before we something longer lasting. before we get to that, let's hear from aiko presenter katie. she has been interviewing the new culture secretary leading tories. we will release that as a podcaster you can listen to the whole interview but here is some of it where she talks about her plans to take on online harm. we are looking at and considering making _ we are looking at and considering making someone in an organisation, criminally— making someone in an organisation, criminally responsible. that is something we are considering including in this bill. they have had notice, they have fair warning. this bill_ had notice, they have fair warning. this bill is— had notice, they have fair warning. this bill is coming, abide by your terms _ this bill is coming, abide by your terms and — this bill is coming, abide by your terms and conditions now, remove your harmful algorithms now. 20,000 engineers _ your harmful algorithms now. 20,000 engineers you put under the matter verse. _ engineers you put under the matter verse. put — engineers you put under the matter verse, put them on facebook to make it safer— verse, put them on facebook to make it safer for— verse, put them on facebook to make it safer for young people to go to,

now _ it safer for young people to go to, now. .,. ,., ., " it safer for young people to go to, now. .. ,., ., ~ ., now. facebook would disagree with her characterisation _ now. facebook would disagree with her characterisation of _ now. facebook would disagree with her characterisation of its _ now. facebook would disagree with| her characterisation of its company. it said recently... our technology is having a big impact on reducing how much hate speech people see. let's bring in chris williams, business editor at the telegraph. i wonder what you make of the culture secretary's plans to take on companies like facebook? these laws have been in — companies like facebook? these laws have been in the _ companies like facebook? these laws have been in the works _ companies like facebook? these laws have been in the works for _ companies like facebook? these laws have been in the works for a - companies like facebook? these laws have been in the works for a number. have been in the works for a number of years _ have been in the works for a number of years the — have been in the works for a number of years. the uk will be the first country — of years. the uk will be the first country in — of years. the uk will be the first country in the world to attempt something like this. it is fair to say the — something like this. it is fair to say the regulator is taking on these powers— say the regulator is taking on these powers and it is in self—insure as to whether— powers and it is in self—insure as to whether it will work. at the moment, _ to whether it will work. at the moment, what is proposed and announced is not much more than the power— announced is not much more than the power to— announced is not much more than the power to tell — announced is not much more than the power to tell people off and the scale _ power to tell people off and the scale of — power to tell people off and the scale of a — power to tell people off and the scale of a company like google or facebook— scale of a company like google or facebook in a country like the uk will struggle to have an impact. there _ will struggle to have an impact. there is— will struggle to have an impact. there is a — will struggle to have an impact. there is a question whether this will work— there is a question whether this will work or have an impact. as an excuse _ will work or have an impact. as an excuse for—

will work or have an impact. as an excuse for anything. anything that has an— excuse for anything. anything that has an online element, we have got this online — has an online element, we have got this online bill, but you have to be scepticai — this online bill, but you have to be sceptical. as this online bill, but you have to be scetical. �* , ,, this online bill, but you have to be scetical. . , i. ,, ., this online bill, but you have to be scetical. �* , ,, ,, ., ., sceptical. as you know, nadeem dori also appeared — sceptical. as you know, nadeem dori also appeared before _ sceptical. as you know, nadeem dori also appeared before the _ sceptical. as you know, nadeem dorii also appeared before the department of culture, media and sport select committee to take a whole range of questions. i wonder what you would take out as being the most significant thing she said? it is significant thing she said? it is fair to say _ significant thing she said? it is fair to say when _ significant thing she said? it is fair to say when she _ significant thing she said? it is fair to say when she was appointed, there _ fair to say when she was appointed, there was— fair to say when she was appointed, there was some surprise and raised eyebrows — there was some surprise and raised eyebrows. her comment about channel 4, eyebrows. her comment about channel 4. which _ eyebrows. her comment about channel 4, which showed she has got some work— 4, which showed she has got some work to— 4, which showed she has got some work to do— 4, which showed she has got some work to do to get ahead around the brief, _ work to do to get ahead around the brief, when — work to do to get ahead around the brief, when she said taxpayers money to look— brief, when she said taxpayers money to look after _ brief, when she said taxpayers money to look after four. channel 4 is commercially funded so no taxpayers money _ commercially funded so no taxpayers money is _ commercially funded so no taxpayers money is involved in that situation. we don't _ money is involved in that situation. we don't really know what we are going _ we don't really know what we are going to — we don't really know what we are going to get from her.— going to get from her. chris, you are staying _ going to get from her. chris, you are staying with _ going to get from her. chris, you are staying with us _ going to get from her. chris, you are staying with us for— going to get from her. chris, you are staying with us for this - going to get from her. chris, you| are staying with us for this edition and for those of you listening, you can hear the whole interview with

