this is bbc news. we will have the headlines at all the main news stories for you at the top of the hours straight after this programme. 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 ofcom 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 monitoring, but first of all let's also bring 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 maitlis and john sopel, both leaving it altogether 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 marr 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 maitlis 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 but 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 and that really be an to chan-e 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. there's a russian broadcaster vladimir solovyov and also margarita simonyan, 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, vladimir solovyov 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, margarita simonyan 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 olaf scholz's comments that putin's comments about genocide in donbas was ridiculous, he said that when a russian media 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 now need to be targeted and we are expecting sanctions. francis, thank you very much indeed. now, today, the russian foreign ministry has said that if the uk touches russia today, there will be retaliatory measures. any britishjournos 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 ofcom,

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 it up to ofcom, rather than to politicians, to decide - which media - organisations to ban. 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? ofcom 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 ofcom, 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 ofcom? is it the government? yes, i mean ofcom can revoke broadcast licenses. that's its gift, it 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 ofcom to assess. ofcom 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. one of its most recognisable faces in the uk at least is george galloway was up he presents his mother of all talkjoseph was up he presents his mother of all talk shows for the bit runs on sputnik radio, 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. definitely. 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 ofcom 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 ofcom 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 it's 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 many 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 manyl details, but what i can say is that it was about. an executive, a senior executive at a uk listed company. i 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 specify which. there are no facts that were disputed in that i story at all. nothing libellous about that story. j we stuck to the facts, - and of those were disputed. but 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 j 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 toi privacy in 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 gugh tomlinson, qc, who has represented a range of people in privacy cases — some of them very high—profile. he is also a leading figure for the hacked off campaign group, which has pushed for better privacy protection. and, hugh, we appreciate you coming on to the media show. let me just read you a quote from john micklethwait, the editor in chief of bloomberg news, who says "powerful 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 in, where a young man who was arrested — a completely innocent young man arrested over the suspicion of being involved in the manchester arena bombings.

he was named in the newspapers, and as a result, effectively, his life was destroyed — i mean, infact, he was wholly totally innocent, he was released without charge after a short time. the police accepted that he done nothing at all wrong and yet, this man's life was effectively ruined by publication of a police investigation and arrest about him. now, it's that kind of protection the supreme court were talking about in this case. obviously, in every case, 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 thejudges are the ultimate arbiters in these things. inevitably, notjust bloomberg, but the times, the guardian and other news organisations feel that while this is always a balance, the balance is skewing 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 very interesting — and something that isn't 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 on a 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 obviously a disagreement on the broader issue and that 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 axel springer media group in germany. erika, thanks forjoining us. tell about the piece you were working on and how you managed to publish it. yes, thank you, ros. we worked on a large investigation into a compliance

case surrounding abusive power and consensual relationships and one of germany's largest publishers, axel springer. inevitably, notjust bloomberg, 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 to become sort of the next—generation murdoch, so this is a very big company and the way that they handle a compliance case involving women who feel that they were mistreated by company standards and by their editors, we felt was an important thing to look at. our investigation actually wasn't actually about the compliance case — it was about how ceos, how executives dealt with the 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. our 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 ran 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. tell me about the process that 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 first sort of discuss with them 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 is we 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 — and 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 will able to publish private details. well, the troubling thing is the police are alreadyl acting on this. today, west midlands police

cited the bloomberg case . in an attempt to exclude l journalists from a hearing. and, you know, really this is sending a very strong i message, i think and with. anyone in power who wants to keep their name out of the press, anyone . with the funds, of course — it's very expensive to bring this sort of action — _ and a path for them to do that. and just to go back - to what hugh was saying earlier, 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 and their right to privacy. and he mentioned that person whose life was in his words- ruined by that other case. so, business executives - who represent pubicly 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, i if polled and asked the same question whether they would want to know if any - of the people responsible for that money are under| a 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 each individuals case 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 an 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, it does not mean you're guilty. and if, very often, people are arrested and then, it's decided not to proceed.

