this is bbc news. the headlines: there have been several powerful explosions nick cave as residents of the ukrainian capital have hunkered down for another night. multiple reports say one explosion was caused by a missile attack on oil depots south—west of the city. the fire can be seen blowing in the night sky. the un refugee agency says that the russian invasion has driven more than 150,000 people to flee ukraine two countries further west. the vast majority have so far gone to poland, managed tojoin friends and families. many have gone to countries like moldova, hungary, and slovakia. the western coalition including the united states, the united union, and canada is to cut off russian banks from the swift payment system. the aim of the sanctions is to cripple the imprudent�*s ability to finance.

no—one bbc news, it is time for the media show. —— now on bbc news. hello i'm ros atkins. welcome to the media show. we've got to talk about russian media in the uk because the government's culture secretary, nadine dorries, says she wants the regulator 0fcom to look at what she calls russian propaganda in the uk. we'll consider that. we'll also learn about russian media inside russia itself and we've got to talk about bloomberg as well. last week and the supreme court, it was stopped from publishing a story on privacy grounds, and that sparked a broader discussion about how you balance public interest and individuals privacy. so we will impact all of that with a range of guests for gently explore issues are erika solomon, berlin correspondent for the fc, david merritt, senior executive editor at bloomberg news, hugh tomlinson, qc. also francis scarr, a russian media analyst at bbc

at bbc in chris curtis, editor in chief of broadcast magazine. chris came a very good to have you back on the media show, and i've got to ask you about two of the biggest names in bbc news, emily maitliss and john sopel, both leaving it together and heading to the media company global to make a podcast, to do a show for the bbc as well and of course all of this comes not long after andrew marr left bbc and also went to global. so i wonder, chris, how you assess this announcement? i mean, it's been characterised as a brain drain and it's pretty clear that there is a string of high—profile talent. i mean, it was not that long ago that eddie mayer made the same move. there's a lot of attraction, i think, in those big name presenters moving away from the bbc. if it gives them a little

bit more freedom. and it might be editorial freedom given bbc�*s crackdown on impartiality. but it also might be sort of commercialfreedom, too, because at the moment, it's difficult for those guys to write a column in the mail on sunday or even do after dinner speaking or anything that might be seen to sort of impinge upon their impartiality. so you've got a situation where for talent like that, to be fair, that have done their time to bbc, and are notjumping ship. emily has done 20 years, and jon sopel has done more, but they might get to stay in their career were they think they are significant opportunities elsewhere. now you mention impartiality. do you think the decisions being made here are because bbc�*s changed its approach to impartiality or because big—name presenters and correspondents are changing their view

of what they would like to do and not to do? it will be both. i think andrew marr made an oblique reference that when he moved and made the move to the bbc. and i think there is a general shift towards perhaps a greater sense of commentary, a greater sense of viewpoint or perspective and lots of news journalism. that runs counter to what the bbc is doing the moment. the director general has come in and made impartiality pretty much the watchword under his tenure and that's not going away anytime soon. so you got potentially the wider market going in one way it came at bbc going in another, and that's... i think it's fair to say that that's a key part of why some of these individuals are, after a lengthy career in a sort of pure public service broadcasting for the bbc are looking elsewhere. now wanted to ask you about that and also wanted to ask you about the issue of russian media in the uk we will talk

about that in a moment let's bring francis scarr from bbc monitoring with us from moscow in this discussion. i'm guessing as you watch the news in russia, one story is dominating. yes, you are right. really up until friday, russian state tv, which is the main source of information for people here for around two thirds of the population, it was very dismissive of any kind of anything happening really with ukraine for seven that really began to change as soon as the two leaders of the rebel republics in eastern ukraine announced they were evacuating people to russia. since then, it's really been a wave of information about ukrainian hostility towards people in donbas and about russia playing this role of peacemaker and moving in to protect them. i mean, really, the — the overall narrative going through is that russia has been forced to take this move. ukraine gave russia no option. president putin has talked of genocide in eastern ukraine being waged by kyiv. and that russia simply had to respond. and while russian media as a whole is pushing the narrative that you

describe, we know that the european union is now expected to sanction a couple of individuals. i like to ask you to help me get to know them. there's a russian broadcaster vladimir and also margarita, who is the head of rt, of russia today. why is the european union particularly focused on these two? well, ever since 2014 when russia annexed the crimean peninsula and relations began to deteriorate with the west, the kremlin has taken an increasingly hawkish approach to the west, and this has been mirrored in the media here. they have taken on this increasingly anti—western, anti—ukrainian tone, and these two figures have been architects of this coverage. and it really it's been about propagating this anti—western view among the russian population and abroad.