nadine dorries via bbc sounds via the browser other bbc sounds app. next on the media show, bring in steve rosenberg. the to speak to. we invited you want because you have done an extraordinary interview with the president of belarus. thanks very much, ros. now, we invited you on because you've done quite an extraordinary interview with the president of belarus, alexander lukashenko, it has been going far on social media, it's been widely hailed for a range of reasons, one of them being you did the whole thing in russian. i have to say, ifound it all completely mesmerizing. i've got to ask you, when did you first think of requesting to spend half an hourwith him? do you know, when i put in my first request to interview alexander lukashenko, it was a 1999, it was 22 years ago. i made the first request, and it was a "no" that came back. so it's taken more than two decades. but basically, this time

around, we went to belarus to cover the migrant crisis that's taking place on the border of belarus and the eu, poland. several thousand migrants have gathered there trying to get into the eu, and alexander lukashenko has been accused by the west of basically inviting them to come to belarus to use his country get them into europe to try and put pressure on europe, pressure on the eu as basically revenge for eu sanctions. he denies that. but this is one of the things which has kept 10, put him in the headlines over the last year and a half, but think back to august of last year, he was accused of rigging the presidential election, then he launched a brutal crackdown on his critics, tens of thousands of people were detained. then he was accused of air piracy, rememberthe case of the ryan air passengerjet, which he forced to land in minsk so he could arrest one of his critics. and now being accused of weaponising migrants, so we put in a request to interview him, we didn't expect to get a yes, but he agreed. and then you went.

tell us about what it was like when you arrived to do the interview? we had to accept all the equipment, all the cameras, the lights the day before in the palace of independence, then we came back the next day. and belarusian state television was there. it was quite a quiet atmosphere. we were told that mr lukashenko was on his way, he could have waltzed into the room, sat down, there wasn't much small talk. i said, you know, "my russian is not native, but i will try my best." he said, "i'm glad you're going to do the interview in my language", and off we went. and very quickly, you know, he was trying to put me down. you know, he accused me of lying, he said "don't be dumb" and he is the familiar form, you know, in russian there is one form, the polite form for "you", and a familiar form, and he used the familiar form, which i took as an insult, basically. so, he was clearly trying

to get one up on me, i think, pretty early on. before we talk about any further, steve, let's hear some of the interview. translation: you told the eu that belarus had i been stopping migrants, but that now they would have to catch them themselves. the migrants took that to mean belarus is open to then. translation: i told the eu i'm not going to detain - migrants on the border, i hold them at the border, and if they keep coming from now on, i still- won't stop them. because they are not i coming to my country, they are going to yours. the west stopped talking to us and working with us, _ if you don't want to, then fine, we will. sort this problem out - ourselves as best we can. so that is some of steve rosenberg's interview with president lukashenko. and i have to say, steve, as i was watching it, my mouth was hanging open on occasions because i couldn't believe how frank he was being. were you surprised? well, you know, i know he's an emotional person, but it was fascinating having this dialogue with him,

and i don't think he expected to be interrupted, he is not used tojournalists interviewing him and interrupting. and i had to try to interrupt him because what i didn't want the interview to become was a platform for mr lukashenko, this controversial leader, who is not recognised as the president of belarus by the european union, britain or america. i didn't want it to become a platform for him to just put across his views, so i had to press him on human rights in belarus, on relations with russia. and some of the things he didn't like. he got irritated when i brought up vladimir putin. you could tell that. and he always mentioned the west, he blamed the west for everything. he used the west as an excuse. and i noticed he also referred to you as the west, it was almost like he saw you as a representative of notjust the uk, but of all western countries. yeah, i became the personification of the west

in his eyes. i was the one who is funding the antigovernment protests last year, i was the one sitting in this chair who was attacking belarus. i tried to stay as calm as possible while, you know, opposite me, this leader was getting more and more angry. and it was difficult, obviously, because russian is not my native tongue, but i did as best i could. i think you equipped yourself very well on that front. i wonder if you had any journalistic doubts or whether people who are opponents of president lukashenko in belarus had doubts about the merits of giving him bbc news airtime. yeah, certainly i did have doubts, and certainly when the news came out on friday that the bbc had recorded an interview with alexander lukashenko, before the actual interview, the content had been cut out, there was some criticism of the bbc, you know, for actually sitting down and recording an interview with this particular person.

