this is rocks, the eponymous teenage protagonist who's trying to keep her inner city london life together in a wonderfully observed drama that has bukky bakray up for a bafta best actress award, with rocks�* friend, played by kosar ali, in the running for best supporting actress. the film is directed by sarah gavron, who could be a rare female best director winner. but first, she'll have to overcome the challenge from chloe zhao, whose film nomadland sees its star frances mcdormand up for best actress. riz ahmed is among those in the running for best actor for his portrayal of a drummer in a heavy rock band who suddenly loses his hearing. i'm not leaving my flat! anthony hopkins, another best actor nominee, is losing his mind in the father. i don't see your name in lights. it's a competitive category that could see chadwick boseman awarded a posthumous best actor bafta for his performance in ma rainey�*s black bottom.

but i don't like grandma. alan kim would be a popular best supporting actor winner for playing a little boy with a heart condition in minari, in which a young korean family set up a small farm in america. you can murder a revolutionary, but you can't murder revolution! daniel kaluuya is also in the running for best supporting actorfor his portrayal of fred hampton, the chicago black panthers leader, injudas and the black messiah. co—star dominique fishback is up for best supporting actress. best film could be won by emerald fennell�*s promising young woman, starring carey mulligan, or it could be aaron sorkin�*s the trial of the chicago 7, but the favourite for the prestigious award is nomadland. will gompertz, bbc news. weather coming upjust weather coming up just before the top of the hour, but before that, the media show. hello. in 2012, the washington post was perhaps the world's most famous local newspaper,

whose new editor needed to make cuts. within eight years, the paper had become a global powerhouse, with ten pulitzer prizes under its belt and over 100 million monthly website views. the paper had a new owner, jeff bezos, the world's richest man and it had one of america's most lauded editors at its helm. marty baron had already been the editor of the miami herald and had seen his years at the boston globe get turned into an oscar—winning film called spotlight. sometimes it is easy to forget that we spend most of our time stumbling around in the dark. suddenly a light gets turned on and there is a fair share of blame to go around. back injanuary, marty baron announced he would be stepping down as editor of the washington post, which he duly did. marty baron, welcome to the media show. many of our audience will have a vague sense of your achievements, maybe they will have seen that film, spotlight, but they will not know you very well, so let me ask a couple of questions to get to know you a bit better.

were newspapers a big part of family life when you were growing up? they were. my parents were immigrants to the united states. they wanted to know a lot about their own country, this new country and they were interested in what was happening around the world, so we had our local newspaper in tampa, florida, every single day. they watched the news regularly, the national news and the local news on television and then we received time magazine every week, so we had a regular news diet in our household. what did your parents do for a living? my father was an exporter of florida citrus around the world and my mother was a homemaker. did you stumble into journalism or did you sort of march decisively into it? lots of people go into journalism by lots of different ways. what's the method by which you came into it? ijust seemed to always be interested in it and i think going back to junior high school, i think probably because of the news diet in our household, i became editor of my high school newspaper and then when i got to college, i became editor,

ultimately became editor of the college newspaper and then i went right into working at newspapers as soon as i left college. let's think about some of those other papers where you have cut your teeth as an editor. this is much later, long after you left college. in 2001 you became the editor of the boston globe. within two years, the paper won a pulitzer prize for exposing widespread child sexual abuse within the catholic church, inspiring the film spotlight. what was it that first convinced you there was a major story there? well, when i arrived in boston, i was obviously reading the globe very, very closely to look for stories. i was coming from miami, which seemed to be a great source for stories, there were all sorts of crazy things that happened there, and frankly i was a little concerned that boston would be a little bit too calm for great news stories, but it turned out that i read a column that appeared the sunday before i was to start, i was starting on a monday,

and it was written by a pulitzer prize—winning columnist, mcnamara. and she talks about the case of a priest by the name ofjohn geoghan who had been accused of abusing as many as 80 kids and she went on to talk about it and how the lawyer for the plaintiffs alleged that the cardinal himself, the cardinal in the new york diocese, was aware of the abuse by this priest and yet continually reassigned him from parish to parish where he abused again and again. the church hierarchy said that was untrue, these were baseless and reckless charges and at the end of the column she said the truth may never be known, because the documents, internal documents of the church, that might reveal the truth, were under fourth seal, meaning they are kept confidential. and so i came in the next morning, my first day, my first meeting, everybody talked about what they were doing, it was a ten o'clock meeting at the time, and nobody mentioned the case. i was a little stunned,

