as russian drills continue in the ukraine the us says russia has built up ukraine the us says russia has built up the most significant military force in europe since world war ii. president biden is shortly expected to speak about the crisis. the former us police officer who killed a black driver when she confused a handgun for a taser has been sentenced to two years in prison for top a penalty below the state guidelines. several people have been confirmed dead as storm eunice hits the uk and northern europe. severe winds have shut down transports and schools and got up electricity supplies. in canada police in the capital ottawa had been clearing protesters after a three—week blockade by groups opposing vaccine mandates.

at ten o'clock reeta chakrabarti will be here with a full round up of the days news. first, it's the media show with katie razzall. hello. if you really want to know how much power our newspapers have, you need to go to the top. and on today's media show where with a man who's been at the heart of fleet street for decades. john witherow is one of the longest—serving national newspaper editors first at the sunday times and now the times. under him those papers have exposed cash for honors, corruption of oxfam, abused that brought the room and much more. so at a time when the prime minister is fighting for his political life after a series of scoops that could

still bring him down, what does the editor of the times make of it all and how does he explain the relationship towards the press and the people in power? and with first a new radio station, times radio and now in upcoming tv station, is the organisation he leads set on taking down the bbc? john witherow, welcome to the the media show for the first time. and it like to get a sense from you as we start about your media habits. what do you listen to in the morning? i imagine you were once fully today programme person but now you are loyal to times radio? no, i listen to the today programme and times radio. because it's important to see —— both. and what about tv, channel choice? generally, the bbc but i admire itm as well. and do you still read physical newspapers or are you now at devoted ? i am a bit of both. i do read printed home, a few newspapers in print but that i read the rest digitally. let's start, let's turn to how you ended up as one of the most senior figures in fleet street. you were born in south africa and moved to the uk as a child. what was it that drove you to become a journalist in the first place? well, when i was 19 i went to what was

then southwest africa to work as a volunteer teacher. i was meant to go up to the border — angola but the end authorities then with south africa, they govern southwest africa, now namibia. so i couldn't go up and teach there so i set up a library in the capital. while it was there one of the people i was working with got expelled by the south africans. and he was a stringer for the bbc world news service at bbc africa service. hejust handed it to me. i knew nothing aboutjournalism. the only thing i knew was what my father told me, dog bites man is not a story, mann bites dogs is a story. i had to learn very fast in broad press, i think i was terrible, they were really guys at the world service and encourage me and so i did a series of interviews and told him what was going on in southwest africa, which was a really interesting time.

because as i say, it was aparied on steroids. it had a large africana and german population and a very hard life. it was a very difficult time and the people i was working with, three of them got expelled, two of them were put under arrest in south africa. so we were seen as a kind of hot of anti—apartheid. but it was a really fast learning curve and that's when i really got the bug. and from the beginning of your career and then from there you focused on foreign reporting. you covered the arabian embassy siege in your first week, i think. then the iran, iraq and falklands war. it is a foreign news really where your heart lies? no, where your heart lies? it was bad. by the way i was terrible no, it was bad. by the way i was a terrible war reporter.— terrible war reporter. why? what made with terrible war _ terrible war reporter. why? what made with terrible war reporter? | terrible war reporter. why? what| made with terrible war reporter? i tried to cover the wars in a kind of objective way, particularly the falklands. matt hastings was there and he understood no, you had to do and he understood no, you had to do and in the way the british want to read about it. i was still ripped applying old reuters rules which is

nonsense. and max hastings outgunned all of us then. so it was a fantastic experience. i got better at it. but i wasn't a natural war reporter like who we have now who is totally outstanding armoury who of course got killed a decade ago. a decade this month. a decade this month. but i like for news because i did start out at reuters and worked in madrid for about a year. but once i came, i was on the foreign desk at the sunday times for quite a while but then i moved onto home news with all—news interest me but foreign is obviously very important. all-news interest me but foreign is obviously very important.— obviously very important. you're clearl a obviously very important. you're clearly a natural _ obviously very important. you're clearly a natural editor _ obviously very important. you're clearly a natural editor for - obviously very important. you're clearly a natural editor for the i clearly a natural editor for the sunday times from 1995 than the times in 2013, how would you describe your editor style? pretty direct. i describe your editor style? pretty direct- i hepe _ describe your editor style? pretty direct. i hope that _ describe your editor style? pretty direct. i hope that i _ describe your editor style? pretty direct. i hope that i give - describe your editor style? pretty direct. i hope that i give clear - direct. i hope that i give clear direction i thought it was very