and certainly some of the criticism came from the belarusian opposition, but once our interview aired, the 24 minute version and our 33 minute version, most of that criticism has gone and the interview has been, i think, pretty much welcomed and well received. has it been watched in belarus, can people see it? interesting question, because in belarus, you can, they can see it on youtube, that is not blocked but belarusian state television has put out a completely different version... have they? ..of our interview. what they did, they were very cunning, they divided the interview into sections, so migration crisis, relations with the eu, the situation in belarus, and they edited together my questions, like one long question, and then they had lots of lukashenko, basically a monologue, just talking, so you didn't get a feeling that this was a dialogue. none of me interrupting him in the belarusian state tv version, just a lot

lukashenko talking. which is not an accurate representation of what happened, and anyone who actually sees our version of the interview, that is the accurate version of what happened. so there are two versions out there. i wonder when you were in the thick of this, jousting with president lukashenko, a man who is right at the centre of one of the most pressing humanitarian stories in the world, certainly over the last month, were you aware that what you were it recording was unusual, was extraordinary, would generate the kind of impact that it has since it's come out? not during the interview. i was so focused on trying to make sure that things went well, you know, we had done preparation, we had a day and a half to prepare, and i had a great team with me to help me prepare, you know, my producer and the cameraman, we tried as hard as possible, but i was the one in the chair, and i felt a huge responsibility, i have to say, we didn't do this for ratings or anything like that,

i felt a responsibility there to try and put difficult questions as best i could to this controversial figure to try to show what kind of a person he was. and not, as i say, not to allow it to become the alexander lukashenko show, which it did in the belarusian state tv version, there was nothing i could do about that. listening to you, steve, is the deputy political editor for itv news. you have recently interviewed borisjohnson, you have interviewed many other high—profile figures too. i wonder if when you are doing those interviews, you can gauge when one is going to be particularly high impact, that will particularly resonate. oh, the thing i was thinking about was the idea of interrupting and making sure that they don't just get to talk freely. i mean, borisjohnson is such a very, very different figure, and absolutely does grantjournalists lots of interviews, but when you have a very short amount of time with him, when you try to make an impact on its by pressing him, because he can allow answer

to go on for two or three, four minutes and, you know, the interview you are talking about last week was the day when he was shooting around the country on trains and we were told to go to this station at this time, wait for the prime minister tojump off a train and then we had two minutes to get on the next carriage, on a very shortjourney in which we were going to be sat down and give an opportunity to get what we could from him. he wanted to talk about trains, and that is fine, we talked about trains, but i really, really wanted to ask him about standards. and that he might apologise on standards. and i had had a person standing behind him, one of the producers who was basically giving me little sign, three minutes and, five minutes and can it was like, ok, you need to interrupt some more to try to try to get what you want to get, and sometimes, it's quite awkward, because you are asking questions that feel quite out of place, you know, for example, a european council meeting in brussels, standing up and asking something that might feel quite light in the context of that, but is something that our viewers, that the british

public want the answer to from their prime minister when we get the opportunity to ask those questions, we have to ask them. even if it is awkward. and steve, before i let you go, because i know you're in the middle of a very busy day, speaking about awkward, what was the atmosphere like once you wrapped it up? it was strange. after the interview, that the interview is finished. we recorded 45 minutes or so, and then a second interview began. he didn't leave, so we recorded another ten minutes, and then we got up, he still didn't leave, he was chatting away, and he said, i've just spoken to vladimir putin, you know, and i told vladimir that i was going to give an interview to the bbc and vladimir putin said send my best wishes to the bbc. i don't know if that is true, that is what he said. and then he said, don't be upset, by the way, you asked for this interview. he seems to have think it gone well for him, which is quite interesting, and off he walked. fascinating. steve thank you very much for sharing the story behind the

interview. we appreciate it. steve rosenberg joining us live from moscow. you can find the full interview both on iplayer and also on youtube. now, evidently, steve's interview has very much cut through, though the degree to which it will impact belarusian politics we will see because of the way lukashenko runs the country. but if we turn our attention to politics stories in the uk, let's consider how and why some of those stories have a lot more impact than others, and we very much had a case study this week, the speech at the cbi, i'm sure most of you listening heard it in some form. the prime minister lost his place for over 20 seconds, compared himself to moses at one point and also said this... yesterday, i went, as we all must to peppa pig world, who has been to peppa pig world? not enough. not that many people had been to peppa pig world at that cbi events,

