our top story: in australia, the worst weekend of bushfires yet, has seen hundreds of homes destroyed. the prime minister scott morrison has warned the bushfire emergency could last for months. he says he's sending in the military, following accusations that he has been slow to deal with the crisis. france, britain and germany have asked iran to reconsider after it said it would rollback more commitments made under the international nuclear deal. tehran‘s announcement follows the american assassination of general qasem soleimani on friday. hollywood's awards season gets under way in los angeles in a couple of hours, with the 77th annual golden globes. the traditional studios are once again facing a challenge from the big streaming services. the ceremony begins at 1700 local time in hollywood. that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's hardtalk with stephen sackur.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. we humans are fascinated with ourselves, what makes us behave the way we do? our universities are full of behavioural scientists, psychologists and sociologists trying to find answers but none of their learning papers captured the popular imagination like the best selling books of my guest today. malcolm gladwell has been described as america's most famous intellectual. his latest book, talking to strangers, challenges the assumptions we make about trust and truth, but how far can we trust malcolm gladwell?

malcolm gladwell, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. can i begin by asking how you would describe yourself? you are a journalist of long—standing, you are a but would you also describe yourself as a behavioural psychologist of some sort? no, no, not at all. i am purely a journalist, these are subjects that i approach like a journalist, i do my reporting like a journalist, i do my reporting like a journalist, i do my reporting like a journalist, i write them up like a journalist. i have no advanced degrees to my name, i don't belong in the academy, i would never pretend to be on that level. but you do dig deep into areas of deep

academic research, so therefore you need to have the skill set to be able tojudge need to have the skill set to be able to judge the quality, for example, of data, of research? yeah, i make sure when i write about things that there is some degree of support for the ideas i am writing about in the academic community, but i think that is something generous to do with anything they report. in every area , we to do with anything they report. in every area, we make sure we are not just representing some kind of far out opinion. an interesting phrase, you make sure there is some degree of support for the propositions, the theses you are putting forward, how far does some degree of support have to go? well, the lovely thing about the scientific community is there is no such thing that everything —— eve ryo ne no such thing that everything —— everyone supports. there is always argument in disagreement and that is why we are so attracted to those debates, as generous. and i quite

happily and willingly enter into those debates so when... i'm not pretending to give the... of my books are not written on stone and i am not moses. no -- no, you are not. you are very frank about the nature of your relationship with scientists and science. you have said in the past that you see yourself as some sort of accelerant who takes scientific research that interests you, for one reason or another, and you, for one reason or another, and you turn it into something, an article in the new yorker or a book which then captures a much, much wider audience. what is the relationship like between you and a scientist that you report upon?|j think scientist that you report upon?” think it is warm. i mean, i have developed many good friendships with the people i have written about over the people i have written about over the years. i think one of the frustrations of being an academic

scientist is that you can do things that are terribly profound but that you feel you are not reaching outside of the narrow circle of fellow academics. so, i think many academics welcome someone like myself who is a kind of, offers them a bridge to the general public in a way for their ideas to be more generally known. your newest book, talking to strangers, addresses how we come all of us as human beings, approach new people in our lives, what we bring to the table when we encounter somebody for the first time are pretty much the first time. you seem to be suggesting that we are you seem to be suggesting that we a re often you seem to be suggesting that we are often deeply misguided in our impressions of people we meet, is that right? yes, that would be an accurate... this book, talking to strangers, is devoted to the notion that we are not very good at one of

the central tasks of living in a modern world, which is drawing accurate conclusions about people we don't know very well. is that not blindingly obvious to all of us? i don't wish to be rude, but it is common sense, you don't assume you can draw conclusions. we have never met before but just can draw conclusions. we have never met before butjust because we are here together, i would assume i know who you really are. i'm not sure it is blindingly obvious. think about it, if i was hiring you for a job andi it, if i was hiring you for a job and i followed conventional practices for hiring people, we would chat for 45 minutes and then i would chat for 45 minutes and then i would decide whether i want to hire you. in the light of what i am writing about in this book, that is an absolute preposterous notion, that i should be able to talk to you for 45 minutes, look at your resume, make a phone call to a former employer, and on the basis of that extraordinarily slender piece of