now, solavyov is russia's most popular talk show host — he has a late night tv programme and a radio programme, and at the weekend since 2018, he's been hosting a show which follows the president's movements in excruciating detail and has been accused of spreading almost new personality cult of president putin. thank you... sorry, carry on. well, margaret is the editor of rt and also the head of two news agencies in russia. sputnik, which is the international one, and another one domestically. and the language that these two people use regularly on tv is extremely vitriolic, just to give you an example. the other date was dismissive of a german chancellor 0laf scholz's comments that putin's comments

about genocide in donbas was ridiculous, he said that when a russia pronounces genocide donbas in the same sentence, "my teeth begin to clench and my hands reach for a kalashnikov rifle." and evidently the european union believe these two individuals tended to be targeted and we are expecting sanctions. francis, thank you very much indeed. now, today, the russian for ministry has said that if the uk touches russia today, articulate their abate retaliatory measures. any british during those in russia, which are going after russian counterparts how it works, it was a quote and the reason this is in the news in part is because nadine doris is been talking about russian media. she published an open letter to the head of 0fcom, the regulator, and in it, she says it russia today is demonstrably part of russia's global disinformation campaign — of course rt would dispute that categorisation — and the culture secretary goes on to say that it remains essential that off, keep the situation very

carefully under review in such sensitive times and takes action when necessary. well, that's the culture secretary, and then this is the prime minister in the house of commons earlier. we live in a democracy, | mr speaker, and we live in a country that believes in free speech. _ and i think it important that we should leave i it up to 0fcom, rather than to politicians, i to decide which media organisations to ban. i that's what russia does. well, chris curtis from broadcast magazine, first of all, how we understand when the culture secretary talks about disinformation, what she referencing? 0fcom has butted heads with rt previously. they fined the channel 200,000 pounds a few years ago with regards to its coverage of the salisbury poisonings was of that was an impartiality issue with the regulator deemed that rt presented that story was inaccurate and unfair. so, there's a little bit of history. but it's a complex... i mean, the two clips you played there are in some ways contradictory.

as a sort of pincer movement going on. the culture secretary warning 0fcom, saying that, needed to make sure you're across this and then you get the prime minister saying, "well, it's entirely up to the regulator to decide." it's a tricky balancing act for the regulator to walk. and how does actually work? who does have the power to pull rt off the air — is it 0fcom? is it the government? yes, i mean all calm can revoke broadcast licenses. that's when it gets most of bit does not happen very often. i mean, you know, most of the time went off, is ruling against broadcasters, it's for frankly far less serious issues. this is a difficult, difficult thing for 0fcom to assess. 0fcom has ability to effectively tell broadcasters off, rap them on the knuckles. it has the ability to fine them.

it does ultimately, if it believes that the offences are so egregious, it does have the ability to revoke licenses, but that would have huge political implications, as you've indicated. before we go any further, chris, here, just a little of rt's output. this is part of a clip that rt posted on its uk youtube channel. i don't know the russian mind in this. i can only tell you what i would do. i would say if you will not push back nato's tanks from my lawn, i will have to push them back for you. so there is george galloway laying out his perspective. i wonder here, chris, though whether he will be a symbolic act to pull the plug on rt as a tv channel for them in reality, most of its impact appears to come through youtube and social media. fascinating. i mean, it's not like there are millions of british people watching rt on television.

