we we re run underneath the doorway. we were in absolute _ run underneath the doorway. we were in absolute shock at that you don't know _ in absolute shock at that you don't know what — in absolute shock at that you don't know what is going on. i ran outside to see _ know what is going on. i ran outside to see my— know what is going on. i ran outside to see my card completely destroyed and went_ to see my card completely destroyed and went upstairs to my bedroom which _ and went upstairs to my bedroom which had — and went upstairs to my bedroom which had no walls any more! it was amazing _ which had no walls any more! it was amazing at— which had no walls any more! it was amazing at something like that can happeh _ amazing at something like that can happeh i _ amazing at something like that can ha en. ~ , amazing at something like that can ha en. ~' , , amazing at something like that can hauen. ~ , , ~' happen. i think this tree, this oak tree is a few— happen. i think this tree, this oak tree is a few hundred _ happen. i think this tree, this oak tree is a few hundred years - happen. i think this tree, this oak tree is a few hundred years old. l happen. i think this tree, this oak i tree is a few hundred years old. had you been worried about it with the storm? did you think it might come crashing down? hie. storm? did you think it might come crashing down?— crashing down? no, not at all. we measured the _ crashing down? no, not at all. we measured the base _ crashing down? no, not at all. we measured the base of _ crashing down? no, not at all. we measured the base of it _ crashing down? no, not at all. we measured the base of it some - crashing down? no, not at all. we | measured the base of it some time ago and calculating it was probably about 300 years old or thereabouts. it was a well—known lovely tree, and it is a feature of the house. whenever people come to the house, they generally comment on what an amazing tree we've got. quite a surprise to see it snapped in two by the power of the wind. the surprise to see it snapped in two by the power of the wind.— surprise to see it snapped in two by the power of the wind. the good news is ou are the power of the wind. the good news is you are all — the power of the wind. the good news is you are all 0k. _ the power of the wind. the good news is you are all ok, you are _ the power of the wind. the good news is you are all ok, you are all- is you are all ok, you are all fine. obviously a lot of damage to the house. do you have any idea how much it is going to cost to repair that? a big insurance claim? we

it is going to cost to repair that? a big insurance claim?— a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely _ a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely no _ a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely no idea. _ a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely no idea. i'm - a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely no idea. i'm not - a big insurance claim? i've got absolutely no idea. i'm not a i absolutely no idea. i'm not a structural engineer or a builder. we are waiting for the loss adjuster the senate on monday, we will have that conversation and put it in their hands. and take it from there. yeah, i think it is going to take a long time to rebuild the house, to be honest, because i think the damage extends quite far into the house stop if you see the chimney stack behind me, i think that has taken the full force of the tree coming down, which is a pretty structural element of the house. so we will see on monday.— structural element of the house. so we will see on monday. well, i'm so sor that we will see on monday. well, i'm so sorry that has _ we will see on monday. well, i'm so sorry that has happened _ we will see on monday. well, i'm so sorry that has happened to - we will see on monday. well, i'm so sorry that has happened to the - sorry that has happened to the house, but the good news, as i said, is that you are all ok. we are thankfulfor is that you are all ok. we are thankful for that. is that you are all ok. we are thankfulfor that. thank is that you are all ok. we are thankful for that. thank you so much for talking to us, dominic and sven good there from essex. to get more on the situation where you live, tune into your local bbc radio station — you can find details of your nearest station on bbc sounds. now it's time for a look

at the weather with louise leah. there has still been plenty to talk about today, it has been a really messy story because some people have had beautiful blue sky and sunshine, and others have seen heavy rain and even some snow. and there is more rain to come in the forecast as we move into sunday, and still plenty of isobars on the chart. that means it's still going to be very windy indeed. in fact, the winds are set to strengthen tomorrow. so, outbreaks of light rain to start with, but heavier bursts moving out of ireland into northern england will gradually drift east, so heavier rain into wales and the midlands by the middle part of the afternoon. scotland and northern ireland sunny spells with scattered showers, but still gusts inland of 50 mph, and up to 60 or stronger on exposed coasts. so another blustery day out there. mild with it with a top temperature of 13 celsius. it looks likely we will continue to see a more wet weather, but the shower

