, with the nsa, with the british intelligence agencies. with the fabled d notice system in britain, the system in which people volu nta ry britain, the system in which people voluntary submit material to the government. there was almost daily contact. so when, as we now know, after publication the head of mi6 said that britain's adversaries at the time of publication were rubbing their hands with glee. al qaeda was lapping up all this covert information that you put into the public domain. did you ignore all that sort of comment? we took account of the representation as it was made to us and like i said we went through the d notice system. did you feel they were lying to you in their characterisation? there was

a public battle going on at that time, a warof a public battle going on at that time, a war of words. i have spoken to intelligence people sends and when you are sitting down calmly with them, quite often they say that the look, this was inevitable. we could not go on with this sort of mass surveillance without it becoming known i think the calm people accept that this was the debate to have had and they have put it all on a legal footing now. there isa it all on a legal footing now. there is a powerful word used by a former home secretary when he commented on the decisions you took, he said arrogant. he said that your decision make an end showed an incredible amount of arrogance implying that you were in a position, with the two judge whether or not secrets were fit to be published when many others we re fit to be published when many others were deemed that are likely to damage the national interest. do understand that you ? damage the national interest. do understand that you? i do. and he is a violent —— politician. and if you

believe in the free press than in a free society you have a free press and it follows that the editor must be free to make decisions. so will ta ke be free to make decisions. so will take a different view. in a frank discussion of the fallout from your decision—making you quote a fellow editor who was briefly editor of the independent he said that of the security services insist that something is contrary to the public interest in my arm their operation, who ami interest in my arm their operation, who am i as interest in my arm their operation, who amiasa interest in my arm their operation, who am i as a journalist to disbelieve them? i think that goes to the heart of the independence of the journalism. to the heart of the independence of thejournalism. if, when richard nixon told the washington post and the new york times not to publish the new york times not to publish the pentagon papers, they had taken that attitude and said it is not for us that attitude and said it is not for us to query the president of the united states. then we would never have known about the pentagon papers and never have known about the british spies because that's what governments always say. they always say listen to us, we are wise and

you arejeopardising. so say listen to us, we are wise and you are jeopardising. so you have to begin by saying that this has to be independent and has to make its own judgement. you can argue that we we re judgement. you can argue that we were irresponsible and should not have published by my problem with that quote was him saying that in any circumstances, if the british state of many to apologise i would not do. so when you are dealing with important national security issues frequently, can you name me one example where you ultimately took the decision not to publish information that your journalists had gathered? we published about 596 in the end of the material and i established strict guidelines because we shared the material with the new york times and in handing it over said that we not look at anything to do with spying on

countries or on warfare or terrorism. that is not what we will do. and sometimes they pushed back and said we would like to use some of this material i was firm and said that all we are looking at at the moment is the mass capability of surveying entire populations. that is what we are looking at. so we did not publish, deliberately, the vast majority of the material. do you think, is today, somebody inside an organisation, bid a news organisation, bid a news organisation or government, was wanting all willing to spill the beans, to blow the whistle on what they saw as malfeasance, do you think they would either need or want to go through a traditional media organisation. why wouldn't they, in the age of the internet and all of us the age of the internet and all of us having immediate access to the web and social media platforms, why would they not just web and social media platforms, why would they notjust publish themselves? that is a good question.

it was remarkable in a way that edward snowden in deciding to pass on this material did notjust publish himself. i think the opposite example, if you like, if someone opposite example, if you like, if someone like julian sands opposite example, if you like, if someone likejulian sands is —— back three is an information anarchist. he did work with you for a while, we must remember. —— assange. he did work with you for a while, we must remember. -- assange. but do you trust old media to be the gatekeepers? the reason snowden did not go to the new york times was because in 2005 they had sat on a story to do with genuinely elite allergy within the american government of wiretapping, illegal behaviour by the george w bush regime. and he saw why go to a paper as they will not publish. i tried to explain this to the british

government that, in a way, you are lucky it is the guardian and the new york times and washington post that has this material we are talking to you regularly. because it newspapers refused to publish this material the next edward snowden willjust release it on the internet. so something has changed now that we are fully immersed in the digital era. you even suggest that the news industry as we have known it is fundamentally broken. i'm struggling to understand why you think the internet has changed everything because, after all, one only has to look at the way the media has worked through the 19th and 20th centuries to see that the dissemination of lies and the use of propaganda and manipulative tactics are as old as the hills. they had not come in with the hills. they had not come in with the internet. and, therefore, the notion that everything has changed in the news industry is broken, it is that not an exaggeration? well, the title of the book is

breaking, not reckon. it is under great strain. —— broken. breaking, not reckon. it is under great strain. -- broken. well, i hesitate to contradict you, you wrote the book, but it quotes that by early 2017, the news that helped understand the welcome what will the wheels of society, that people honest, news was broken. then there was a pause, you go on to say there was a pause, you go on to say there was too much. it's, not enough reliable news. that is the point. in the 18th and 19th century, of course there was falsity in the world, but it was capable. now we have fantastic scales, to take the president of the united states, who has told untruths or lies for a half thousand times since becoming president, simply keeping up with the ability of the most powerful man in the world to broadcast to 50 million people daily, things that are untruths that is before you get