it'sjust, you know, it has tiny audiences. but of course, like a lot of things, its voice is online. you know, things go viral, their shared. so, that's a challenge for all calm because of course is a moment, you know, it does not have jurisdiction over youtube or other digital platforms. it's a tv regulator in that sense. and as such, and that clip we just played was from rt's youtube channel, is it really the big decision here not for 0fcom orfor boris johnson's government, but actually once again for the big tech platforms to decide who they will or won't allow to publish? definitely. but it is also a government question because in the end, that's something that they are grappling with of the moment. there is a desire to find a way, whether is netflix and offensivejimmy carrjokes, or whether it's youtube and sort of state—run broadcaster news propaganda, there is a desire amongst british government to get tougher with digital platforms

with regards to controlling video content in the uk. and that is of course something we've turned to maany times in the media show and will do again. francis carr and chris curtis, thank you very much indeed forjoining us on the media show. now, next we are going to talk about privacy in the press because there is also a connection between that and the broader issue of media freedom. last week, the supreme court prevented bloomberg news from publishing a story on privacy grounds. the guardian has called this ruling "a threat to legitimate investigative reporting" — the times, as i was mentioning earlier, was also critical. now, david merritt, you're a senior executive editor at bloomberg news. thank you forjoining us. tell us what the story was about. well, thank you for having me, and unfortunately i cannot telll you exactly what the story - is about because i'm prevented, you're prevented, . we are all prevented by this court ruling from giving

out too many details, l but what i can say is that it was about an executive, i a senior executive at| a uk listed company. we are made to refer to him by the ruling as the xc. - he reported that he was the subject of a criminal investigation by a uk . regulatory body — again, we cannot specificy which. there are no facts that were disputed in that story at all. j nothing libellous about that story. j we stuck to the facts, - and of those were disputed. but the zxc sought— an injunction, which was denied was that this is back. in 2016, when the story was initially published. there was a trial in 2019, i which he won, and he won damages of £25,000 against bloomberg and an injunction| on the reporting. we appealed that decision, and in 2020, the court - of appeal upheld that first judgement and we took. it then all the way _ to the supreme court and last week, the judgement came down upholding that original _ decision, denying our right to publish the story. - and what was the reasoning the supreme court gave you for that? i mean, essentially-

there's a 51—page ruling that came - with a judgement, but boiling it down, it effectively said that this| individual's right to privacy trumped the public interest in what he may or may- not have been doing. and of course, you know, . we always look at a balance between someone's right to privacy in i the public interest. but in this case, we felt that| because he was an executive of a publicly listed - and a fairly large publicly listed uk company, so _ responsible for shareholders, that that outweighed the right to privacy l in there is a justification to publish the story. - well, thank you for explaining your particular situation. let's look at the broader issues that this raises with you tomlinson, qc, who presented a range of people in privacy cases, some of the very high—profile. he is also a leading figure for the hacked 0ff campaign group, which is pushed

for better privacy protection. and, hugh, we appreciate you coming on to the media ship at the limitjust read you a quote from john elth wait, the editor in chief of bloomberg news, who says it, people under investigation for criminal activity have just been given a path to keep their names out of print. do you have equal reservations about what the supreme court said? well, i don't. of course powerful people sometimes try and keep their names out of print and use the courts. but this is a protection which extends to everybody. and if i could just mention one particular case i was involved, were a young man who was arrested completely innocent young man arrested over the suspicion of being involved in the manchester arena bombings. he was named to the newspapers, and as a result, effectively his life was destroyed. i mean, infact, he was totally innocent. he was released without charge after a short time. the police excepted that he done nothing at all wrong, and yet this man public life

was effectively ruined by publication of a police investigation and arrest about him. now is that kind of protection the supreme court talking about in this case. obviously in every case of the public interest has got to be balanced against the privacy rights of the individual. i understand why bloomberg think that the supreme court got it wrong, but in the end, we've got thatjudges are the ultimate arbiters in these things. inevitibly, notjust bloomberg, but the times, the guardian and other news organisations feel that while this is always a balance, the balance is giving too far in the direction of privacy and that potentially compromises journalists' ability to hold people in power to account. well, they would say that, wouldn't they? and what's your interest income assuming that they were reported in any of these newspapers is the last time there was a yougov poll on the subject. 86% of the people who responded favoured pre—charge anonymity. i mean, that's a huge percentage of public opinion poll.