slowly easing away on monday giving a brief respite. louise, many thanks. now on bbc news, it's time for the media show. 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 we're 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 i'd 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 a 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 what both are doing. and what about tv, your news channel choice? generally, the bbc but i admire itm as well. and do you still read physical newspapers or are you now an app devoted? i am a bit of both. i do read print at 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 seniorfigures 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 in angola — but the authorities then with south africa, they govern southwest africa, it's now namibia. so i couldn't go up and teach there so i set up a library in the capital. while i 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 service and 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, man bites dogs is a story. i had to learn very fast doing broadcasts — i think i was terrible, they were really nice at the world service and they encouraged me and so i did a series of interviews and told them what was going on in southwest africa, which was a really interesting time. because as i say, it was apartheid on steroids. it had a large africana and german

population who were very hard line. 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 bed 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 iranian embassy siege in yourfirst week, i think. then the iran, iraq and falklands wars. it is a foreign news really where your heart lies? no, it was then. by the way, i was a terrible war reporter. why? but i seemed to be sent to all these wars. what made you a terrible war reporter? i tried to cover the wars in a kind of objective way, particularly the falklands. max hastings was there and he understood no, you had to do it in the way the british want to read about it. i was still applying old reuters rules which is nonsense.

and max hastings outgunned all of us then. so it was a fantastic experience. then i did... i got better at it. but i wasn't a natural war reporter like anthony loyd, who we have now who is totally outstanding. or marie colvin, who of course, got killed a decade ago. a decade this month. but i liked foreign 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, so all news interest me but foreign is obviously very important. you're clearly a natural at being the editor, you've been the editor for the sunday times from 1995 then the times in 2013, how would you describe your editorship style? pretty 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. one thing i've seen over the years is that you read the 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 starts doing more constructive news. journalists will often have a story that's 80% positive in 20% negative. and the kneejerk reaction ofjournalist, probably including me at one stage, is you go to the negative because it gives you a better headline. but in fact, the story is generally positive. we want to turn that around and make news reflect the world more accurately because the world is getting better. people are 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. and we want to change our direction. and in terms of how far you would push yourjournalists to bring in stories, people told me that you rule by fear and they're afraid of you. well, they shouldn't. .. i heard that i don't believe it. they shouldn't 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 journalists bring in scoops, you need to put pressure on them? yeah, 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. what we see on digital is, when you have exclusives, people really engage much more and admire the paper doing for that. we've had a string of real exclusive over the years and that's what people remember.

they don't remember the day—to—day 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 scoops, right now the biggest scoops are all around politics, or more specifically politics and parties 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, you had him on times radio, the first interview with the prime minister that morning. yes, 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 he's trying to sort out. he is of course in considerable personal danger of remaining prime minister and will have to wait

and see how that plays out. is it right that you play tennis with borisjohnson and other members of the family? i think i've only play once with boris but i played with his brotherjoe and his sister rachel. any good? yeah, they�* re good. you? adequate. when did you last visit downing street? a couple of months ago, i think. does it happen often? no. how often? not very often. maybe a couple of times a year, i might speak to him and other ministers on the phone. and is that fairly common? how often would an editor of the times someone with good connections, speak to the prime minister on the phone? not very often, it depends on what comes up. sometimes he's complaining. other times he wants us to tell him 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 subjects they raise what's really concerning them. and that's quite valuable. the actual information you get from them isn't. what does he ring to 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. anything more serious that he complains about? sometimes coverage, really, it's more nonspecific. and when the prime minister calls, do you feel under pressure, it's the prime minister, does it impact what you do? no. and do you speak to him more than you spoke to other prime ministers, teresa may for example? no, about the same. under your watch sunday times broke the story with cash for honours story with allegations of donors to political parties being rewarded. there've been many scoops sense. why didn't you break partygate? would've loved to. it was a good scoop, that one.

lots of stories i would love to have broken. i think the ft cameron greensill, thought was a good story. it's interesting because partygate, very few journalists, lots of parties going on and very fewjournalist knew about it. you had it on your lap in a sense because on saturday, 20th, 2020 the times published the story of the political editor, the policy editor and said borisjohnson celebrated his 56th birthday yesterday with a small gathering in the cabinet room, rishi sunak and a group of aides sang him happy birthday before they tucked into a unionjack cake. so back then, you had what then became a huge story, how could you print it without realising it was incendiary? we missed it. what you think about that now? it's embarrassing. had you heard about parties at downing street before the mirror and itv published their scoops? no, apart from that