because an amazing case, a priest accused of abusing as many as 80 kids, allegations that the cardinal himself knew about the abuse and yet continually reassigned this priest despite knowing of that abuse and essentially allowing him, enabling him essentially to abuse again and again. and so i asked about it. and i asked what we were doing and they pointed out to me that the documents were under seal, which i knew because i had read about it on the piece and i said that i did not know what the laws in massachusetts were but in florida we would most likely go we would most likely go after those documents, go to court to try to get them. they were not public records, they were the records of the church, but there was a case to be made that it was in the public interest to reveal those records, to make them available to the public. and was it those words, sorry to interrupt, was it those words in the column, the truth may never be known, that aroused your interest in it? absolutely. that is right, because i think

when you see that, when any journalist sees that, you should say try to get at the truth, so that should be i see it like chum in the water for journalists. i'm always interested in the moments where people are chasing a story that is true but dangerous for those who are the subject of the story, i'm always interested in the personal difficulties they have over the course of that story. how much pressure did you personally come under and from whom to drop that investigation? i was not under an enormous amount of personal pressure. i think there was institutional... we knew the church was very powerful, the most powerful institution in new england and had been for a very long time. the church had attacked the boston globe previously for some of its stories, including stories on abuse. the cardinal himself, as he put it, called down the power of god on the previous editor of the boston globe and so we knew it could subject the globe to accusations of anti—catholicism. so that was the sort

of environment in which we were operating. i would not say i received threats or anything of that sort, i certainly didn't, but we knew that this was a story of great sensitivity and that it made us potentially vulnerable to accusations of being anti—catholic, which in a very catholic city like boston is a reputational risk. the globe wrote follow—up pieces for several years after that initial investigation. how did you know, how did you make thejudgment of when it was time to wrap up a story like that? well, we made thejudgment that it was not enough to just document that many priests had been accused of abuse. there was a desire on the part of some of our staff to publish at that point, because we had indications, i think it was about 60 priests had been accused of abuse and we could document that and that was stunning in and of itself, but i felt we needed to show more than that. i think that we needed to show... we needed to find out

what did the church do once it found out that these priests abused? not just the fact of the abuse, but what was the institutional response? to what extent did the church fulfil its obligations to the most devout and to the children who were in its care? so we kept on that story and we were able to document both through our own reporting as well as the court action that we took that in fact the church was fully aware of this abuse and yet covered it up, continually reassigned these priests and these priests abused repeatedly. so it was when we had that, when we could show the cover—up, and the cover—up that had lasted for decades, four to five decades, then we were ready to publish. in 2013 you became editor of the washington post, the paper of bob woodward and carl bernstein. of course it was their watergate investigations in the early 1970s that eventually brought

down president nixon. your time at the post would be linked with a president, donald trump, and providing you with enough stories to fill the paper for many a year. you had an ongoing fact checker in the paper that at the end of trump's four—year presidency, the post had found that he had made 30,573, and i quote, false or misleading claims. how do you even begin to go about fact checking that number of statements? how big was that fact checking team? it is bigger today than it was to begin with. we had to add to it. they have been incredibly busy. so we basically... we have three people now on the team and look, donald trump repeats some of the same misleading statements and lies and falsehoods that he has said before and he says them over and over and over again. so, many of them they are ready to run a fact checker because they have already fact checked it a few thousand times already.

exactly, it is a kind of copy and paste, isn't it? let me read you a few washington post headlines from the past few years. "how fascist is donald trump?" "12 signs trump tried to run a fascist dictatorship. "trump—ism is american fascism." some of those may have come not from the news pages but the comment pages and there is a very important distinction between the two which is more of a distinction in the us and us press than it is in britain, but do you think that the post and other parts of the media overreacted to president trump? well, i'm glad you pointed out those clearly sounded like headlines that came from our opinion page and nothing that would appear on the news pages for which i'm responsible and i'm not involved in the opinion pages and of course we have a wide variety of opinions on our opinion pages. do you agree with that system where there is such a sharp divide between... because to an english journalist it is a very strange idea, if you think about some of the most powerful newspaper editors today in britain, they get most excited about what they can commission on the comment pages.

