hello, and welcome to the media show. our guest today is the star signing of rupert murdoch's new talktv network. it's piers morgan, of course. and he won'tjust have a show in the uk, it will also be streamed on fox nation in the us, it will be broadcast on sky news australia. as well as that, there is a column in the sun, in the new york post, and there is a book deal with harpercollins, too. all of which is owned by rupert murdoch, all of which is a significant bet on one man grabbing

the world's attention. let's hear why he thinks that bet is worth making. piers morgan, thank you for coming on the show. how does that happen, how does a deal get thrashed out? it was fortuitous, really. the whole good morning britain blow—up with the meghan markle thing, and the free speech debate, it was all raging in the uk, predominantly, around the world but predominantly in the uk. and rupert happened to be in the uk that summer, and he watched it all go down. and i think they had been toying with whether to do a new network, and i think he felt that if i was now available, that it was worth having a go. and so they had to get me, and i had a few suitors, as i think has been well documented. and as soon as rupert came knocking with his company, with the global tentacles it has and the ability for me to do, as you said in your intro, to do columns, to do books, to do crime documentaries i have been doing as well, you know, it seemed to me an irresistible chance to go back and work for my first big mentor, and also to do all of the things that i love

doing under the umbrella of one company. so, irresistible, but you had other suitors and i am sure you negotiated hard. i'm just interested, how does that work? do you sit down with rupert murdoch at a table and go, "all right, i will take this much for doing this," or if you throw this in, i will give you, i will take a bit more? how does it... or are your lawyers doing that? i had representatives acting on my behalf, but we had a few conversations. and i think that we were basically in agreement that the kind of show that i was proposing fitted very well with what he wanted for the wider network of talktv. it is a show that defends free speech, it is a show that i think will uphold the pillars of democracy in a time when society is, i think, under more threat to free speech and freedom of expression than i have known it in my lifetime. and you have been very critical of the way that you had to leave itv, but before that blow—up, as you called it, did you have any pressure from itv, previous to that famous walk—out, where you felt you couldn't say what

you wanted to? no. in fact, the sadness for me about it, other than i was loving doing the show, and we were breaking ratings records left, right, and centre, including on the last day. i know you don't want to hear this but we finally beat the bbc, which they told me that was a hill we would never climb. so, i felt the show was on fire, it was doing exactly what we set out to do, which was me leading with very strident opinions, susannah reid, my co—presenter having her strong opinions, and creating a national debate about whatever the issues may be. the sad thing is that itv had always been unbelievably strong in protecting my right to express my honestly held opinions, right to the end, and suddenly they lost their bottle. hold on a minute, itv�*s chief executive says they defended you vigorously, and there was no way we wouldn't be absolutely not just endorsing but championing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. well, why am i sitting here doing another show then? well, you chose to leave, says itv. well, i chose to leave because it turned out, they didn't tell me this at the time, it turned out meghan markle had written

to dame carolyn the night before i was invited to apologise or leave, demanding my head on a plate. i was told, either you issue a public apology for effectively disbelieving meghan markle, because i had disbelieved what she told oprah winfrey, or i had to give up the show which i loved. so, if itv want to try and play semantics about this, let me be very clear, that is what happened. and what they didn't tell me, and which would have been interesting to me as part of the general debate, they didn't tell me meghan markle had personally contacted dame carolyn, and i believe, from what i was told, used phrases like, "we are both women, and we are both mothers." i mean, as if that had something to do with it. so, i felt that the way that i was handled at the end was a shame, given how supportive itv had previously been. well, they say they didn't want you to leave and they say that they defended your right to free speech. well, hang on. they didn't. let's be clear. if they defended my right to free speech, then i wouldn't have been asked to apologise

or leave myjob. ofcom then later came back and defended my right to free speech. but ofcom also said, with reference to some of your statements about not believing that meghan markle had had suicidal thoughts, they said, ofcom, we were particularly concerned about mr morgan's approach to such an important and serious issue, and his apparent disregard for the seriousness of anyone expressing suicidal thoughts, we also heard from the charity mind, it was disappointed and concerned, and that people, when they share this, need to be treated with dignity, respect, and empathy. i mean, presumably, you will agree you didn't treat meghan markle with respect in that moment. ijust find her, i'm afraid, not a witness that i find credible. and my point is that i made very forcibly on the show was if, as she claimed, she went to two senior members of the royal household and told them she was suicidal, and they said, as she put it, that she couldn't get any help because it would be bad for the brand, let's have the names of those people and they should be fired. but here we are, over a year later, there isn't