important at the times that we had to take a much more constructive attitude towards news. want to have seen over the years is that you read them media, newspapers in particular and they portray a very negative image of what's going on in the world. so people, i think there is one of the reasons is less trust because people look at their own lives and see generally things are getting better, and i mean a generalisation, things are getting better but that's not what they see in the media where everything looks like it's going to hell in a hand cart. i think it's important that the times start doing more constructive news with up germans will often have a story that's 80% positive in 20% negative. and the kneejerk reactions ofjournalist, probably including me at one state as you go to the negative because it gives you a better headline. but in fact this story is generally positive. we want to turn that around and make news reflect the world more accurately. because the

world more accurately. because the world is getting better. people living longer, diseases on retreat, violence is down over the decades but people don't realise that. if you read the newspaper you think everything is getting worse, it's not. �* ., ., ., not. and we want to change our direction- _ not. and we want to change our direction. and _ not. and we want to change our direction. and in _ not. and we want to change our direction. and in terms - not. and we want to change our direction. and in terms of - not. and we want to change our direction. and in terms of how. not. and we want to change our. direction. and in terms of how far you would push yourjournalist people told me that you rule by fear and they're afraid of you. itrailiiiie and they're afraid of you. while the shut and they're afraid of you. while they shut it- — and they're afraid of you. while they shut it. i _ and they're afraid of you. while they shut it. i heard _ and they're afraid of you. while they shut it. i heard that - and they're afraid of you. while they shut it. i heard that i - and they're afraid of you. while j they shut it. i heard that i don't believe it. they should be, i don't think i'm a fearful person at all. i believe in being direct with people. is it your way of ensuring that your in your list bring in schools, you need to put pressure on them. yeah, i think everybody _ need to put pressure on them. yeah, i think everybody needs. _ need to put pressure on them. yeah, i think everybody needs. scoops, - i think everybody needs. scoops, exclusives are central to all publications. without them you're just reporting the mass out there. we have to differentiate ourselves is up what we see on digital is when you have exclusives, people really engage much more and admired the paper doing for that we had a string

of real exclusive over the years and that's what people remember. they don't remember the day today run—of—the—mill stop. they admire the times if it covers something like covid thoroughly and responsibly which i think we have done. but you need scoops to lift yourself above the run—of—the—mill. i guess when it comes to school, right now the biggest scoops are all around politics, almost specifically politics during covid lockdown. i'm sure the audience will be interested to know, what is your relationship with borisjohnson? i noticed that you had him on times radio, the first interview that morning. yes. first interview that morning. yes, that was great — first interview that morning. yes, that was great to _ first interview that morning. yes, that was great to get. _ first interview that morning. yes, that was great to get. we - first interview that morning. ya: that was great to get. we have contact with him. i don't think he's a particular admirer of the times, we've been pretty critical. i think boris was a great campaigner, i'm not sure he's a great governor. and you see what's happening now, evidence of the chaos in downing street which is try to sort out. he is of course inconsiderable danger

of winning prime minister and will have to wait and see how that plays out. is have to wait and see how that plays out. , ., , ., out. is it right that you play tennis with _ out. is it right that you play tennis with poor _ out. is it right that you play tennis with poorjohnson i out. is it right that you play | tennis with poorjohnson and out. is it right that you play - tennis with poorjohnson and other tennis with poorjohnson and other members? i tennis with poorjohnson and other members? ~' ., tennis with poorjohnson and other members? ~ ., ., , ., . members? i think of only play once with boris but _ members? i think of only play once with boris but i _ members? i think of only play once with boris but i played _ members? i think of only play once with boris but i played with - members? i think of only play once with boris but i played with his - with boris but i played with his brotherjoe and his sister rachel. any good? brotherjoe and his sister rachel. an aood? ., f brotherjoe and his sister rachel. any good?— brotherjoe and his sister rachel. an aood? . j ., any good? yeah, they're good. you? adeauate. any good? yeah, they're good. you? adequate- when _ any good? yeah, they're good. you? adequate. when did _ any good? yeah, they're good. you? adequate. when did you _ any good? yeah, they're good. you? adequate. when did you last - any good? yeah, they're good. you? adequate. when did you last visit - adequate. when did you last visit downing street? aha, adequate. when did you last visit downing street?— adequate. when did you last visit downing street? a couple of months auo, downing street? a couple of months aao, i downing street? a couple of months ago. ithink. — downing street? a couple of months ago, ithink. doesn't— downing street? a couple of months ago, i think. doesn't happen - downing street? a couple of months ago, i think. doesn't happen often? | ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know. ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know how — ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know. how often? _ ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know. how often? not _ ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know. how often? not very - ago, i think. doesn't happen often? know. how often? not very often. i know. how often? not very often. maybe a couple of times a year, i might speak to him and other ministers on the phone. find might speak to him and other ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? _ ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? how _ ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? how often - ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? how often would i ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? how often would in editor of the times comes in with a good connection speak to the prime minister? hat good connection speak to the prime minister? ., , ., , , minister? not very often, it depends on what comes _ minister? not very often, it depends on what comes out. _ minister? not very often, it depends on what comes out. sometimes - minister? not very often, it depends on what comes out. sometimes he'sj on what comes out. sometimes he's complaining. othertimes on what comes out. sometimes he's complaining. other times he wants us to tell them what's going on. what's useful about speaking to the prime minister and other politicians, not really what they tell you because you discover they're telling exactly the same on the bbc the next day.