but let's assess whether this is a political storm that will pass or something that may have longer residence. chris williams joins us from the daily telegraph and joe is here, co—founder and director of delta poll. i'm also told that you have been dubbed the housewives favourite poster by the times. laughter. which is an interesting moniker. but let's stick to the story here. help me and to everyone assess this peppa pig story. a huge amount of attention, but in the long run, does it matter? well, when looking at any of these such events, it's important to distinguish between turning points, as in true moments that make a difference that lasting in the polls and simply talking points. those moments that may

produce a spike in support in one way or the other, but don't actually make a lasting difference, it's long—term trends are interested here, and i would say that this peppa pig incident if you like, pig gate or peppa pig gate, however you want to characterise it, is good for a couple of days perhaps a week or so but is more of a talking point. the reason for that is it's very much on brand boris johnson. it is certainly not the first time that he has given a rather, shall we say, bumbling speech. many of your listeners will remember the speech that he gave in front of a number of police officers in september 2019, just before the general election was launched. that was similarly criticised for being bumbling, and jeremy vine has talked before about how he went to two separate speeches where borisjohnson actually bumbled in the same way at an event, as if it was part of his schtick. so i don't think this will have a lasting impact, but, of course, these things always have the potential to make a difference, so we are on the lookout for what really makes a change but very few things do.

it sounds like i should distinguish between a story which cuts through, which is simply a story we are all aware of, and one which has impact, which is a story which shifts how we feel. exactly. think to yourself, well that's really make a difference to voters next week, next month, or particularly when they arrived at the ballot box on the next election arrives, and there really are very few of those because it if we look back over the coronavirus, for instance, coronavirus itself, a massive turning point for public opinion, but throughout that, various different things going, dominic cummings and his speech in the rose garden of downing street, that attracted a lot of attention at the time and there was discussion about what the massive impact that might have, but actually, think of it this way, if that hadn't happened, if none of that had occurred, would the polls really be in a statistically significant difference from where they are now? i think it's difficult to argue that they would. but when it comes to something like the vaccine

campaign, that really did make a lasting impact that has lasted for all the way through now and may last into the future, but will that even last until the next election? it remains to be seen. instead, it's about how the stories come together to form broad narratives in the minds of voters about the way they think about politicians, with a can trust, who they think is effective, they think it's competent, and who they think will do the right thing by them. and the think that a next time to understand, and you can help me here because he held a a senior role at the guardian, you now hold a very senior role at itv news, is which forms of media decide that was broader narratives thatjoe is describing. which is the most influential, is it the print press, is a tv, how do we gauge this? i think it's a combination of all of them, and sometimes, the print press drives a lot of what you see on tv and vice versa as well, often what you hear on the radio where what you see on tv will drive what the papers are interested in.

there is something that has shifted. i agree absolutely, i have used a lot of data here at itv, and it's been very helpful at showing us that a lot of these things don't cut through. i've remember being in hartlepool during the bye election and there was a lot of focus on sleaze and it didn't come up once on the doorstep, but it feels to me that this is part of the contest and a bigger story which began with the owen paterson debate, and ever since then, there is a narrative that's negative for the government. now, in terms of media, let me give you an example, yes, it matters that all the news channels were watching what was happening at cbi, and some people were watching that, but what really matters is when that evening ant and dec started to make fun of the prime minister, i think i saw a tweet that said i think this is what posters talk about this is what pollsters talk about when they talk about

cut—throats, because over 10,000,000 people watched that, so it allows them to set up and pay that little bit more attention, if you like, and that then goes on to the news bulletins as a result of that. so and ten data could be a factor, chris williams from the telegraph, let's also talk about certain papers being a factor, because we talked about the owen paterson story come have a part of that story in its momentum was the daily mail which devoted huge amount of coverage to it. how do you assess the male's impact on the fact that the government ended up you turning on a range of fronts around the owen paterson story. i wouldn't overstate the impact of any one paper. i think what you saw at cbi and one of the reasons this cuts through is the prime minister looking weak in front of a home crowd, essentially, the cbi should be an easy venue for where conservative prime minister speaker, and it was clearly a bit of a disaster. that is what i think cuts through. clearly the owen paterson affair, the start of a narrative which has now built up to things looking slightly out of control. and that's the kind of thing that cuts there and change as people perception