a shred of evidence to support that claim. nor is there a shred of evidence to support either of the two racism claims. but you could have expressed doubts about meghan markle and what she was saying in a way that was more respectful of the broader issues of people having suicidal thoughts, which ofcom and perhaps even more relevantly a leading mental health charities say they are concerned about. you don't have any regrets about that? i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire to diminish the importance of an issue like suicide or serious mental health or racism or any of the other issues that she touched on in the oprah winfrey interview. but as a journalist every instinct in me was, is it true? is what she's saying true? and i reached the conclusion pretty quickly that it wasn't. now, if she was to produce evidence that supported her allegations and we're still waiting then i may revise my position and i might be more sensitive, but i'm afraid, when i watched it, ifelt she was being an actress,

spinning yarn after yarn to cause enormous damage to our royal family and institution of the monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. and now you have a different show. you're not on itv, you are on rupert murdoch's talktv, you are rehearsing at the moment, i assume. iam. i noticed earlier you said it was to un—cancel those who have been cancelled. so who are we going to hear from that cannot get in the media elsewhere? it's more an issue of, for me. cancel culture issue is not about... who are you getting on? i am not going to tell you who my guests are. who is failing to get access to high—profile media that you would like to have on your programme? let me give you an example. i'd love to getjk rowling on, for example, the author who has been appallingly vilified and there has been a massive attempt to cancel her — it has been unsuccessful because she's extremely wealthy and can look after herself.

but the abuse that has been meted out to her, for effectively defending women's rights, has been a complete disgrace. i would love to get jk rowling on. you are not suggesting thatjk rowling wouldn't get on the mainstream media? but she had a lunch last week with a bunch of women, of women, many of them who have been cancelled... university professor you are talking about is kathleen stott, we can discuss how she was treated at her university, but in the context of the media... but that is the wrong context. but you're on the media show. let me clarify what i mean by cancel culture. it is not about whether they can get interviews, it's about whether people like kathleen stott lose theirjobs for holding an honest opinion. and is that right in a democratic society? althouthk rowling is wealthy enough to sustain the barrage, we have to ask ourselves, is this actually what we want in a democracy?

do we want to see university professors who hold honest views, which in my view are not remotely contentious, do we want to see them driven out of theirjobs by a bunch of students? but you and i both know that there are limits to free speech, mainly around, i have a quote of yours here, you shouldn't be cancelled for having an opinion, unless you are genuinely spewing hateful stuff. spewing hateful, bigoted stuff. so i'm interested on your programme, where is a line drawn? would you have guests who suggest vaccines against covid—i9 don't work? yeah. why? because i'd want to expose that thought process which i think has been extremely dangerous, i'd would want to expose them with facts, i would want to let these people — who, by the way, there are a lot of people who think this, and they've been encouraged to think it by a load of nonsense on the internet, i would want to hear where they heard it, why they believe it, set out their stall and then

damn them with facts. that is how a democracy should function. if you let these kind of debates purely operate online, that's where the trouble starts. i do believe in shining a light on some of these views like that. but would i get someone on who preached racial hatred towards people and wanted to cause violent conduct towards any minority group? no, i wouldn't. so there are obvious limitations that where free speech would lead. in america, which has the strongest free speech in the world with the first amendment, you can't run into theatres and shout "fire", for example. we know there are logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, which we are well aware of, which some people have been using as a treatment for covid, despite there not being studies to back it up, would you put them on air to challenge? absolutely, yeah. in fact, joe rogan did that and it was a really interesting debate about which of these theories, which have huge followings now around the world, during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not. i mean the truth, though... at which point does it become

an irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise the bbc for refusing to ever go down these roads of debate because they believe they have the truth. and yet we know in the pandemic that scientists have changed their own minds many times, whether it be about the efficacy of masks, whether it be about the ability of vaccines to prevent transmission. i myself have changed my view about coronavirus many times in this pandemic. but isn't the concern about joe rogan, and in the case of misinformation about covid, but more broadly, that if those pieces of information which aren't factually true are given a platform, and are not adequately challenged, they then just get the platform without any of the downside? but i intend to challenge them from a position of fact and truth. and your programme is notjust going to be on talktv, it's also going to be on sky news australia and fox nation, the sister network of fox news.