one you mentioned. in that sense, you've heard of it but not recognised it as a party. i don't we put together, at that time that 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. and when you saw the video, when you saw it emerging, i always ask people how they feel when someone else gets the scoop. how did it feel? oh, sick. clearly these revelations have been damaging for the prime minister, whether terminal is stil up in the air. do you think he will be prime minister by the end of the year? it's really hard to predict that. he is a survivor. i happen to know david cameron has a bet on it, an expensive dinner that boris will survive the year. so the former prime minister thinks that. a bet with who? i don't know. not with you? no. it's really hard to predict at this stage how the police inquiry will go and what the sue gray report will actually say. 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 don't think he'll give up easily. i guess our audience will be very interested in how powerful is the times — if you wanted do, could you bring boris johnson down? only through a story that was shocking and that people thought was absolutely unacceptable. you couldn't 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 party's views. could it also be more subtle than that? if you decided for example, if you backed rishi sunak tomorrow and you did it subtly, so you just started writing articles that painted him in a positive light. do you think that that would swing it? no. and would you do that? no, not at this stage. there could be a stage where you might switch allegiance? yeah, maybe. what would it take? i don't know, we have to see. do you plan to do it anytime soon.

we will have to see. interesting, interesting. do you think papers can do that, can bring people down? it used to be the case that that was an understanding, that newspapers could if they chose to bring down politicians. stories can. i don't think a paper like the times can because we don't campaign overtly, 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. you have a columnist, whose wife allegra stratton was central in the partygate story 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 with him at the time and was it uncomfortable for you both that he was a personally involved in the story? i think it was very upsetting to him, what happened to her, and she was clearly very upset. but the strength of james is not just through allegra but through other sources. he has amazing contacts in government. he can tell readers what he thinks is going on and the general drift of the party, what ministers say. they'll talk to him extensively off the record. and he's very closely linked with rishi sunak. and he's close with rishi sunak. he has a real insight, 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, partygate, what happened to his wife, has it change his attitude to the government and the way he writes about them? i don't know, i haven't asked him. we've talked about the revolving door between the press and politicians.

director of communications also work for a time here. is there something uncomfortably cosy about the relationship between the press and politicians? they're a source of information to journalists which is valuable. because ministers wants to stay clear of special advisers that's useful. it seemed director of communications, if they are good are also valuable i don't think it's corrupting in any way or distorting. obviously, they're pushing their a message, it's thejob of a journalist to discern that and try and find the path through it to get to the truth. generally, they're pretty valuable, i'd say. but when 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, the access to power? maybe, but it's 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 contacts they have. if you are not hiring them is a journalist that's different? yeah. obviously, everyone would understand that everyone needs sources at the heart of government. that's what you're talking about, but how much of a mouth piece are you going to be — would you be happy for somebody, one of your journalist to be printing verbatim something like dominic's cummings was telling them? well, dominic cummings tells everybody what he thinks. and a lot gets printed verbatim. if you are getting good information on what's going on inside of number ten, that's valuable. and you would report it — it would have cummings influence on it. but if he was telling you what was happening, that's very useful. you allow readers to balance that against the other things. other sources say that's not true, that's not it is, it is different

you do it in the round. i suppose part of the problem is when he was at the heart of downing street he wasn't being quoted. he wasn't being quoted but he was providing information. i'd like to turn to the broader question of rupert murdoch's influence over the british media. the culture secretary is changing existing legislation to allow your boss to interfere in the times in the sunday times. nadine dori says it's not in murdoch's financial interest to do so — can you just explain why it wouldn't be? yeah, that's not true what you described. just explain the undertaking, when he bought the titles in 1981 he gave undertakings that the two titles that would remain separate. there was a real interest then, without digital media that we needed a plurality of opinions. and they didn't want the times and sunday times to merge. that's what's existed for a0 years. the anomaly was, this was a 20th—century decision that doesn't apply to the digital age, 21st century. the fact that the government could have some say on the free press is an anomaly.

i think the department of culture, media and sport accepted that, that we should not be involved, you look after your own business, you have a level playing field with the other publishers so you are treated the same. so they've agreed to these undertakings to be removed from their influence. the undertakings remain, they're being put into our employment contracts and we are going to continue to have independent directors. it's exactly the same set up but with employment law governing. so the times and the sunday times will remain separate? they'll remaining separate in terms of editors in key areas. we've already started merging parts of it. a lot of readers now read seven days so we are trying to do that to avoid duplication. it's just sensible. areas like sports and features

where we agree on things. there will be people who say nadine doris is wrong, they will argue that rupert murdoch already meddles in our democracy and this decision could give him more power to do so. it's not true. you need to remember, with a whopping revolution, murdoch essentially saved the press and enabled the other titles to become much more successful — enabled the sunday times to become multi—sectioned, and all newspapers to flourish. it was a very positive thing. it wasn't written like that at the 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 in the times or the sunday times. so he doesn't get on the phone and talk to you about stories that are in the papers or...?