it's really what's on their mind, the preoccupations. and you learn from the subject they raise what's really concerning them. and that's quite valuable. the really concerning them. and that's quite valuable.— really concerning them. and that's quite valuable. the information you aet from quite valuable. the information you get from them _ quite valuable. the information you get from them isn't. _ quite valuable. the information you get from them isn't. what - quite valuable. the information you get from them isn't. what does - quite valuable. the information you get from them isn't. what does he | get from them isn't. what does he want complain _ get from them isn't. what does he want complain about? _ get from them isn't. what does he want complain about? famously, l get from them isn't. what does he l want complain about? famously, we did a story saying he was going to get rid of his dog. which i think might have been planted by dominic cummings who wanted to get rid of the dog. this greatly upset the prime minister and carrie and he rang up to complain about that story of all things. rang up to complain about that story of all thinqs-— of all things. anything more serious to complain — of all things. anything more serious to complain about _ of all things. anything more serious to complain about was _ of all things. anything more serious to complain about was that - of all things. anything more serious i to complain about was that sometimes coverage, really. more nonspecific for the up and when the prime minister calls, do you feel under pressure, it's the prime minister, does it impact what you do? know. and do you speak to him more than you spoke to other prime ministers, teresa may for example? know about the same. how do you watch sunday times broke the story with allegations of donors to political parties being rewarded. there've been many scoops sense. why didn't you break party ge?—

you break party ge? would've loved to. it was you break party ge? would've loved to- it was a — you break party ge? would've loved to. it was a good _ you break party ge? would've loved to. it was a good scoop _ you break party ge? would've loved to. it was a good scoop are - you break party ge? would've loved to. it was a good scoop are about i to. it was a good scoop are about one. lots of stories i would love i think the fte, cameron greene thought was a good story. it's interesting because party ge, very fewjournalists, lots of parties going on a very fewjournalist knew about it. going on a very few “ournalist knew about it. ., ., ., i. going on a very few “ournalist knew about it. ., ., ., ,, ., , about it. you had it on your lap and about it. you had it on your lap and a sense because _ about it. you had it on your lap and a sense because averaged - about it. you had it on your lap and a sense because averaged 2020 i about it. you had it on your lap and | a sense because averaged 2020 the ties published the story of the political editor, the policy editor and said borisjohnson celebrated his 56th birthday is today with a small gathering in the room a group of eight saying him happy birthday before they tucked into a unionjack cake. so back then you had, that became a human story, how could you print it without realising it was and send her a? print it without realising it was and send hera? we print it without realising it was and send her a? we missed it. what and send her a? we missed it. what ou think and send her a? we missed it. what you think about _ and send her a? we missed it. what you think about that _ and send her a? we missed it. trust you think about that now? and send her a? we missed it. what you think about that now? it's - you think about that now? it's embarrassing. had you heard about parties at downing street before the mirror and itv publishers scoops? no, not from that when you mention. in that sense, you've heard of it