do you think sky news australia and fox news always counter claims, theories...? i'm not here to speak for them. you'd have to ask them! your show�*s about to be on them. i'm responsible for my show and its output and i have had no pressure from any of my various employers to have any stance about anything — i can only speak for my show. that would be like getting you to defend every show at the bbc, every presenter on the bbc. i think that is a ridiculous thing for me to expect you to do. all of them, in my opinion, have a right to their opinions, and it's right that people like you and others challenge those opinions. but don't we get into a problematic space? you've talked about the importance of your show to democracy, upholding certain values, but doesn't democracy in some ways rest on us all having facts, on us all having good information? so on fox nation, where your programme's going to be streamed, tucker carlson also has a programme, a documentary series

which floated the idea that the storming of capitol was potentially an insidejob organised by the fbi and police insiders. no evidence was offered — is that a helpful contribution? i don't agree with him about that. because... so at what point do you get to the stage where someone�*s doing something that you don'tjust agree with but i don't know...? i think i can find a 100 people at the bbc who say things that you would find abhorrent. i know some of them. in other words, i can ask you if you are responsible or accountable for everything that your colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i watch his show... it's one of the most highly—rated. you go on his show. i like his show, i like him, i agree with 75% him, i agree with 75% of the stuff he says, but i disagree with about 25%. last time i checked, that is fine. in a democracy, you are allowed to not agree with people that you work with. tucker, he and i have had spirited debates about gun control in america —

he has a very strong view about guns and i have an equally strong, very different view about guns. if you are saying i can only go and work somewhere and i can already check that i agree with every view, with every view... no. that's exactly what my show is going to be tackling. what i want to understand is not that you should not go onto a network with someone you don't agree with — no—one is suggesting that — what i'm trying to understand is that you're positioning your programme as part of a reassertion of what democratic society should have, free speech, and yet you are going to work, particularly with reference to fox, with a network with a long track record of saying things that are not rooted in fact. i would think that would make you... why doesn't that make you uncomfortable? do you feel as uncomfortable about the time that i spend at cnn, given the that way cnn has gone the last few years? given their obsession with, for example, russian collusion? i can throw it back and say cnn is the bbc of the states, in many ways, it is a network people look at and say everything they say must be truthful and factual. for two years, they spun

a load of old baloney about donald trump being in cahoots with the russians to fix the 2016 election — it turned out to be nonsense. now, i think i understand why they went down that road, i think they were chasing ratings with trump, but i look at that and i think, well, i didn't support that either, i thought that was wrong. but i might ask you that question as well but you're not going to work for cnn. but i do work at cnn and my point is that all these networks get things wrong, all of these networks have anchors that say things i don't agree with. no—one at fox exactly to go in with my slightly liberal tendencies and suddenly be a hardcore right wing conservative. what's interesting is you keep flipping from talk about facts to talk about opinions, is there no dividing line for you on that? i'm not asking you about your opinions. everyone�*s entitled to an opinion, what they're not entitled to do is to invent facts. that's my point. and that's what i will be defending on my show. if you don't have a concern

with this, james murdoch, rupert murdoch's son, said for a great news organisation, the mission should be really to introduce fact, to disperse doubt, not to sow doubt to disperse fact. he is entitled to his opinion. everybody is. but you don't share those concerns, that there are some...? i don't share your concerns, no, i am very happy to be working for fox nation, i am happy my show will air every night in america, and i'm happy that nobody at fox has tried to tell me what i should put on my show and what opinions i should be having. in fact, quite the opposite. i spent a week in america ten days ago, i went on eight or nine fox shows in the week, and i expressed my honestly held opinions the entire time and they lapped it up. there was no pressure to be conservative or right—wing, nor was there the pressure

from me to play the kind of, you're all the devil. because i don't believe that. i don't think that, i have always liked rupert murdoch, i like him as a swashbuckling media visionary. that is not a view you will hear at the bbc, but the bbc has its own problems, so much as you all like to put your halos on, and say, "oh, piers, piers, how can you work with these ghastly people?" i look around the bbc sometimes and i think, hmm., martin bashir, that is a bit awkward for everybody. believe me, i'm not coming with a halo... you are a bit. you are a little bit like saying, look, we are the bbc, you're going to work for people which don't have our kind of standards. when i worked at fox last week, i thought their standards were pretty high and i was happy to work there. i'm asking the question, i'm not telling you what the right answer is.