why do you think it is important that the editor of the washington post did not know what is in the opinion pages until he or she reads it in print? i guess there is more than an ocean that separates us, right? i do not want to be responsible for it. i want us to cover our news with the kind of, as independently as we possible can. i do not want to be perceived as allied with any particular interest. i like our independence, i think that is important to our integrity as journalists. i think that helps us go on with our business, ourjobs, more professionally and it is a tradition here in the united states and it is standard practice. not at every newspaper, but most, certainly the big ones and i think that is good. i want to be able to say i have nothing to do with them, the editorials and the opinion pages, and the opinion pages, because i do not. one of the things that a lot of people in this

country worry about is whetherjournalism, even crusading powerful investigative journalism, does not necessarily seem to have the same consequences as it did a generation ago, so about woodward and bernstein had a very tangible impact which led to the downfall of the president, some people would say 0k trump was elected, but did the journalism which exposed his misleading claims, his forces or his lies actually fundamentally change public opinion? did it have a changeable impact on american democracy, do you think? well, i do not think that should be our primary concern but the impact is. i think ourjob is to give the public the information that they need and deserve to know and in order to be engaged citizens. and they decide for themselves as to the way democracy works. i think it may not have had an impact as big as it might have in the past, but look, donald trump went through two impeachment trials and he also by the way lost the election. i'm not saying it was the result that we sought, it is not, it isjust our

job to tell people what is we would do the same thing in a democratic administration and the post has had the same mission with the biden administration as it had it with the trump administration and look at how people are covering andrew cuomo now, he is a democrat, the governor of new york. it is very aggressive coverage, as it should be, and so that is the way the press are. we will come on to the change of ownership during your time in a minute, but do you except that trump was pretty good for sales? there are some estimates that suggest that there has been a fall in political news consumption since... some people say it is a good thing, we need a less caffeinated news cycle, i'm sure you as you step into retirement think... there is an estimate that the fall in political news consumption since biden was elected was round about 20 to 28%. has trump been good for sales? yes, i would say he has been if i was to

be honest about it. there is no question that during the campaign, the 2016 campaign, and during his administration, there was a large section of the american public that felt that he needed to be held to account and they were concerned that the other institutions that they previously relied on to holding a government to account would not do so. the courts, he was appointing a lot ofjudges to the courts, so they were concerned about his ability to basically appoint enough justices to the supreme court where he would not be held accountable there and they were concerned about congress, that congress was not going to do its job and when they looked around holding trump to account, they saw the press is perhaps the only remaining institution. tere was obviously a lot of so called news sites that were spreading falsehoods, this information, misinformation, the quality of the information out there

had deteriorated and people felt that it was important to support quality news organisations that had real reporting staff, that were doing theirjobs. so people stepped up and said they have to pay for it. if they want it, they are going to have to pay for it, which is in fact the case if they do want that kind ofjournalism they are going to have to pay for it. in 2018, the post under your leadership won a pulitzer prize for its coverage of russian interference in the 2017 presidential election. would the post have been able to sustain this number of investigative journalism without the financial backing ofjeff bezos? well, i think that ifjeff bezos had not acquired us in 2013, following 2013, we would have 2013, we would have been on the same tramline we would have been previously, which we would be declining because we would have had fewer resources, fewer staff, all of that. i do not think we would have been as powerful a media force as we became, because we achieved commercial success and obviously in order to be a successful journalistic operation

you have to be a successful commercial operation as well. and we were able to add staff, quite a bit of stuff. of staff. we were able to achieve stability, achieve profitability, reinvest our earnings, becausejeff bezos brought new dividends and so yes, i think it made a tremendous difference. i do not think we would have represented any kind of cause for worry for the trump administration if we had continued on our previous financial path. when and where did the pair of you, you and jeff bezos, first sit down and discuss the paper's direction? well, we sat down with the executive team at the post at the time and we made very clear at the time that he saw that strategy of being regional may have been the right strategy for a different era, the post made a lot of money over the years, but it was not the right strategy. because we were taking all the pain that the