the fake news factories and notjust them, but the extreme right, the extreme left. so you have got a machinery that has never existed in humankind before. pumping out billions of pieces of false news every day. that is the real challenge for journalistic profession that is creaking at the seams in terms of economics. and perhaps the temptation of many journalists is to put it into a donald trump, but perhaps they need to look at themselves too. trump phenomenon on, as you say, the lies he tells our pointed out very publicly and it yet, a very significant constituency in the united states, if not in the wider world, looks at trump, listens to his message about the mainstream media being fake, being enemies of the people, and millions sympathise. why do you think that is? well, i am not uncritical of journalism why do you think that is? well, i am not uncritical ofjournalism at this

point, as i was writing it, i thought hard about whether it was reasonable just to come out with a message that said we need more journalism. because the story that journalists tilt of the world is that we are better than that, better than this ocean of content out there because we are journalist and we are trained. to some it is not the journalist saying that we are better than that, it is then saying we are better than you. that is also true. the subtitle of the book is the remaking ofjournalism. the subtitle of the book is the remaking of journalism. i the subtitle of the book is the remaking ofjournalism. i came to think that that meant journals remaking ofjournalism. i came to think that that meantjournals and simply has to be better and there we re simply has to be better and there were two things during the writing of this book that led me to query, rather vividly, one was the reporting of brexit and reporting of climate change. in which, i think, it is not an easy argument to say that traditional journalism it is not an easy argument to say that traditionaljournalism is so much better than what is available on the social web or the internet in general. when one talks politically

about the trump phenomenon on, it it seems to me that it is important to understand what it is that the people who voted for trump saw in him that made him an attractive political proposition. the same message, it seems to me, is important for journalist to think about. what it is in the trump message and other what sort of, anti— elite politicians who preach against the mainstream media, what is it in that message that a lot of people find resonant? it's it that too many people in mainstream media have a mindset which, lot of folks feel, is completely out of touch with their lives? i ensure that is true. but what trump is doing is going further and try to delegitimise journalism going further and try to delegitimisejournalism itself. i think the new york times, for all of its failings, is a great ethical, responsible newspaper. so it seems really perverse to almost on a daily

basis, single out the new york times and say that is fake. it seems to me what trump is trying to do is to say that actually if i can can —— if i can convince you that there are no fa cts can convince you that there are no facts in the world we can perhaps operate on a different level, which is emotional, and trump is very successful in plain to people ‘s emotions. that is a very dangerous road to go down. looking at an interesting recent poll. 51% of republicans voters, millions of people, now believe the media to be the enemy of the people, rather than an important part of the democracy. more than half of the republican supporters polled were not concerned that mr trump's criticism might lead to violent against journalists. that mr trump's criticism might lead to violent againstjournalists. how dangerous world you think we are entering? it is incredible. i said to the board ofjournalists protect this, it never occurred to me that

we would be talking about protecting americanjournalists, that we would be talking about protecting american journalists, that is what it has come to because there is an attempt to say that the press is the enemy of the people. they should be the friends of the people, they should be on their side. there should be on their side. there should be on their side. there should be a lot of soul—searching among journalists to ask how we got into this position? yes. a fascinating idea that the press should be the friends of the people. going back to that opposition and how he got into journals, i hope you don't mind me being a little bit you area don't mind me being a little bit you are a classic 0xbridge educated and are a classic 0xbridge educated and a member of the upper middle—class british elite, and according to a study by a young journalist, and lastly disproportionate number of senior british journalist on national media organisations are both privately educated and have been through the 0xbridge system. coming back to this point about journalists need to reach out to the people and be seen to be trusted by the people, isn't that part of the problem? of course it is, yeah. and

one of the things that i think you have to realise that social media is that it have to realise that social media is thatitis have to realise that social media is that it is more reflective of the kind of conversations that ordinary people have. 0ne kind of conversations that ordinary people have. one of the things that we did on the guardian was to open up we did on the guardian was to open up our comment pages and call it comment is free. it wasn't just the same six commentators working on a daily basis that the newspaper traditional model has, we are able to have a lot of muslim voices and young voices and black voices and 93v young voices and black voices and gay voices and indians writing about india, rather than writing that india, rather than writing that india from king's cross. so this is the extent of the revolution that is moving and that is part of regaining trust. let's end by going back to those years at the guardian, we have talked about some of the huge stories that you broke as editor. what you also broke while you are there was the bank. you almost drove there was the bank. you almost drove the paper into bankruptcy, i think last year you are editing it it lost