but not recognised it as a party. i don't it would put together it was clashing at that time exactly with the instructions of the government. i think that's what happened, that's why we didn't spot it. find i think that's what happened, that's why we didn't spot it.— i think that's what happened, that's why we didn't spot it. and when you saw the video. _ why we didn't spot it. and when you saw the video, when _ why we didn't spot it. and when you saw the video, when you _ why we didn't spot it. and when you saw the video, when you start - saw the video, when you start emerging, i was asked people how they feel when someone else gets the school. how did it feel? all, sick. clearly these revelations have been damaging for the prime minister. do you think he will be prime minister by the entity or? it’s you think he will be prime minister by the entity or?— by the entity or? it's really hard to redict by the entity or? it's really hard to predict that. he _ by the entity or? it's really hard to predict that. he is _ by the entity or? it's really hard to predict that. he is a - by the entity or? it's really hardj to predict that. he is a survivor. by the entity or? it's really hard. to predict that. he is a survivor. i happen to know david cameron has a bed on it, and expensive dinner that boris will survive the year. so the former prime minister thinks that. at that with who? i former prime minister thinks that. at that with who?— former prime minister thinks that. | at that with who?_ not at that with who? i don't know. not with ou? at that with who? i don't know. not with you? know. _ at that with who? i don't know. not with you? know. it's _ at that with who? i don't know. not with you? know. it's really - at that with who? i don't know. not with you? know. it's really hard - at that with who? i don't know. not with you? know. it's really hard to i with you? know. it's really hard to predict at this stage how the police inquiry will go and what the sucre report will actually save us up and how the party feels i think he's

great advantages, they can't agree on who will succeed him. he is a fighter. i on who will succeed him. he is a fiahter. ., �* ~' on who will succeed him. he is a fiahter. ., �* ~ i. , fighter. i don't think you give up easil . i fighter. i don't think you give up easily- i guess _ fighter. i don't think you give up easily. i guess our _ fighter. i don't think you give up easily. i guess our audience - fighter. i don't think you give up i easily. i guess our audience will be very interested in how powerful is the times because that if you want to do could you bring borisjohnson and? to do could you bring boris johnson and? , ., ., , ., , ., to do could you bring boris johnson and? , ., ., , .,y ., and? only through a story that was shockin: and? only through a story that was shocking and _ and? only through a story that was shocking and that _ and? only through a story that was shocking and that people _ and? only through a story that was shocking and that people thought l and? only through a story that was i shocking and that people thought was absolutely unacceptable. you can do it any other way. if we were campaigning that he should go, i don't think that would make any difference, for example. it's the actual stories that change public opinion and the tory parties views. could it also be more subtle than that? if you decided for example, if you back rishi sunak tomorrow and you did it subtly, so you just started writing articles that painted him in a positive light. [30 painted him in a positive light. do ou painted him in a positive light. drr you think that that would swing a? know. or would you do that? ida. you think that that would swing a? know. or would you do that? no, not at this stage- — know. or would you do that? no, not at this stage. there _ know. or would you do that? no, not at this stage. there could _ know. or would you do that? no, not at this stage. there could be - know. or would you do that? no, not at this stage. there could be a - at this stage. there could be a stage where you might switch allegiance?— stage where you might switch allegiance? stage where you might switch alletiance? ., ,y . ., ., allegiance? yeah, baby. what would it take? i don't —

allegiance? yeah, baby. what would it take? i don't know, _ allegiance? yeah, baby. what would it take? i don't know, have - allegiance? yeah, baby. what would it take? i don't know, have to - allegiance? yeah, baby. what would it take? i don't know, have to see. l it take? i don't know, have to see. do you plan to do it anytime soon. we will have to see.— we will have to see. interesting, interesting- _ we will have to see. interesting, interesting. do _ we will have to see. interesting, interesting. do you _ we will have to see. interesting, interesting. do you think- we will have to see. interesting, interesting. do you think papers| we will have to see. interesting, i interesting. do you think papers can do that, can bring people down? used to be the case that that was an understanding, that newspapers could if they chose to bring down politicians.— if they chose to bring down oliticians. ,, ., , ., �* politicians. stories can. i don't think a paper _ politicians. stories can. i don't think a paper like _ politicians. stories can. i don't think a paper like the - politicians. stories can. i don't think a paper like the times i politicians. stories can. i don'tl think a paper like the times can because we don't campaign, we don't roll against a politician. you may find a paper like the mail or the sun can be much more vehement and vitriolic against a leader than we can. i think our readers like that and they want us to present the news, for them to make up their own minds not for us to tell them what to think. ., ., ., _, , minds not for us to tell them what to think. ., . ., _, , .,, to think. you have a columnist whose wife was central in _ to think. you have a columnist whose wife was central in the _ to think. you have a columnist whose wife was central in the party - wife was central in the party gates tory early on, just to remind the audience, she was downing street press secretary and she resigned after a leaked video showing her being asked about a now infamous