internet had to offer, was destroying every financial pillar of our business, but we were not taking what he called the gift of the internet. we were a bit mystified as to what the gift was at the time, but he explained, and i think quite clearly, the gift was worldwide distribution at frankly no additional cost, because of the internet we did not have to deliver papers everywhere in the world and so you have the opportunity to be national and even international in this way because you do not encur additional costs and you are in an ideal position to do so. why? because you're based in the nation's capital, because we are in a good place for that, because we had a name the washington post which was a good name for going national and even international and because we had a tradition and heritage that was well—defined in the public�*s mind, go back to watergate, of shining a light on dark corners, holding the government accountable, holding powerful institutions and individuals accountable. the implication being that we did not need to run off to a retreat to figure out who the hell...who we were. excuse me, using colloquial language that.

that is fine. what is he like, jeff bezos? , , ., , that is fine. what is he like, jeff bezos? ,, ., , , bezos? very smart, very focused, very disciplined. _ bezos? very smart, very focused, very disciplined. i— bezos? very smart, very focused, very disciplined. i get _ bezos? very smart, very focused, very disciplined. i get along - bezos? very smart, very focused, very disciplined. i get along with l very disciplined. i get along with him great. d0 very disciplined. i get along with him areat. ., ., , very disciplined. i get along with him areat. . ., , ., , him great. do you have any qualms with working _ him great. do you have any qualms with working someone _ him great. do you have any qualms with working someone you - him great. do you have any qualms with working someone you barely l with working someone you barely knew? it is a strange place for an editor, you have to form a new relationship and notjust with anybody. relationship and not 'ust with an bod . ~ , ., relationship and not 'ust with an bod. ~ , ., ., anybody. when i became editor of the minor herald — anybody. when i became editor of the minor herald i — anybody. when i became editor of the minor herald i was _ anybody. when i became editor of the minor herald i was working _ anybody. when i became editor of the minor herald i was working for - minor herald i was working for someone i barely knew, when i became editor of the boston globe i was working for someone i barely knew and when i became editor of the washington post i ended up working for someone i barely knew and when jeff bezos acquired us, i was working for someone i barely knew. so i was kind of used to it. so working for someone i barely knew. so i was kind of used to it. 50 it so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine- i— so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. i should _ so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. i should say _ so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. i should say in - so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. i should say in the - so i was kind of used to it. so it is fine. i should say in the spirit of fairness you have won plaudits for the way in which you handled that relationship publicly, but i wonder if you would say now, reflecting on it some years on, if it is that sometimes an uncomfortable place for a journalist to be, being optimally owned by someone who has an incentive in seeing that competitors denigrated?

the things he has not interfered in ourjournalism at all and i'm for that. would not have wanted to be there if that had been the case was not —— i'm gratefulfor that. he knows that, he thinks the paper should have its independence and do a job with integrity. he did not buy the post that any other reason, to advance amazon or anything like that, it does not need the help of the washington post, it is fine on its own. and so he bought it for the mission of the washington post, not the mission of amazon. he has not interfered at all, he lets us cover amazon, him, with total independence as well, i can tell you this. not all that the stories are favourable and he does not come in at all on them, he does not criticise us, never suppressed a story and is not to suggest any stories. and his competitors know as well. we have a full access to his competitors,

regardless of the field, whether retail, i cloud computing or space, commercial space, you name it, they will note we cover them independently, but they do talk to us. ., independently, but they do talk to us. ., ., , independently, but they do talk to us. ., , ., independently, but they do talk to us. ., ., ., ., independently, but they do talk to us. for those who do not know, it is im ortant us. for those who do not know, it is important so _ us. for those who do not know, it is important so that _ us. for those who do not know, it is important so that jeff _ us. for those who do not know, it is important so that jeff base - us. for those who do not know, it is important so that jeff base has - important so thatjeff base has bought it in a personal capacity, it was not amazon who bought it it was on a personal capacity. he says he wants to spend more time on the washington post in the future post i note you have left, but what does that mean? can you chat state that jeff bezos speak to us? i that mean? can you chat state that jeff bezos speak to us?— jeff bezos speak to us? i honestly do not know- _ jeff bezos speak to us? i honestly do not know. does _ jeff bezos speak to us? i honestly do not know. does macro - jeff bezos speak to us? i honestlyl do not know. does macro translate that for us. i want to know what it means as well. i do not think it means as well. i do not think it means all that much, my guess is he will spend much more time on his commercial space ventures, but that is speculative on my part. that is busily been a huge passion of his. i do not think there is enough time at