and this has overwhelming public support. and i'm afraid the newspapers have simply got it wrong. they are out of line with what the public think and they are also out of line with the law. so, there is diagreement on the broader issue and that the outcome of that supreme court ruling. the spring and the outcome of that supreme court ruling. let's bring in a third person to our discussion erika solomon is with the ft. she was right at the centre of a major ft investigation into the hacksaw springer media group in germany. erika, thanks forjoining us. it was about the piece you are working on and how you managed to publish it. yes, thank you. we worked on a large investigation into a compliance case surrounding abusive power and consensual relationships at one of germany's largest publishers, axel springer. and the reason we chose to focus on this company is because while a lot of your viewers or listeners may not know axel springer now, they may well do in the future was of axel springer has just bought politico in the past year for nearly $1 billion, and they are making a big move

into english—language media. a lot of people who know the ceo argue that he wants murdoch, is a very big company and the way that they handle a compliance case involving coming up who feel that they were mistreated by company standards and by their editors, we felt was important thing to look at. our investigation wasn';t actually about the compliance case, it was about how ceos, how executives dealt with a compliance case and how much they knew. and at the heart of this with the fact that you and your colleagues had seen private messages sent by senior staff at springer. did you have any doubts about publishing those? we went over that extensively. obviously with our lawyer, with the editor in chief of the publication. 0ur feeling, though, was that in this case, there was a compliance case in which the top members — top executives at a company claimed

ignorance about a situation when in fact we had a lot of information, some of which we did not use, we did actually withhold some of it for the sake of people involved when we felt there was any shadow of a doubt, and we also rent everything by the company. to tell them what we were doing. and help me understand process in the financial times. you've amassed all this information, you and your other reporting colleagues, you are sitting there in front of i assume the editor of the paper and your lawyers also tell me about the process it takes is from an investigation that is almost published and one which is. it's a long one, actually. so, in the first case, you know, you go along throughout the process with the sources who you are most concerned about. their safety and protection. and you have to verso to discuss with them have exactly what they are telling you or giving you will appear because they have to understand the consequences of what they do.

so we try very hard to make sure that they not only know what we are using but what the potential impact will be. the next thing to do discuss is with our lawyers, and the editor in chief reads what we've already agreed with the lawyer. we think passes muster and she is another go through with a lawyer. so, that's the story of that ft investigation. david merritt from bloomberg, you were listening to that. i suppose what i'm wondering is what listeners and viewers may be wondering is whether you are drawing too broad a conclusion from your specific experience with the supreme court. maybe you have another investigation where you able to publish private details. welcome to the troubling thing is the police - are already acting on this. today, west midlands police out of the bloomberg case _ in an attempt to exclude l journalists from a hearing. and, you know, really this is sending a veryl strong message, i think. and with anyone in power

who wants to keep their name out of the press, anyone - with the funds, of course, i it's very committed to bring this sort of action. and just to go back - to what hugh was saying earlier, you, - we find so dismaying about this is the conflation of business activity - with all the other things for which i think we would also support people pop. it right to privacy. and he mentioned that person whose life was in his words- ruined by that other case. so, business executives - who represent publically listed companies and are possible for monies and lots of- listeners for the show - would have funds invested in stocks and shares - and pension funds, people who are is possible for that money, the public, ithink,j if polled and asked the same question whether they would want to know if any - of the people responsible for that money under criminal investigation, i think you - might get a different answer actually to that polling. - hugh, i'm sure you want to respond. well, listen, it all depends on the facts of these individuals cases. and i think the bloomberg case, i mean, i can quite see it as i said before that there is some strong public arguments in favour. the argument that really influenced the court that has not been mentioned is that what bloomberg were dealing

in was a highly confidential document which was a letter of request to a foreign government for information. and that was effectively and illegally obtained confidential document. that influenced the court as well. but of course people in power need to be scrutinised and of course businessmen need to have their activities investigated. but the crucial thing is there is a presumption of innocence. when you're arrested, he does not mean you're guilty. and if, very often, people are arrested and then it's decided not to proceed. and that very rarely reported if the decision is taken not to proceed. in the trouble is at that stage, the person or organisation has been damaged for all time. and, david and hugh, while your focus on the ruling of the supreme court in the uk, erika, you publish a story with huge ramifications in germany, but it was published by the ft, which is based in the uk.