no, he'll ask what's going on, what's happening in government and general things. he doesn't interfere. i give you a good example — one of the most important decisions that this country has taken was brexit. rupert murdoch was pro—brexit and indeed the sun was. but the times was pro remain. did he get onto the phone about that was like he accepted it. he said most of our readers are pro remain, most of the staff are pro remain a we need to reflect what we instinctively think is right. do you tailor stories to his taste — 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 not at all. what your personal relationship with rupert murdoch, what's he like as an individual? he's kind of an mixture of a businessman and a strong journalistic trait.

he is very curious about things. his father was an editor and a fine journalist in the gallipoli campaign. he's just curious. he asks questions a journalist would ask. his interest in politics, business, he's a bit of a political want, actually. i wonder how you managed to work with him for so long when other have come and gone. i'm very lucky. one of the things i could do adequately is edit. i think he acknowledges that. i've been lucky that i've had the sunday times and the times both financially successful. and it gives you an enormous amount of strength that the paper is successful and it takes the pressure off and management are much more positive and helping you, investing injournalism, investing in digital and all the key objectives was up and all the ways he's characterised as an outsider. i wonder, in a sense the establishment, you even play tennis with the prime minister but do you see yourself as an outsider?

i thinkjournalists should be outsiders. we should all be part of the establishment, we should always be critical when we think it's right. let's think now about some of the big debates that are threatening to fragment the establishment — the times has taken a stance on gender. what's your take? it's an explosive topic as you know. and the line has always been, we are sympathetic obviously to trans— people who are transitioning. and so we should be. whatjanice has done is taken on the militants, the people who self—declared themselves. in many cases it is women. i back her on that, i think it's the right approach.

people get very, very angry about it. because those are quite controversial views for many, for some. certainly when people hear this there will be complaints that you said that. do you get a lot of complaints from readers and indeed from campaign? we have had a lot of hostility. with think it's the right thing. i think the vast majority of our readers agree with the point of view. is that what they say to you? yes. we hear the terms culture wars bandied around about a lot. clearly arguments over gender are part of that, are tied up in that. in your view do 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 205 who doesn't believe in a lot of these culture wars and i said, why don't you go out

there and say those things? he says i can't. it's so intolerant. and that's one of the problems i think we face now, that we would as a newspaper encourage tolerance on all grounds. and yet this has become an extremely vitriolic debate which is very unwelcome, i think. you mention being cancelled. cancel culture, what's your take on that? for example like thejimmy carr story, when that story is reported in the times, as it is on the bbc, does a little part of you think, we are contributing to potentially cancelling someone or does it come into your mind are all? a little bit but i think you just report the stories and people make up their own mind. how do you see the times's role in navigating all of this, navigating the culture wars? are you fighting culture wars are just reporting on them? we are reporting on them but when we comment they take up positions but within our reporting we should be as objective as possible. when it comes to gender, do you believe that broadly you reflect a broad spectrum?

because you are under fire for having janice turner, very high profile at the paper, and people complain and say there's not enough of the other side? we do represent the other side. maybe not as much as janice or as prominently. but she is taking on the militants. as i say, our readers support that. we've attracted women readers from other publications because of janice's stance. you've been editor of the times for nine years, you were at the sunday times for 18 years before that, just turned 70, happy birthday. are you planning to retire anytime soon? not unless i'm retired. i love it. it's an incredibly privileged job and every day is different. i come in with a spring in my step thinking, what can happen today and what will we report? i'm incredibly lucky to do the job. how many more prime ministers do you think you see

while you're editor? depends on how long boris stays! you're a giant on fleet street, what do you think your legacy will be? i hope we made the times and sunday times successful, financially stable and good journalism. we have incredibly talented journalists and that they will survive for another 200 plus years. that's a key objective. we are just guardians of these titles and we have to establish them to be successful for the future. thank you so much forjoining us today. thank you very much. for now, thanks for watching, goodbye.

this is bbc news, the headlines at 5pm: counting the cost of storm eunice — three deaths and more than 190,000 homes across the uk still without power as the big clean up gets underway. the wind and the rain is hampering efforts to repair storm damage and to restore power to people's homes. ukraine's president says international rules protecting countries from attack, are no longer working, amid fears of a russian invasion. the security architecture of our world is a brittle and obsolete. the rules are no longer working. they are not catching up with threats to

overcome them.