the washington post frankly. he will not get involved in the journalism, he has made that clear, with his practice and policy since he acquired as. he was already involved in the business side of things, so maybe he will spend a bit more time on it, but my guess is that he would spend, have more time to dedicate to commercial space ventures but i do not think it means very much. whose ideas were set _ not think it means very much. whose ideas were set to _ not think it means very much. whose ideas were set to adopt _ not think it means very much. whose ideas were set to adopt the _ not think it means very much. whose ideas were set to adopt the tag - not think it means very much. whose ideas were set to adopt the tag line l ideas were set to adopt the tag line that democracy dies in darkness? a quote from bob woodward. the origin was what was — quote from bob woodward. the origin was what was time _ quote from bob woodward. the origin was what was time delay _ quote from bob woodward. the origin was what was time delay my - quote from bob woodward. the origin was what was time delay my present. was what was time delay my present at the time of it bob modified it. jeff bezos felt it was important for us to have a mate that encapsulated our mission and the distinct role that the washington post place in american journalism and american society by being in the nation's

capital and shining a light in dark corners and all of that. we went through nine months of deliberations, thousands, seemingly thousands of options. i do not think at the beginning there was a huge mother clarity at exactly what we were doing,. does make a huge amount of clarity. we were about to give up, that fate had been around, it was one of the options, and as you can imagine people are concerned about death and darkness being part of our motto, not typically what she would hearfrom an of our motto, not typically what she would hear from an advertising company of how you should pitch yourself, but it did capture what our mission is. i have to say i had some hesitancy about it as well, because of death and darkness it was very gloomy. but we tried using light, but it made as sound, it was sounding like a cult, so we could not come up with any phrase that was

not come up with any phrase that was not self—regulatory or cult—like, so we acteds opted for darkness and death. but it has been hugely popular. i death. but it has been hugely --oular. ~' , ., death. but it has been hugely --oular. ~ ., , popular. i think your contemporary at the new— popular. i think your contemporary at the new york _ popular. i think your contemporary at the new york times, _ popular. i think your contemporary at the new york times, i - popular. i think your contemporary at the new york times, i think - popular. i think your contemporary at the new york times, i think he | at the new york times, i think he said i love marty, but that is a very gossamer quote. i have to say gotham is what came to my mind as well. does make a very gossamer quote. you talked about the huge expansion of the washington post. you have been able to hire people in investigative journalism. you have been able to hire people in investigativejournalism. do you think it will still exist in a physicalform in ten think it will still exist in a physical form in ten years time? it has been around a lot longer than a lot of people predicted and we have a lot of loyal readers, but if i had to guess, the answer would be no. i think we can see the trend lines for print newspapers and they are all down and ours has been done, the new

york times has been down, that it is not how people live their lives these days will stop you getting that information on a traditional means, typically through a mobile phone. and social media. and that is how it is and so it is fine with me, because what i think is important is the journalism that we practice, not whether we deliver it on a piece of paper or deliver it on a computer screen. d0 paper or deliver it on a computer screen. ,, ., y paper or deliver it on a computer screen. ,, ., , ., , screen. do you worry that the shift of advertising _ screen. do you worry that the shift of advertising to _ screen. do you worry that the shift of advertising to if _ screen. do you worry that the shift of advertising to if few _ screen. do you worry that the shift of advertising to if few technology | of advertising to if few technology performs has made those technology giants, particularly google and facebook, but notjust those, has made them too powerful in modern journalism?— made them too powerful in modern “ournalism? , . ., u , ., , journalism? they have unacceptable amount of power, _ journalism? they have unacceptable amount of power, no _ journalism? they have unacceptable amount of power, no question - journalism? they have unacceptablej amount of power, no question about it. ., ., amount of power, no question about it. . more amount of power, no question about it-_ more than _ amount of power, no question about it._ more than i _ amount of power, no question about it._ more than i would - it. too much? more than i would like, that is _ it. too much? more than i would like, that is for— it. too much? more than i would like, that is for sure. _ it. too much? more than i would like, that is for sure. i _ it. too much? more than i would like, that is for sure. i think - it. too much? more than i would like, that is for sure. i think that| like, that is for sure. i think that certainly they have a huge mass of the revenue, they control the platforms on which we operate, we basically have to abide by their rules. at the same time they provide