£45 last year you are editing it it lost £16 million, according to a man who sometimes wrote for you and was a critic of yours, he said you are putting the guardian, because of your disastrous economic model, on a suicide mission. now that you are a few years left, born from the paper, would you acknowledge that your journalistic career was a success, your economic model for the paper is a total disaster? no, ithink totally the opposite. that is a good example of fake news. guardian has £1 billion in the bank and it is breaking even this year. i would argue that we had a very long—term strategy and the current people running the paper, who could have put upa running the paper, who could have put up a pay wall, decided not to three years after i have born, have realised this is a good strategy, not a disaster at. the point about being free is an important one. —— at all. the new york times, a brilliant paper, is not read by 97%

of americans, quite a lot of whom watch fox news get their news of the internet. it is a brilliant thing and an important thing which should be celebrated, not knocked, that guardian readers are prepared to pay for the guardian this was the membership model that we devised about five years ago. not in order so that nobody else could read it, but a bit like the bbc, so the world can but a bit like the bbc, so the world ca n a ccess but a bit like the bbc, so the world can access a really good source of news. that seems to me, fundamental in terms of thinking about journalism as a public service that is available to everybody in an age where, if you put up a gigantic pay wall around your content, then you are disenfranchising and creating a poverty of information for people who cannot access it. ten years from now, who will be defining the world of journalism that we now, who will be defining the world ofjournalism that we live in? will it be institutions like the guardian, or will it be that technology giants like google and facebook? i think google and

facebook? i think google and facebook are realising the world is that more difficult than they thought, this world of information. ido thought, this world of information. i do think that the traditional news organisations are, at their best, rather good at sifting through lies. i think, what we are going to have, i hope what we are going to have, is an interaction between facebook, the googles and the guardians and the new york times and out of that comes something rather creative and important. but it is going to be messy, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money and it is going to be worrying. but i do to get is a great time to be a journalist and pa rt great time to be a journalist and part of that revolution. great time to be a journalist and part of that revolutionlj great time to be a journalist and part of that revolution. i was going to say, if you are a —— were a young man setting out on that korea today, would you be a journalist? absolutely. would not have the security that you and i have at our great age, but what an exciting time to be able to make journalism great age, but what an exciting time to be able to makejournalism even better than it had a. and i sought to end on. alan rusbridger, thank

you very much for being on hardtalk. —— a nice thought to end on. hello. after a rather autumnal sort of weekend, the weather is looking a little bit better for many of us, as high pressure builds through this week. this was the scene as the sun set on sunday. after a soggy sunday in the south, in whitstable there were some clear spells to end the day. now, through this week, as high pressure builds in, there will be a lot of dry weather with some sunshine. warmer in the south too. there will be more rain and more wind arriving across northern parts of the uk later on in the week. but back to the here and now, monday morning dawns on quite a chilly note. we've got a big area of high pressure in charge,

so that is keeping things largely dry to start off with. and under those clear spells, temperatures first thing could be near freezing in a few rural spots. through the morning, though, after that chilly start, lots of sunshine on offer. one or two showers around through monday across parts of north—west scotland. perhaps a few filtering into the north—west of england too. but for the majority of people, you're in for a dry, fine day. it will be a little bit warmer than recent days, with those winds a touch lighter too. so by the afternoon, temperatures between around about 13 to perhaps 16 degrees or so. a little bit warmer than it was on sunday, but still not great for the time of year. and then as we head through monday evening and overnight into tuesday, then we keep the high pressure, keep the clear spells around too. fairly light winds, so yet again, another cold night, especially in the south. for england and wales too, the chance of a bit of frostiness, and perhaps some mist and fog fog patches first thing tuesday as well. further north—west, not quite as cool. a little bit more of a breeze blowing here. through the day on tuesday, it is high pressure that drives our weather. we've got weather fronts moving

into the north—west, though. that'll bring more cloud and outbreaks of rain to parts of northern ireland and scotland later in the day. england and wales on tuesday staying dry, fine and settled in the sunshine. fairly light winds here, but the winds will be picking up further north. could be gusting at around 30 or 40mph for exposed parts of north—west scotland, with some outbreaks of rain here too. so really, a north—south split to the weather. it will be barming up, though, 1a to perhaps 18 degrees or so, perhaps our top temperatures by tuesday afternoon. looking ahead to wednesday, still more rain for the west of scotland with cloud here. further south across england and wales, again, another dry, fine and fairly sunny day with those temperatures starting to creep up too. so we could see highs of up to around 20 degrees or so on wednesday, and it looks like it could get warmer still as we head towards the end of the week, especially in the south. thursday probably the warmest day of the week with some sunshine, 22 degrees in london. a little bit fresher, but still dry with sunshine on offer across the country as we head through into friday. not a bad week of weather. enjoy.

bye for now. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore, the headlines: iran's president blames the us and its gulf allies for a deadly attack on its elite military forces. washington tells him to "look in the mirror". a trade war between the us and china escalates with millions of dollars of new tariffs against chinese goods kicking in within hours. india rolls out the world's largest healthcare project but will it work? we meet the first family to receive it. translation: when my first child was born i had to have a caesarean. we spent almost $2000. this time, before the child was born, ifilled in a form for the insurance scheme and we did not have to pay