evidence about you, decide whether you are fit to work for my company. that is repeated thousands of times every day. i don't think it is blindingly obvious. it may be blindingly obvious. it may be blindingly obvious. it may be blindingly obvious when we reflect on it but it certainly doesn't make a difference in the way we behave, we continue to behave as if we are very good at this kind of thing. not only is it your contention that we behave as if we are good at it but we have a default position which is to think the best of people we meet. to be naive and think that by and large, people tell the truth, have integrity, and that we can take people as we see them. this lovely idea is called default to truth, it was raised by tim lavigne,... you draw a great deal from his work. 0h yes, tim and i are actually good friends now, and he was trying to

explain this long—standing puzzle in psychology which is why are human beings are such terrible lie detectors ? beings are such terrible lie detectors? you would think we would be good. you would think evolution would have prepared us for that one particular task. but, in would have prepared us for that one particulartask. but, infact, ican test this 100 ways and every it comes out, we are not good at telling whether someone is lying to us. and tim lavigne says that evolution has not prepared us to be good lie detectors but the opposite. it has favoured those who implicitly trust others. so we are trusting engines and we will only default from that position, that what we are being told is the truth, if evidence becomes overwhelming. and that explains so much of what goes awry in dealings politically with problematic strangers. you seem to conclude, this dystopian conclusion,

that we are actually better off not trusting our human instincts when we meet new people at all. you go through a whole list of occupations, whether it be police officers or judges or as you have just said to me, job interviewers, who you seem to say would do a much more effective, efficient job, to say would do a much more effective, efficientjob, if they never met the people that were the subject of their scrutiny. yes, it is an intuitive notion that has a good deal of support in psychology, which is... the question is, let's talk about a hypothetical job interview, i'm trying to decide whether you would be a good journalist to hire into my company, what is the value of their specific pieces of information that i gather from my face—to—face encounter? so, ican from my face—to—face encounter? so, i can look at things that you have written, i can talk to people who have worked with you, i can look at your work, and then i can meet you face to face and say, what do i

learn? and the answer is what we learn? and the answer is what we learn from the face—to—face encounter is probably so noisy and so fraught with error and so are releva nt to so fraught with error and so are relevant to the task at hand that i am probably better off not doing it. now, if i was hiring you to sell perfume on the ground floor of harrods, i would want to meet you, that seems to be crucial, but i am not, iam that seems to be crucial, but i am not, i am interested that seems to be crucial, but i am not, iam interested in hiring that seems to be crucial, but i am not, i am interested in hiring you asa not, i am interested in hiring you as a journalist. why do i need to meet you? i find as a journalist. why do i need to meet you? ifind out as a journalist. why do i need to meet you? i find out that you are tall, you are handsome, you have white hair. let's dig deep into what you do, and you do it notjust in this book talking to strangers, but in the books that many people watching and listening will know from tipping point to blink, you have this capacity to row across history, across geography, across cultures, to make your points by drawing in all sorts of connections, making connections that many people

frankly find perhaps even dizzying in their complexity. in this case, talking to strangers, you link, for example, neville chamberlain in the late 1930s, his encounters and misreading of hitler, you link that to the degree of which bernie madoff, the crooked financier took the investors in his company, you link that to some of the leading sports coaches in america who took in the parents of children who were abused by those very same coaches. it is dizzying. are you really sure that these connections you make have any intellectual validity? 0h, that these connections you make have any intellectualvalidity? oh, yes. the ones you just mention are all variations on a theme and they have to do with answering the question which consumes the first half of the book, which is why are we so bad at detecting lies and what are the

consequences of that failure? all of those cases that you have mentioned are fundamentally the same. neville chamberlain goes to see adolf hitler and his inclination is to trust him, despite, and he ignores whatever mountain of evidence there is. but with respect, neville chamberlain's encounters with hitler are so deeply political and connected to his position and motivations that are nothing to do with what he makes of adolf hitler as fellow human being. that is a very strong statement, nothing to do. on the contrary, if you read neville chamberlain's letter to his sister, it is where he unburdened his heart about his... he talks very much about his personal relationship with hitler, it really mattered to him that he felt hitler took him seriously, he felt he had —— could have a real conversation with him. there is a very strong...