cheese and wine event during lockdown. what conversations were you having it with him at the time and was it uncomfortable for you both that he was a personally involved in the story?- both that he was a personally involved in the story? i think was very upsetting — involved in the story? i think was very upsetting to _ involved in the story? i think was very upsetting to him _ involved in the story? i think was very upsetting to him what - involved in the story? i think was - very upsetting to him what happened to her, she was clearly upset. but the strength of james is notjust through a leg through other sources. he has an amazing contacting government. he can tell readers what he thinks is going on in of the party what ministers say. they'll talk to him _ party what ministers say. they'll talk to him extensively - party what ministers say. they'll talk to him extensively off - party what ministers say. they'll talk to him extensively off the l talk to him extensively off the record for the and is very cosy with rishi sunak. record for the and is very cosy with rishi sunak-— rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he _ rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he has _ rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he has a _ rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he has a real- rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he has a real and l rishi sunak. he has a real and psychosomatic it's important papers give the readers a sense of what's happening through somebody who is incredibly well—connected. do happening through somebody who is incredibly well-connected.— incredibly well-connected. do you think that the — incredibly well-connected. do you think that the story, _ incredibly well-connected. do you think that the story, party - incredibly well-connected. do you think that the story, party ge, - incredibly well-connected. do you | think that the story, party ge, what happened to his wife has a change his attitude to the government and the way he writes about them? i don't know, i have and psychosomatic it's important papers give the readers a sense of what's happening through somebody who is incredibly well—connected. do you think that the story, party ge, what happened to his wife has a change his attitude to the government in the

way writes about them? i don't know, i haven't asked him. we talked on the media show a lot about the revolving door between the press and politicians effect the prime minister zoo director of communications who also worked at the bbc, also work for a time here between 2012 in the bbc, also work for time here between 2012 and 2015 for time here between 2012 and 2015 for use bouquet, is there something on democratic or uncomfortably cosy about the relationship between the press and politicians? h0. about the relationship between the press and politicians?— press and politicians? no, they are a source of — press and politicians? no, they are a source of information _ press and politicians? no, they are a source of information to - a source of information to journalists which is valuable because ministers want to stay clear of things but to get the message out for advisors. that's useful. the director of communications, if they're good is also valuable. i don't think it's corrupting in any way or distorting. they are pushing their message and it's a job of journalist to discern that and try to find the path through to get to the truth. but generally, they are probably valuable, i'd say. but when a “ournalist probably valuable, i'd say. but when a journalist or— probably valuable, i'd say. but when a journalist or director _ probably valuable, i'd say. but when a journalist or director of _ a journalist or director of communications comes to work for a newspaper, presumably the newspaper is buying something from them, expertise, is it more than that is at the access to power? mar; expertise, is it more than that is at the access to power?- expertise, is it more than that is at the access to power? may be but is re at the access to power? may be but is pretty transient _ at the access to power? may be but is pretty transient as _ at the access to power? may be but is pretty transient as people -

at the access to power? may be but is pretty transient as people move i is pretty transient as people move on. if you hire them as a journalist you're hiring them for their skills as a journalist not necessarily for the contacts who may disappear. and the contacts who may disappear. and ou're not the contacts who may disappear. and you're not hiring them as a journalist, that's different prospect? yeah. i understand, everyone would understand we need, everyone would understand we need, everyone needs sources in the heart of government and that's what you're talking about how much of a mouth piece are you willing to be, would you be happy for somebody, one of yourjournalists be freighting your journalists be freighting verbatim yourjournalists be freighting verbatim with somebody like dominic cummings was telling them? iaiiui’eiiii. cummings was telling them? well, dominic cummings _ cummings was telling them? well, dominic cummings tells _ cummings was telling them? -ii dominic cummings tells everybody what he thinks. i think if you were getting good information on dominic cummings and what was going inside number ten, that's valuable. and you word report it, it would has cummings influence on it, obviously. but if he was telling you what was happening, that's very useful. our readers balance that against other things you go to other sources who say no, that's not true, it's different. say no, that's not true, it's different-— say no, that's not true, it's different. so you do it in the round. different. so you do it in the

