this is bbc news. the headlines: anthony albanese has won the australian general election, beating scott morrison, to become the country's first labour prime minister in almost a decade. addressing supporters, he pledged to transform the country into a renewable energy superpower and to work towards lifting wages and profits. as russian attacks in eastern ukraine intensify, president volodymyr zelensky has said diplomacy is the only way the war on his country will end. the british foreign secretary liz truss has said that ukraine's neighbour, moldova, should be armed with nato military equipment, to help guard against the threat of a russian invasion. days of flooding and landslides in eastern india have left more than 50 people dead

and nearly a million people have been affected. water levels in rivers are also running high in bangladesh where about two million people have been hit by the floods. coming up at six o'clock, breakfast with ben thompson and sima kotecha. but first on bbc news, the media show. hello. on the show today we have gotjohn micklethwait, editor in chief at bloomberg. we are taking a look at a new podcast that charts the rise of reality tv with one of the co—hosts, pandora sykes. and, wagatha christie — how can we not talk about it? and we have got one of the key players here in the whole drama, simon boyle, who is the executive editor of the sun and their bizarre column, which is a0 this weekend. he faced significant pressure to stand as a witness. simon, i have got to ask, who

would play you in the movie? it's funny, we actually had this conversation in the office... what is the answer? well, my hairline is going rather quickly, probably from the stress of this job, so ross kemp was mooted. that is harsh. martin compston would suit me. great. and the other person we have got here isjim waterson, the guardian's media editor, and you have been at the royal court ofjustice every day since the trial began, i believe. there is a whole lot of interest in this case, how long is the queue for the press each morning? it is quite extraordinary. there is a sort of queueing system and people have to get there very early, there are 20 or 30 photographers outside and it has been so popular they have had to open up another courtroom just to try and make space for the journalists that want to cover it. what that says about our industry and all the other court cases going on, well, you can make up your own mind on that. absolutely. well, more from both of you in a moment and indeed from pandora, but let us start the show with john micklethwait, editor

in chief of bloomberg, because bloomberg, famous for its financial coverage, is on a mission to become a major presence in uk news. it has launched a new subscription website and wants to rival the likes of the sunday times and the ft for business stories. john micklethwait, welcome to the media show. what have you launched then, exactly? how much does it cost and what do we get for our money? well, two things, to some extent, we are just using i what we have, we have been hiding in plain sight, - there is a newsroom behind me, somewhere, 500 people, - it is one of the biggest - newsrooms in london already. we cover 400 british companies, we have long been a massive - sort of force in - the city of london. we have got a television station, radio station, i podcasts, everything, - and what we are doing now is we are targeting that| at a consumer audience and our aim is to become - the main business and finance destination for. people in britain. and we have started our- consumer subscription business four years ago and we have already got 400,000 - subscribers, which is quite big by british standards. - we are now targeting

the uk, because it is| our second—biggest market. and who are the target audience, sorry for interrupting, but is it more than just financial news and who are you aiming it at? it is finance and business and broader in politics. l we do global news more l perhaps than anyone else, we have 2700 journalists right the way around the world, - 120 countries, - we cover the globe. we also are pushing things deliberately in the british i market — westminister. podcast starts tomorrow, we have got some - individual things aimed at british business and we have i events here, a big office rightl in the middle of the city, in an iconic building - and we think there are a lot of things that we can do from here. - and add to british media. 0k, and why now? your boss, michael bloomberg, has been claiming that the uk media is following the us path to becoming what he termed "hyper partisan and highly

sensationalised", so are you saying that there is a gap in the market for essentially more impartial, fact—based news? we think there is a bit, yes, i i think what he actually wrote was, he said that he feared that it was going in- the same direction. in america, we prospered by being absolutely- in the middle, and the things that we do, you need - to be very factual. you need to be on the ground and when you do analysis - and commentary, you need to really back it up - with numbers, and with facts. and we look at britain - and i think there are divisions over things like brexit. one of the first reasons why i thought this could work- in britain, i came from being at the economist before, - was that i sat and saw that when we launched a brexit newsletter, - what was interesting was people, both from one side of the brexit debate _ and then from the other, were subscribing to it really very quickly. i and i think that— ability at the moment to be able to cut through and say what really matters, - there was a piece a couple - of days ago about levelling up and we looked at all - the constituencies of britain and went around adding up

all the places that had i gone forward and sadly, there were not very many of them. - nobody accused us of bias i in that, whilst i think in many cases in britain, almost- automatically, when people read things, they imagine which side they are coming from, - and we are not. in that category. 0k, interesting. jim watterson, media editor at the guardian, let mejust bring you in, what do you make of the bloomberg proposition? well, there isjust this enormous amount of competition for high—end news readers who will pay a lot of money for sort of quality news. you have got the ft, you have got ben smith, my former boss at buzzfeed launching a new project, you have got the economist and you have obviously got this bloomberg offering now among many others. the real challenge is, is there enough interest to sustain all of these places, because advertisers love these readers, but are there enough people, with enough time in the world, to read all of this news being produced for them? and what does it mean for all the people who cannot afford a paywall, because they are just left with stuff that is made on the cheap? john, just picking up on that