what you are saying about how there are many other factors at play exactly the case, never pretend that iam doing exactly the case, never pretend that i am doing testing in the same way that someone who is devoting a book to the history of neville chamberlain was, but there is a threat in that story that strongly remembers that thread in the bernie madoff story... it depends how strong the thread is because what you do in all your books is pull threads together but if they're not strong enough, you have a compelling narrative which actually imposes itself on facts which don't tally up, that is what some of your critics conclude about your work, that in the end, storey is king, and data and facts that don't fit your storyline are real —— rather conveniently put to one side. give me an example. let's talk about the way you weave into this narrative the misconceptions that people bring

to the table, what i find it very confusing set of circumstances around racial interactions involving the police and individuals. that is the police and individuals. that is the signature story of the book. the police and individuals. that is the signature story of the bookm isa the signature story of the bookm is a very important one, and i may be misreading what you are saying that when you describe the encounter between a young smart african woman in texas and a police officer who stops her and she looked up and tragically she hangs herself. —— smart african—american woman. you say that can fit your apparent dime about encounters —— your paradigms about encounters —— your paradigms about encounters —— your paradigms about encounters with people, and you are dismissing the notion that it can be seen in terms of racial tensions and all the things that have happened in the recent past between black people and the police in america. i would respectfully -- respectfully differ from that. i am

choosing not to dwell on the particular perspective of race... that is an extraordinarily self—confident thing to do, given how much this matters to black people, who threw the black lives matters movement have just said this is about america's race problem, and you are saying it is not. i'm not sure that is true, actually. funny enough, some of the warmest comments that have been made about this but have been from black activists and those involved in this issue, because they have been frustrated with the degree of the interpretation of these is on and are strictly racial lens has led people to dismiss them, to say what can you do, the cop was a racist, to shrug and go on with their lives. we have a history in the united states of these kind of incidents going back hundreds of years and nothing ever happens, and one of the reasons that nothing ever happens as we persist in viewing them simply as

personal encounters gone awry. and what this book begins by saying is i have become frustrated with that way of looking at these problems and i would like to give a structural interpretation of what went wrong, that talks about this case and a much deeper and more profound level. you would be astonished at how many people who are deeply involved in this case and these kinds of cases have welcomed that kind of approach. they are, as i have been, profoundly disillusioned with the level of inaction and apathy that has greeted these kinds of problematic encounters in the past. this book is pa rt encounters in the past. this book is part of a general movement among those who take racism in the american context very seriously, i am someone who has been writing about it my entire career. you say you have had positive feedback, the woman who hanged herself after being picked up from the police after a

traffic violation, have herfamily spoken to you about the way her story features in your book?” haven't talked to her family directly, no. iam name—dropping here but who was the most enthusiastic proponent of this book? 0prah enthusiastic proponent of this book? oprah winfrey. i am first of all someone for whom... i am biracial, these are deeply... your mother is from jamaica? these are deeply... your mother is from jamaica? my mother is west indian. from 25 years, i have been writing about this. it is not a decision to focus this book on a broader structural question of how does law enforcement work? how do our minds work when we confront someone who is other? these are not whimsical or trivial decision that i have made. they arise out of the