a platform for us to reach a large number of people we would not be able to reach otherwise. if we were just a print newspaper, only people on the washington region will be able to read it or we would have to deliver the physical paper. the reality is that facebook, google, apple, all of those provide platforms for us to reach a large number of people everywhere in this country and everywhere around the world. that is a big advantage for us in being able to survive the. however, there is not a lot of competition, they do not face a lot of competition, so the exercise an enormous amounts of power and there is clearly an unequal relationship between us and them. highly unequal. and so, yes, i think it is an inordinate amount of power. marty baron, the former _ inordinate amount of power. marty baron, the former editor _ inordinate amount of power. marty baron, the former editor of - inordinate amount of power. marty baron, the former editor of the - baron, the former editor of the washington post, thank you very much for your time. washington post, thank you very much for your time-— for your time. thank you, i present it, thanks for _ for your time. thank you, i present it, thanks for your _ for your time. thank you, i present

it, thanks for your interest. -- - for your time. thank you, i present it, thanks for your interest. -- i - it, thanks for your interest. —— i appreciate it. it is hard to believe we are so far into april now and still getting scenes like this, parts of yorkshire with snow on the ground to start the day today. a lot of that nothing quite quickly in the sunshine, this day last year temperatures in the low 20s in yorkshire. we have high pressure to the west of the uk, low—pressure to the east. the flow of air around the two is bringing the cold air down from the north, within which we still have a few wintry showers today and we are watching this little weather front here at producing a bit of sleet and snow in some places as we go through tonight. forthe snow in some places as we go through tonight. for the rest of today, some are crisp sunshine out there, but also a scattering of these showers of sleet, snow and hail, maybe with a rumble of thunder. cloud attending to crease across northern ireland for the rest of today and as the temperatures, just if you spot into double figures, but most falling

well short of that. into tonight, many wintry showers will die away to leave the chance of icy patches, but we bring some wet weather across parts of northern ireland, on towards wales and is the night goes on, putting in it was the west country, parts of the midlands perhaps, in central southern england ijy perhaps, in central southern england by tomorrow morning. with some of sleet and snow in the cold air, so the potential for maybe a centimetre or two in at some places here on the ground to start the day tomorrow and that continues to that sleet and snow across parts of southern england then tomorrow morning before clearing it could be quite icy with that as well. whereas elsewhere, plenty of this crisp sunshine once again, the chance of catching a shower, perhaps more so into northern ireland to my. to get the chance of a rumble of thunder, some hail as well. temperatures degree also higher and it helps if you like that it procession, which of course is really quite strong. high pressure building in for tuesday into wednesday and for much of the

week i had. generally are setting things down, but there is still the chance of picking up a few showers, so do not rule those out on tuesday. sunny, frosty start, some cloud increasing, not everyone will catch the shower but the potential is there for a northern ireland, parts of wales and perhaps northern scotland as well. temperatures again a little higher. that is how the week ahead is looking for is not high pressure, after some winteriness at the start of the week, it has become limp mainly dry. there will be some tension, not as cold, but still quite chilly, with further, frosty nights on the way.

this is bbc news. the headlines at four... the duke of edinburgh's children pay tribute to their late father — after a private church service attended by members of the royal family. i think the way i would put it is, we have lost almost the grandfather of the nation. and i feel very sorry and supportive of my mother, who is feeling it, i think, probably more than everybody else. it's been a bit of a, a bit of a shock. however much one tries to prepare oneself for something like this, it's still a dreadful shock. and we're sort of trying to come to terms with that. and it's very, very sad. organ plays. a service of remembrance is held at canterbury cathedral led by the archbishop of canterbury, justin welby.