and that's very rarely reported if the decision is taken not to proceed. and the trouble is at that stage, the person or organisation has been damaged for all time. and, david and hugh, while you're focussed on the ruling of the supreme court in the uk, erika, you published 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, of course, are very different in germany. there is a law is whatever you're discussing a case, you have to use the initials of any members 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 that we were looking at. and so, you know, in germany, the response has been very much one of wanting to get out

the story and 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 — in that sense, germany is stricter than the uk. david, only 30 seconds or so — bloomberg straddles many countries, do you see a difference in the different countries you operate in? of course we do. and, of course, our— headquarters in united states, lawyers — there advised me that this case would have been laughed out of court, it 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 very different |thing clearly here than it does| lnlhe us— and i think in the last 50 years or so, you have seen a big drift, and i think- the british system is getting — - and judgements, and this lasti example is a prime case of this moving closer towards - the german model probably and further away from l 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 and chris curtis from broadcast magazine. the media show will be back on the bbc news channel very soon. we'll see you then. hello. after a largely fine and settled weekend with plenty of springlike sunshine, things are looking a little bit more unsettled as we start this working week. this was the picture as the sun went down sunday evening off the coast of north yorkshire, but we've had a weather front moving its way in through the course of the night. through monday, it's going to be bringing cloud and rain to many parts of the uk, particularly towards the north and the west as well. so, first thing monday, that rain will be sitting across parts of southern and eastern scotland, northern england, down through wales into the south west of england, too. this frontal system is really going to be quite slow—moving through the day, so some

of that rain for south west of england, wales, north west england is going to be persistent and heavy, too. it's also going to be quite a breezy—feeling day, particularly across the far north—west. for the western isles, we could see gales developing through the course of the day. and top temperatures for most of us between about 8—11 degrees but for the south east of england and east anglia, where it stays dry for a good part of the day, a very mild 13 celsius. but eventually, that rain will sweep its way eastwards across all parts. it'll be followed by clearer skies, just a few showers in the far north continuing, a bit more of a breeze here on into tuesday, but certainly, a touch of frost for many of us away from southern england and south wales first thing tuesday morning. so, during tuesday, then, we've got this weather front that is going to hang around across some southern and south—eastern parts. clears away from the rest of the uk as high pressure builds in behind it. so, a lot of dry, settled weather on the cards for tuesday, but that cloud and patchy rain continuing into the far south. bit of uncertainty about how far north it gets. mostly, i think, any rain will be confined to the south of the m4 corridor.

but to the north of that, plenty of blue sky and sunshine once again with top temperatures between about 8—10 degrees on tuesday. heading onto the middle part of the week and there's a bit of a wave on that weather front, so it starts to move back northwards and eastwards across the uk into wednesday but as it bumps into that higher pressure, it is tending to fizzle out so, really, quite a weak affair. a fairly cloudy day for most of us on wednesday with a few splashes of rain moving their way northwards. i think northern and eastern scotland keeping the sunshine through the course of the day. not feeling particularly warm where you're underneath that cloud with highs around about 8—10 degrees for most of us. and them, further ahead towards thursday, still some outbreaks of rain as the next front moves its way in from the west but for many of us, things are turning a bit drier and brighter through friday and on into the weekend, too. more details, as ever, on our website. bye— bye.

welcome to bbc news, i'm james reynolds. our top stories: washington condemns president putin's decision to place russia's nuclear forces on putin's decision to place russia's nuclearforces on high alert warning at a dangerous elation. . , . ., , alert warning at a dangerous elation. . , _, , ., elation. western countries are not only taking _ elation. western countries are not only taking unfriendly - not only taking unfriendly steps against our country in the economic dimension, but the top officials of leading nato countries also make aggressive statements with regards to our country. statements with regards to our count . ., , . country. the european union announces — country. the european union announces that _ country. the european union announces that it _ country. the european union announces that it will- country. the european union announces that it will ship i announces that it will ship arms to ukraine calling the move a watershed moment for the eu. ., , eu. for the first time ever, the european _ eu. for the first time ever, the european union - eu. for the first time ever, the european union will. eu. for the first time ever, - the european union will finance the european union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack.

and searching for a