round- l _ different. so you do it in the round. i guess _ different. so you do it in the round. i guess part - different. so you do it in the round. i guess part the - different. so you do it in the - round. i guess part the problem is when he was part of downing street he wasn't necessarily being quoted. no, he wasn't being quoted but i think he was providing information. i'd like to turn to the border question and influence over the british media. the dean dories culture is changing existing legislation to allow your boss rupert murdoch to infant time time. the dean dorsett is not and murderous financial interest to do so. ., y ., murderous financial interest to do so. ., y., . murderous financial interest to do so. ., , murderous financial interest to do so. could you ask my why would he be? that's — so. could you ask my why would he be? that's not _ so. could you ask my why would he be? that's not true, _ so. could you ask my why would he be? that's not true, what - so. could you ask my why would he be? that's not true, what you - be? that's not true, what you describe. just explain the undertaking, when he bought the times in 1981 he gave undertakings of the two titles would remain separate. because it was a real interest then with out digital media that we needed a plurality of opinions and they didn't want the times in the sunday times to merge. that's what's existed for a0 years. the anomaly was that this was a 20th—century that doesn't apply to it digital age and the 21st century. the fact that the government could

have some say on a free press is in anomaly. i think the department of culture, accepted that that which are to be involved, you look after your own business, you have a level playing field with the other plant doing that publishers are you treated the same. so they've agreed to these undertakings to be removed from their influence. at the undertakings remain there being put into our employment contracts and we will continue to have independent directors with up it's exactly the same set up that in employment law governing rather than the government. 50 governing rather than the government.— governing rather than the government. governing rather than the covernment. , government. so the times in the sunday times — government. so the times in the sunday times will _ government. so the times in the sunday times will remain - government. so the times in the - sunday times will remain separate? they will remain separate in terms of editors in key areas with up we've already started merging parts of it. a lot of readers read it seven days. and we are trying to do that to avoid duplication and that we co—ordinate on things so we don't repeat stories or cover the same ground. it'sjust repeat stories or cover the same ground. it's just sensible. repeat stories or cover the same ground. it'sjust sensible. ground. it's 'ust sensible. sports, features ground. it'sjust sensible. sports, features what _ ground. it'sjust sensible. sports, features what we _ ground. it'sjust sensible. sports, features what we agree _ ground. it'sjust sensible. sports, features what we agree on - ground. it'sjust sensible. sports,| features what we agree on things. there will be people who say the

dean doris is wrong, they will argue that rupert murdoch already metals in our democracy and that this decision could give them more power to do so. ~ ., ., decision could give them more power todoso.~ ., ., ., ., to do so. what do you say to that? it's not true. you _ to do so. what do you say to that? it's not true. you need _ to do so. what do you say to that? it's not true. you need to - to do so. what do you say to that? i it's not true. you need to remember with the whopping revolution, murdoch essentially saved the national press. that enabled the creation of independent and enables other titles to become much more successful, and enable the sunday times to become a multi—section. all newspapers to flourish. it was a very positive then. it newspapers to flourish. it was a very positive then.— very positive then. it wasn't written up _ very positive then. it wasn't written up like _ very positive then. it wasn't written up like that - very positive then. it wasn't written up like that at - very positive then. it wasn't written up like that at this i very positive then. it wasn't - written up like that at this time. some people will disagree with you. the print unions had their boot on our throats at the time. and that got rid of it and all the others followed suit. the fact is, he doesn't interfere, he doesn't interfere with the times or the sunday times. 50 interfere with the times or the sunday times.— interfere with the times or the sunday times. interfere with the times or the sunda times. ., , �* ., sunday times. so it doesn't get on the hone sunday times. so it doesn't get on the phone and _ sunday times. so it doesn't get on the phone and talk— sunday times. so it doesn't get on the phone and talk to _ sunday times. so it doesn't get on the phone and talk to you - sunday times. so it doesn't get on the phone and talk to you about i the phone and talk to you about stories that are in the papers or... know, he'll ask what's going on and what's happening the government and generally things was doesn't interfere. i'll give you one good

example, one of the most important decisions that this country is taken in this century was brexit. rupert murdoch was proo brexit and indeed the son was. but the times it was pro—remain. sceptically per remain but it argued it was better to remain within the european union for economic reasons and was better to be inside the tent that outside. did ou be inside the tent that outside. did you get onto the phone to you about that? i you get onto the phone to you about that? ., ~ ., ., ,., �* that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted _ that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted it. _ that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted it. i _ that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted it. i said _ that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted it. i said most - that? i talked to him about it. but he accepted it. i said most of- he accepted it. i said most of our readers are pro remain in most of the staff a programme remain and we need to reflect what we think is instinctively right. do need to reflect what we think is instinctively right.— instinctively right. do you tayla stories to his _ instinctively right. do you tayla stories to his chase? _ instinctively right. do you tayla stories to his chase? is - instinctively right. do you tayla stories to his chase? is there l instinctively right. do you tayla l stories to his chase? is there any pressure on that front even if it's not coming from him to feel that you want to please the proprietor? no, no. never? no. what's your personal relationship with rupert murdoch, what's he like his mentor visual? iie what's he like his mentor visual? he is a what's he like his mentor visual? he: is a strong journalistic trait. his father was an editor. and a fine