of course, one of the reasons that fox and cnn and others are stepping into that streaming arena is that the original business model of 24—hour cable news is under pressure, not least since trump left... it is under a lot more pressure if you are at cnn, one of those who put all their money on trump—bashing — 99% of their programme was trump bashing, which i felt at the time, having worked at cnn when it didn't do that, when it was very non—partisan and non—biased in its coverage, and i felt that was what its business model should be, they went into full on trump—bashing to the extent that some of them got hysterical about it, and i think that it was killing the golden goose and the ratings of cnn has really gone through the floor, whereas the ratings for fox news are gigantic by comparison. so, you know, it reminds me when irun i run the news of the world over november me that there would always be this accusation that we were... only doing this for ratings and circulation — yes, that is myjob, literally myjob. yourjob is to serve people

who want to listen to the bbc and pay a licence fee for the privilege, i am happy to do that, by the way, but i think your own business model will have to be reviewed going forward. what do you think about the bbc�*s business model? i don't think the licence fee�*s sustainable. don't you? no, i don't, and ifelt what you did with the over—75s was a total disgrace and i said that loudly and clearly on good morning britain regularly. i really feel that was a betrayal of pensioners in this country. the bbc is facing an unprecedented threat. i'm not going to get it from me because i'm a huge supporter of the bbc, i think it produces amazing programming, i recently watched jeremy bowen in ukraine, astounding, clive myrie, again, astounding. there's been some brilliant journalism, of the bbc at the very best, as it has been at cnn, some of my old colleagues risking their lives to bring amazing reports to people, that's these great corporations at their best, but can the bbc continue to charge people of my kids�* age, my three boys in their 20s, a licence fee when they already make their own personal choice

about whether to pay a fee for netflix or whoever it may be, i don't think that is sustainable. i think eventually, the bbc will have to go down that road. what road would that? some sort of subscription model with voluntary payment? i think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will be the end of the bbc. i think you willjust have to get more competitive, and you will have to stop relying on people be compelled to pay for a licence fee when we are now in a completely different world. we're talking about different types of models, here in the uk, in the us, you have major reservations about cnn. you are critical about the us media, i wonder if you reflect on how you handled donald trump? big mistake. you had a series of scoops, very high—profile interviews, when you look back at those and you know some of the things that donald trump did later in his presidency around covid, around the election result... no—one was more critical of me of donald trump about covid and about the election denial and about january 6th. if you go back and read the columns i wrote,

they were incendiary columns, attacking him head—on and directly. in the interviews i did, television interviews, i would say to people, go back and watch them in full — don't believe what people told you on twitter about those interviews. where, frankly, if i didn't take a club into the room and smash him around the head for half an hour, it was always going to be "softball." i challenged trump a lot in those interviews, much more than narrative has been allowed to say. having said that, he was a friend of mine, and i've known him since 2008, i won his celebrity apprentice show. i've gone back in many times on that show as his boardroom advisor, i got to know him and his family, this was a friend of mine who then became an incredibly divisive president of the united states. i was lucky that he gave me interviews, and the challenge for me was to then try and park the friendship and do an interview as i do with anybody else. i think i did that. hold on a minute, but the point

i am trying to make here is that you approached that as you would an interview with any world leader, i assume. yes. you treated him like a normal politician. and i gave him a harder time, by the way, than i have seen otherjournalists give other presidents, so when you go back and watch the obama interviews, look at those. that is what i would say in return. i haven't said anything yet... i know what you're about to say. you don't. the way that trump spoke about covid and the fact that he didn't accept defeat in an election. yeah. were not out of the blue, they were completely in line with how he had behaved in the campaign, they were completely in line with how he behaved in the early years of his presidency and yet you treated him like a normal politician. well, i didn't. no, no. this is not... i wrote over 120 columns about trump and if anyone bothered to go back over... but in his presidency, you said, i've known trump for 12 years and genuinely like him — why did you feel warmly towards a man who had already spoken with great prejudice during the campaign,

who had already shown a scant regard for the truth during the campaign and during his presidency, and in many ways appeared to be undermining the tenets of democracy? you are falling into the slight trap of being the trump's the devil narrative. i'm not saying trump's the devil. i wrote 100—plus columns about trump. about half are positive, and half were critical. i felt that was a fair analysis and assessment, until his last year, of the trump presidency. go back to the start of 2020, trump was heading for a comfortable reaction. a lot of things that he did — forget what he said on twitter, because a lot of it was ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget what a politician says? what they say is a great part of who they are. if you park the twitter rhetoric, which was unique to donald trump and very polarising, and you either love it or hate it, and there was no middle ground, but you simply focused on what trump