career of thinking deeply about theseissues career of thinking deeply about these issues and as i said before, deep frustration with how limited our conversation has been about these kinds of encounters. let me, this question of how important the narrative, the storytelling is for you. you have been extremely honest, saying you are a journalist, i was very strapped by something you told an interviewer back in 2008 which i happen to see in the course of research, you were asked, would you prefer that in the end your ideas be interesting right? and your response was fascinating, you snorted and said interesting, of course, i don't even know why you are asking the question. if i was the president of the us, i would rather be right, but i'm a journalist, and whatjealous would rather be right rather than interesting? i think it is important, what you have said that. let me rephrase that perhaps. in a

less provocative way. what i mean is myjob is to challenge my readers, myjob is to challenge my readers, myjob is not simply to peddle the conventional wisdom to them. if i am telling you something you believe you already know, . .. telling you something you believe you already know,... but what if the conventional wisdom is right? i'm not sure you can boil it down like that. even if it is, even if there isa that. even if it is, even if there is a conventional wisdom out there that we believe to be right, it is a lwa ys that we believe to be right, it is always useful to look at a familiar issue through an unfamiliar lens. i believe strongly it is the job of journalist to perform that function in society so if we had been talking about encounters between african—americans and about encounters between african—america ns and police officers for two generations entirely in terms of the personal racism of the police officer, it is profoundly useful for someone to come along and say stop, here is another way to look at this problem that might be more fruitful. that is

a role as a journalist i take very seriously. if i wanted to do nothing more than to re—purpose the conventional wisdom, i would more than to re—purpose the conventional wisdom, iwould have more than to re—purpose the conventional wisdom, i would have a good dealfewer conventional wisdom, i would have a good deal fewer critics, conventional wisdom, i would have a good dealfewer critics, i would probably sell more books, and i would be accomplishing a good deal less. well, you don't have a problem selling books, . .. less. well, you don't have a problem selling books,... i could sell more! i could sell more! they sell by the shed load. here is something i suspect you won't like but i am putting it out there, in this desire of yours to tell interesting stories and take on and challenge conventional wisdom, i just and take on and challenge conventionalwisdom, ijust wonder if... andi conventionalwisdom, ijust wonder if... and i am saying this because stephen pinker, who i am sure you know, who also writes pretty popular books, he has called you a kind of populist in your writing, and i wonder whether you see in the age of donald trump and all the questions that are being asked about what truth really is and whether the things that you don't like our

inconvenient truths that you can dismiss as fake news, whether there is an element in your writing that at times you have been tempted to adopt a populist dance which puts more importance on the flow of the narrative than it does on the randomness and difficulty and complexity of data ? randomness and difficulty and complexity of data? i mean, first of all, it is a funny thing for stephen pinker to say since some of his positions are so far outside of the mainstream that they will seem a little embarrassing in retrospect. let's get not to get involved in the personal stuff, there is an interesting questionnaire.” personal stuff, there is an interesting questionnaire. i don't know, can you think of a good example of a popular position i have taken? i can't, actually. not long ago, at the beginning of the interview, you were saying my position was blindingly obvious, but now you are taking the opposite tack, and you are taking something else... it is my prerogative to test

you from different positions. am i going back and forth from positions are far outside the mainstream and restating the obvious? well, you have written bestselling books and perhaps sometimes you are saying something obvious and other times... soi something obvious and other times... so i have many sides but in mark yes. you have doing this a long time, he started writing for the new yorker in the mid—90s and here you are in 2019, you have written, i think this is the sixth book. in that time, as you have focused so intensely on human behaviours, why human societies behave the way they do, have you changed, evolved, do you think? certain ideas have remained central. i have always been what i have turned an

environmentalist. i believe very strongly in the role of context and situation and environment in explaining behaviour and motivation, iam not explaining behaviour and motivation, i am not someone who thinks that our personalities and our decisions are all coming from within, are indifferent to the world around us. that has been a very consistent theme. 0n the other hand, there has been, i think i have made, i theme. 0n the other hand, there has been, ithink i have made, i have changed quite dramatically in how i approach certain kinds of complex issues. for example, the difference in the way i talk about law enforcement from my first book to this book is quite dramatic. i have probably made... specifically, in what sense? well, to be very focused in rapture despite the positive effects of aggressive policing, i am now the opposite, i am now —— more