of who a prime minister is. one of the reasons i asked about the mail is because it's all changed air, and you are going to help me understand this, chris come out has gone the daily mail editorjordi greg, ted verity who is already editor of the me on sunday is now editor of the daily now editor of the daily mail anthony on sunday, and to make things even more intriguing, the former editor of the mail, paul baker is back as editor in chief of dmg media, which is the group that owns the mail titles mail online, metro and the i, so chris, it's all going on, what is the story? it's a complex picture about business and about politics as well. so three years ago, paul daccur, the 26 year editor of the mail, huge figure on fleet street hands—down and appoint he is seen as a more softer for gary who makes friends more easily and takes the male in a slightly to some people less nasty, to some people less

sharp direction. now, in the meantime, print media is declining rapidly, and that includes the mail, even though it is now the biggest paper in the country, that doesn't really matter, being the biggest paper doesn't really matter any more. it's all about digital media now, and losing jordan gregg and putting ted in charge of two papers also allows role, and i think that's what a lot of this is about. the business side of this is quite interesting, which is that the parent company, the public company controlled by... is seeking to take its private partly because they are going to go through some fairly drastic changes and it's very difficult to do that on the public market, so bringing paul back who had been pressing the chairmanship of off time,

to an extent steadies the ship a bed for what is going to be a fairly rock neck rocky period for that organisation. about 20 seconds, but to the people who are may be suggesting that jordi greg's attacks on the owen paterson story led to then being removed, it sounds like you are saying that is not the story at all. i don't think so, no. we talked about billions of pounds of investment and a going to change the direction of the company. chris, thank you very much for taking us through that. i'm afraid we are completely out of time. many thanks to chris williams, the business editor at the telegraph, deputy editorfor itv news, and the director of delta poll and earlier my colleague steve rosenberg, the bbc news correspondent in moscow. that is it for this edition, thank you very much indeed for watching. the storm may be moving away, but

travel disruption continuing and damage and destruction from wind which gusted near 100 mph in northumberland. it has turned much colder, we saw some significant snow and some of the higher hills, adding to the problems of saturday. what is left of arwen, much less potent system moving into the continent. in between weather systems for sunday. we still have a disturbance from scotland, rain, sleet and snow and a frosty and icy start in places as well. a cloudy day in northern ireland, patchy rain here and the odd show for cornwall, temperature still clipping this north sea coast. either side of this weather system with the rain, sleet and snow there will be some sunshine to be had. it is still breezy out there, but not as windy as it has been. it is still feeling cold. anotherfrost setting and as we get into sunday night. still some rain, sleet and snowjust

edging its way further south would spruce england. going into monday, had this weatherfront spruce england. going into monday, had this weather front bringing cloud, patchy commerce sleet and snow, another cold and frosty start to the day. on monday, clouding up from the west, patchy rain and sleet and snow, especially for the hills of scotland edging in and further outbreaks of rain in north—west scotland. a range of temperatures, cold day for many particularly across the eastern side of the uk. recovering to 10 celsius in belfast, because this is a warm front, leading edge of milder air pushing southwards as we go into tuesday. changing the wind direction bringing in milder air changing the wind direction bringing in milderairwith changing the wind direction bringing in milder air with plenty of cloud, patchy rain and drizzle, particularly across western areas and more persistent rain towards the north and west of scotland. it will turn heavier during the day, wetter in northern ireland as well. temperatures back into double

figures in many places on tuesday. it will still be breezy. the rain coming in at the end of the day is another weather front that this is a cold front moving south of the night and it is on wednesday, the leading edge of colder air. you can see we are back into the blue and wednesday be had this weather front which will have some heavy rain on it for a time, changing the wind direction back to and north north—westerly so we're back into the colder air on wednesday. sunshine, yes, showers around and see some sleet and hail in the showers to the higher ground, at least in northern scotland. temperatures will come down but not to the levels we have just enjoyed with the cold air following on from storm arwen. this is the picture on wednesday into thursday. the air coming down from the north and another frost on thursday morning. the ridge of high pressure trying to build in from the west on thursday. it does mean fine weather around, perhaps coastal showers before we see another frontal system edging perhaps coastal showers before we see anotherfrontal system edging in later on thursday from the atlantic and that is going to bring some

cloud, rain, sleet and snow, especially into scotland to the higher ground. another weather system bringing wetter weather for friday, another push of cold air behind it before high pressure builds in and settled things down. into next week, it is staying unsettled, spells of matter, windy weather of times until something drier and sunnier but cold occasionally, too.

hello and welcome to this bbc news special. we're expecting a news conference from borisjohnson shortly on the day that two cases of the new variant of coronavirus — omicron — have been confirmed in the uk. the prime minister will bejoined by the chief scientific adviser sir patrick vallance, and chief medical officer professor chris whitty. we expect that news conference to start any minute now. earlier we

heard