achieved and his actions, i would argue that when you look at the totality with the exception of the final year, where i felt he was a catastrophe on covid, i felt he showed no empathy over the george floyd murder, which i thought was a disgrace. i felt his refusal to accept the election was disgrace, and i felt the january 6th capitol riots were a direct result of that behaviour. and by the way, i said that very vehemently. i know you did. what you're asking to do is guess what was going to happen. i am saying i don't think that the first three years was either the devil or the saint you would like you to think he was. you are making a show for a uk audience, a us audience, an australian audience — they don't all care about the same thing, how do you factor that in? everyone is fascinated by trump, i think every day there are lots of stories which resonate around the world. my gut feeling is that twitter in particular has made

the world a small place in terms of debate, you see the trending topics are the same in almost every country, and every day i look at the stuff in the news and i think that will resonate all around the world. that will resonate. most things do now, whether it's ukraine, meghan and harry's antics, whether it's donald trump and whether he can make a comeback, whether it's the health ofjoe biden, all these things work in all these countries. what is your definition of success? if i am still on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesn't muck around. by which you mean, if the numbers aren't right... it's a hard thing to calculate. it will take time to grow it because the different calibrations and ways that are assessed around the world. but i think that we are all going to know whether we have a hit show on our hands within a few months, if people are tuning in in bigger numbers. if we're becoming the centre of debate in three continents, then i think i will have done myjob and it will be very exciting. if not, then it will be back to the beach for a while. i would love to be watching but i am going to be on air on bbc news.

we'll see how it goes. i'm going to destroy you! with that, thank you very much indeed. hello. the weekend brought us lots more dry and settled weather. now, april 2022 is turning out to be a notably dry april, particularly towards the south. this was the picture as the sun set in north yorkshire sunday evening, and we've got a bit more of the same. so, no great changes in the weather forecast over the next few days. it stays mainly dry and settled. you'll notice it'll be a little bit cooler and cloudier compared to the weekend, but also less of a breeze around, too. high pressure in charge of our weather at the moment, sitting to the north of the uk, but over the next few days, it drifts further south, sitting right across the uk by the time we get to wednesday. so, monday morning, then, temperatures 4—8 degrees in our towns and cities. a bit colder than that in the countryside first thing, so a fresh start to the day. most places largely dry with some sunshine.

a little bit more cloud drifting in from the east compared to recent days, bringing a few showers to parts of eastern england through the morning. and later in the afternoon, as the cloud bubbles up, could be one or two morejust drifting their way west across central parts of england and wales, too. but many places staying dry, avoiding those showers. temperatures 16 degrees or so towards the south west, but only ten under that cloud across the north east of scotland. through monday evening and overnight into tuesday, we'll see a bit more of that cloud in the north starting to try and push its way a bit further south, but clearer skies towards parts of england and wales mean we could just see a touch of grass frost heading into the early hours of tuesday morning. so, again, a bit of a fresh start of the day, but another predominantly dry, settled day. probably a little bit more cloud, particularly across eastern parts of scotland and england, too. just one or two rogue showers, i think, developing during the afternoon. so, a little bit more cloud than recent days, still some sunshine, still mild towards the south, 16—17 degrees. but temperatures are going to struggle to get out of single—figures for north east england and eastern scotland with that cloud around. the breeze coming off a cool north sea over the next few days. a similar picture into wednesday, north—easterly

breeze, but light winds for most. predominately dry once again, but a bit more cloud around, particularly towards the east, and temperatures between about 9—111 degrees by this stage in the week. high pressure then moves its way further south. not many isobars on the map here as we look through thursday and, in fact, into friday, too. so, the weather looking predominantly dry, variable amounts of cloud, some sunny spells and temperatures getting into the mid—teens for most of us. but it will be a largely dry end to a dry month. bye— bye.

welcome to bbc news — i'm nancy kacungira. our top stories... emmanuel macron becomes the first french president to be re—elected in 20 years. translation: from now on, | i'm not a candidate any more. i'm now the president of everyone. defiant in defeat — marine le pen says she'll use her best results ever as a springboard for the future. translation: tonight's . historic score puts our camp in an excellent position to obtain a large number of deputies next june. the nigerian president calls a deadly explosion

at an illegal oil refinery a national disaster.