concerned about the side—effects of aggressive policing. that represents quite a substantial shift in my thinking. does that mean that malcolm gladwell has become more small al liberal? i have gone from populist to liberal! just answer the question, have you? you were raised in canada in mennonite religious community, your payments were necessarily particularly religious. people look for amorality in the way you look at society and individuals, do you feel like you are a moral person, a judgmental person?” do you feel like you are a moral person, ajudgmental person? i do think there is a strong moral theme and a lot of my writing, and i do think it is fair to say that i am much more of a small l liberal now than i would have been in my youth, but that is not a typical as people

age. some people go the opposite. have you mellowed out become more extreme? that is a different programme altogether. unfortunately, we have run out of time on this one. malcolm gladwell, it has been a pleasure to have your hardtalk. thank you. hello. red sky for some on sunday night, but not a huge amount of delight for the shepherds, or indeed the rest of us in the weather over the next few days. quite a turbulent spell with potential for disruption from notjust from some heavy rain at times, more especially gales or severe gales, particularly to the north and west will bring with it during the next few days, some mild conditions before things turn chillier later in the week. first spell of turbulent

weather comes with this area of low pressure, it's to the south of iceland. heavy snow here, but gales and heavy rain push into to the west of ireland by the end of the night. most though into the morning rush hour, cloudy, a few spots of rain or drizzle and frost free. but through the morning rush hour itself, northern ireland some heavy bursts of rain and gale force wind, spreading across scotland from mid morning onwards. not too much rain in the east. as for wales and west england, it's really lunchtime onwards we'll see that heavy rain before sunshine returns to the west later on. into the north and west, we'll see the strongest of the winds, potential for gales, maybe 50 mile an hour gusts or more for some. not quite as windy to east anglia and the south—east, but the breeze will pick up here by the end of the afternoon and into the evening rush—hour, we'll see this band of narrower, but quite heavy rain spreads its way eastwards. it does mean we finish the day in south—west england, wales and northern england with a greater potential for some sunshine. into the north and west, we'll see

the strongest of the winds, potential for gales, maybe 50 mile an hour gusts or more for some. not quite as windy to east anglia and the south—east, but the breeze will pick up here by the end of the afternoon and into the evening rush—hour, we'll see this band of narrower, clearer skies, brief dip in temperature, temperature is rising later, as more wet and windy weather spreads its way in from the west and thatis spreads its way in from the west and that is this area of low pressure, the next one which is a deeper bigger area of low pressure, the winds are stronger, extend further away from the centre, producing snow in iceland, dragging an exceptionally mild air in the mid—atlantic, exceptionally mild air in the mid—atla ntic, rocketing temperatures, a chilly start for some in the south—east. here, it should state die and bright through much of the day. 0utbreaks should state die and bright through much of the day. outbreaks of rain at time, because disruptions could come from the winds, widespread gales, 70 mph, 80 miles an hour not out of the question. the winds coming overfrom the mid—atlantic will bring exceptionally mild weather. north and northern ireland

in north—eastern scotland, we could see 15 or 16 degrees. the milder air is swept away as we go through the night and into wednesday morning, chilly start on wednesday morning with a touch of frost around, rain returns from the south—west later, more wet and windy weather around on thursday before a colder end to quieter enter the week. —— quieter and to the week.

welcome to a special edition of newsday. i'm lucy hockings in nowra in new south wales in australia. the worst weekend of bushfires yet, and australia has seen dozens of homes destroyed. and there's a warning this could go on burning for months. after weeks of criticism for his reaction to the bushfire crisis, prime minister scott morrison defends his government's response. this is the largest single call—out ever of reservists working with our full—time defence service providing support that our country has never seen before. south of here in the state of victoria, there are fears that