journalist in the gallipoli campaign. he'sjust curious, he asks all the questions a journalist would ask. is very interested in politics and business was up is a bit of a political wall, actually. i and business was up is a bit of a political wall, actually.— political wall, actually. i wonder how you work — political wall, actually. i wonder how you work for _ political wall, actually. i wonder how you work for him _ political wall, actually. i wonder how you work for him for - political wall, actually. i wonder how you work for him for so - politicalwall, actually. iwonder| how you work for him for so long when other editors are coming off of of yes, very lucky. isine when other editors are coming off of of yes. very lucky-— of yes, very lucky. one of these new thins i of yes, very lucky. one of these new things i could _ of yes, very lucky. one of these new things i could do _ of yes, very lucky. one of these new things i could do adequately - things i could do adequately is ended and i think he acknowledges that. i've been lucky that it had the sunday times and in the times both financially successful. and at times is now and it gives you an oma's amount of strength that the paper is successful and it takes the pressure off. and management are much more positive in helping you invest in journalism, much more positive in helping you invest injournalism, it much more positive in helping you invest in journalism, it ingested doing any objectives. {line invest in journalism, it ingested doing any objectives.— invest in journalism, it ingested doing any objectives. doing any ob'ectives. one of the wa s is doing any objectives. one of the ways is characterised _ doing any objectives. one of the ways is characterised as - ways is characterised as an outsider. i wonder, ways is characterised as an outsider. iwonder, even ways is characterised as an outsider. i wonder, even though the establishment, you even play tennis with the prime minister but perhaps you like murdoch see yourself as a bit of an outsider. i you like murdoch see yourself as a bit of an outsider.— bit of an outsider. i thinkjulie should be _ bit of an outsider. i thinkjulie should be outsiders _ bit of an outsider. i thinkjulie should be outsiders with - bit of an outsider. i thinkjulie should be outsiders with the i bit of an outsider. i thinkjulie - should be outsiders with the patient be part of the establishment. we

should always be scrutinising and critical when we think what's right for the support of it they do the right things but generally we are critics. ., �* , ., right things but generally we are critics. . �* , ., ~ right things but generally we are critics. . �* , . ~ ~_ critics. that's what i think. okay. let's think _ critics. that's what i think. okay. let's think now _ critics. that's what i think. okay. let's think now about _ critics. that's what i think. okay. let's think now about some - critics. that's what i think. okay. let's think now about some of i critics. that's what i think. okay. | let's think now about some of the big debates that are threatening to fragment the establishment and essentials of the time to take in its quite a campaigning stance agenda for the general is common but also in general news coverage was that what your take on that debate? well, look, it's an explosive topic as you know. and genesis line has always been, we are sympathetic to trans people who are transitioning. that's so we should be. what she's done is taken on the militants, the people who self—declared themselves in many cases as women. in genesis view, and true on women's right, they appear in public lavatories, changing rooms, sports and this is right. and i background that photo either gets a right approach. people

get very, very angry about it. because those are quite controversial views for many, for some, i don't know if it's controversial views for many, for some, i don't know if its many years but certainly when people hear this there will be complaints that you said that. do you get a lot of complaints from readers and indeed... ? complaints from readers and indeed- - -_ complaints from readers and indeed... ~ . , , , ., ., indeed... ? we have in genesis a lot of hostility- — indeed... ? we have in genesis a lot of hostility. with — indeed... ? we have in genesis a lot of hostility. with the _ indeed... ? we have in genesis a lot of hostility. with the get _ indeed... ? we have in genesis a lot of hostility. with the get the right i of hostility. with the get the right thing. i think the vast majority of our readers agree with that point of view. is that what they say to you, the readers?— view. is that what they say to you, the readers? yes. we hear the term culture wars — the readers? yes. we hear the term culture wars bandied _ the readers? yes. we hear the term culture wars bandied around - the readers? yes. we hear the term culture wars bandied around lot. - culture wars bandied around lot. clearly gender being part of that, or tied up and laugh at them in your view, do the culture wars exist? yes, i think there is a generational gap going on. attitudes are changing. i was talking to a young man in his 20s who doesn't believe in a lot of these culture wars. i said well, what are you can't say these things was that he says i can't, i can't, these things was that he says i can't, ican't, i'd these things was that he says i can't, i can't, i'd be canceled. it's so intolerant for them and that's one of the problems i think