i wonder how you compare the approach to privacy and to public interest in the two countries. criminal cases are of course very different in germany. there is a law where whatever you're discussing a case, you have to use the initials of any member is involved, anybody who is being accused of a crime. in the case of something that is about a corporate sort of misdoings and so on, misdeeds, there's a little bit more freedom. this was not a criminal case we were looking at. and so, you know, in germany, the response has been very much one of wanting to get out of the feeling that there needs to be more of a look at how media companies are handling compliance cases and so on. but, yeah, it's different from a criminal case in that sense, that sense, germany is stricter than the uk. and, they become at only 30 seconds or so.

bloomberg settles many countries. do you see a difference in the different countries you operate in? i think can make you sleep. and of course our headquarters in united states, our lawyers. there advised me that this case would have been laughed out . of court, would never have got that far. - of course, we heard - the prime minister earlier on the programme talking about freedom of speechl in this country. well, it means a veryj different thing clearly here than it does in the us. and i think in the last 50 l years or so, you have seen a big drift, and i think the system is gettingl judgements and this - last example is a prime case of this moving closer- towards the german model probably and further away from the american one aware of course freedom of- expression is enshrined in the constitution. - that, i'm afraid, is all we have time for. many thanks to all of our guests, erika solomon from the ft, david merrit from bloomberg, hugh tomlinson qc, francis scarr from bbc monitoring in moscow

hello. the weather through the remainder of the weekend is continuing on that fairly dry, settled theme. we've got high pressure in charge of our weather. a bit more cloud pushing in and breeze across northern ireland and scotland but certainly, for england and wales, we've had fairly clear skies on saturday and it's going to be a similar picture into sunday as well. here's the satellite image. it shows this area of cloud out to the north—west of the uk. this is a weather front which is just starting to move in. you can see the proximity of the isobars. there's some breezier weather across northern and western areas but as this front pushes its way eastwards, it bumps into a big area of high pressure, so it's tending to fizzle out through the day on sunday. certainly a chilly start, particularly for england and wales, with a touch of frost around. also for eastern scotland, a bit of a chilly start. plenty of sunshine for most areas. we have got this weak front draped through the irish sea, bringing more cloud to parts of western scotland. northern ireland, a few spots of drizzle here, and a bit of that cloud into the likes of pembrokeshire and cornwall, too. but light, southerly winds for most of us, so if you've got the blue sky and the sunshine,

it's going to feel quite pleasant out there with temperatures between around about 8—11 degrees on sunday. and as we move through into the evening hours, then, initially, things are still looking quite dry and clear and we keep the clear spells for longest across eastern england. but from the west, this next band of cloud and patchy rain moves in. this is another weather front, and that's going to be with us to start off monday morning. so, not as cold first thing monday — certainly compared to first thing sunday — because we've got more cloud, outbreaks of rain and more of a breeze around, too. so, monday's weather, then, will be dominated by this frontal system which slowly pushes its way eastwards across much of the uk. i think it'll be quite slow to reach east anglia and the south—east, so here, you may well keep some sunny spells through the course of the day on monday but elsewhere, a fair bit of cloud. windy conditions — gales possible up towards the western isles, for instance — and that rain will clear out of scotland and northern ireland, but it will be quite slow—moving for parts of northern england into wales, down towards the south—west as well. another fairly mild day — temperatures up to around 12 degrees. heading on into tuesday and high pressure sits across much of the uk, but we've got this trailing frontal system, so that may welljust spill some rain

across some southern counties of england, perhaps into south wales as well, but there's still some uncertainty about exactly how far north or south this system is going to be. but across much of the uk, we are thinking that high pressure will dominate, bringing a lot of dry and settled weather. a touch cooler, i think, on tuesday. looking ahead towards the middle of the week, still a bit of rain lingering in the south on wednesday and more rain in the north—west by thursday. bye— bye.

good morning, welcome to breakfast with victoria derbyshire and ben thompson. 0ur headlines today: a massive explosion at an oil refinary outside kyiv, as russian forces appear to concentrate their attack on the ukranian capital. —— refinery. the city is under curfew until monday with residents spending another night in bomb shelters and underground stations. western countries escalate sanctions, cutting off a number of russian banks from the swift international payments systems. with hundreds of thousands of ukrainians attempting to flee the country, a row in the uk over who will be allowed to settle here. speculation over sanctions reaches the premier league,