we face now that we as a newspaper would encourage tolerance on all grounds. and yet this has become an extremely vitriolic debate, which is very unwelcome, i think. and extremely vitriolic debate, which is very unwelcome, i think. and being canceled--- — we apologise for interrupting the programme but we want to take you live now to the white house where president biden is given an update on the rusher, our ukraine situation. on the rusher, our ukraine situation-— on the rusher, our ukraine situation. �* ., . , situation. along with vice president harris in munich _ situation. along with vice president harris in munich security _ harris in munich security conference. the second was the latest in a series of calls of the past many months with the heads of state of our knowledge by nato allies in the european union. up—to—date on the united states thinks is the current state of affairs. and what's likely to happen in ukraine in the coming days. to ensure that we are continuing to remain in lockstep. that is the european union and nato. despite russia's effort to divide us at home

and abroad i can affirm that has not happened. the overwhelming message on both calls was one of unity, determination and resolve. i shared with all of those on the calls what we know about a rapidly escalating crisis in ukraine. of the last few days we've seen reports of a major uptick in violations of the cease—fire by a russian backed fighters attempting to provoke ukraine in the donbas. for example, a showing ukrainian kindergarten yesterday. falsely asserting it was carried out by ukraine. we will also continue to see more disinformation being pushed out by the russian public including the russian backed separatists claiming that ukraine is planning to launch a massive offensive attack in the donbas. look, there's simply no evidence these assertions and it defies the

basic logic. to believe that ukrainians will choose this moment with well over a troops on its borders to escalate a year—long conflict. russia state media also continues to make phoney allegations of a genocide taking place in the donbas. and push fabricated claims warning about ukraine's attack on russia without any evidence. just what ukraine is thinking of doing, attacking russia. all these are consistent with the playbooks the russians have used before. to set up a false justification to act against ukraine. this is also in line with the pretext scenario that the united states and our allies and partners have been warning about for weeks. throughout these tense moments the ukrainian forces have shown great judgment and i ukrainian forces have shown great judgmentand i might ukrainian forces have shown great judgment and i might add, restraint. they refused to allow the russians to bait them into war. but the fact remains, russian troops currently

have ukraine surrounded belarus along the russian border and with ukraine to the black sea and the south and all of its border. we have reason to believe the russian forces are planning and attend to attack ukraine in the coming week. in the coming days. we believe that they will target ukraine's capital kyiv, a city of 2.8 million innocent people. we are calling out russia's plans loudly and repeatedly not because we want a conflict but because we want a conflict but because we want a conflict but because we are doing everything in our power to remove any reason the russia may get to justify invading ukraine and prevent them from moving. make no mistake, if russia pursues its plans, it will be responsible for a catastrophic and needless war of choice. the united states and our allies are prepared to defend every inch of nato territory from any threat to our collective securities. we also will not send troops into fight in

ukraine but we will continue to support the ukrainian people. this past year the united states provided a record amount of security systems to ukraine to bolster its defensive. it's a $650 million from javelin missiles to ammunition. we've also previously provided $500 million a humanitarian aid and economic support for ukraine. earlier this week we also announced an additional sovereign loan guarantee up to $1 billion to strengthen ukraine's economic resilience was at the bottom line is this, the united states at... bottom line is this, the united states at. . ._ bottom line is this, the united states at... ., ., , ., . states at... you have been watching president biden _ states at... you have been watching president biden speaking _ states at... you have been watching president biden speaking at - states at... you have been watching president biden speaking at the - president biden speaking at the white house after a call with nato allies.

storm eunice batters the uk, with powerful winds causing death, damage, and disruption. coastal areas in the south were buffeted by gusts and huge waves, with people urged to be cautious. i don't know what the actual wind speed is, but you can barely stand up in it. i'm literally a as degree angle here, it's crazy. the gale force winds pulled down trees, tore through buildings, and caused extensive damage in parts of the country. the extreme turbulence led to some bumpy landings — with planes buffeted even on the ground. and on the road — a narrow escape for this set of passengers.

but the storm has claimed three lives, and while the most