— is the idea that people would give up their digital subscription to something like the sunday times, and switch to bloomberg or are you proposing this as yet another subscription for people to pay for? i think we would make - the argument that we should be the main one, we do more coverage than anyone else when you are looking . at business and finance around the world. that is what we do, and i think within britain we should be - able to get into that position . and make the same argument. even then, i think there - is a large market for people who have more, i suppose, more money than time. - if you are in business, - the amount of money that subscribers, the different. competitors that you talked about, it is not that much- compared with the advantage you get from knowing things ahead of other people, - and that is why i think there is more room. i and what has happened, and i remember back- at the economist when we were only about 400,000 people, i people talked about there being a limit then. - somebody from the guardian making that point. _ |the economist i think it is now| 1.6 million under a much better editor now and you look -

at bloomberg, we have reached 400,000 people — 400,000 people are paying for us in only four- years on a consumer basis. and we think that has a lot| to grow and i don't think all the evidence at the - moment is the same... jim, i am sorry to interrupt. i wasjust going to say, jim, quickly you wanted to come back in on that. i just want to say, this is what we are trying to solve at the guardian by having that model, which is outside a paywall, but still doing qualityjournalism, because the rest of the market is really going into different directions, either behind a paywall orfree and done on a tight budget. 0k, both of you, please stay with us, as we do very much change direction. i mentioned at the top of the programme that we were going to take a look at the new podcast for bbc sounds about the history of reality tv, have a listen. big brother house, this is davina. reality tv created an entirely new category of celebrity and revolutionised our viewing habits. it created a genre predicated on a single, shining moral imperative — the authentic above all else. all the problems that

would plague the genre were there from the start — confrontainment, the effects of surveillance and the spectre of the producer, and puppet master. that was a clip from unreal, a critical history of reality tv. pandora sykes is the podcast co—presenter — pandora, welcome to the media show, it is ten parts, your show, you have got 60 interviews, i understand, in it. what did you find? ooh, that is a big question. it is indeed, i am asking for an answer and it is tough. we found that what people have been looking for since the start really, because we chart it from big brother to love island with 14 other shows in between, in the states and in the uk, and what people are looking for now is what they loved about big brother then, which is authenticity. but the tension reality tv exploits is that who you are, who you think you are is not who others often see you to be.

on tv? once you're on tv which is where a lot of "oh, the producers edited me badly". and increasing ethical concerns about the format. we want to look at who the responsibility lies with, the people who go on television, a matter of self—regulation or does it lie with the commissioners? and the producers? what was the answer? it depends who you are asking. one producer pointed out to me, phil edgarjones, creative director of big brother for ten years, the only people who said they had been edited badly are the unpopular ones. they ones who come across well never have any problem with the editing. so you could say it is only ever an issue... but that kind of makes sense, doesn't it? does the unpopularity, after or before your i suppose? in a bit, what it tells us about celebrities,

wagatha christie. think reality tv invented the idea of the normal person as celebrity? jade goody is largely seen as the first demotic celebrity, a celebrity famous for simply being themselves. a lot of controversy about how reality tv has changed the nature of celebrity and fame, the ordinary person without talent becoming famous. but actually it goes way back to candid camera in the 50s. in the 1970s, american family, in the 1990s, the real world. it is not as new as we like to think it is. though what we have now is a surfeit of reality stars, it's an entire ecosystem. you start on something like love island, celebs go celebs go dating, strictly, i'm a celebrity

get me out of here. if you are lucky, you could be like alison hammond and be a presenter. many don't know she came from big brother now. the really successful can graduate out of it but most of them stay on the same end of it. do you think the genre has exploited ordinary people's desires to be famous? that is a good question, and not one i think i could answer completely either way because the problem is, people who want to go on reality tv by and large are the people who do not fare well on it. because the people who would fare well on reality tv have a solid sense of self, are not really bothered by attention. but they are not the sort of people who want to go on reality tv. certainly, there has been a lot around the duty of care recently, not least the four suicides that are connected to love island, including presenter caroline flack. and lots of reality stars have come forward saying i have made a deal with the devil, the producers did not look

after me. but is that the producers�* fault for casting them, or — it is hard to imagine how being on reality tv would impact your life and the ramifications of everyone thinking you are public property. executive editor of showbiz at the sun, bizar will have charted the rise of lots of these reality tv stars in the last decade. do you treat them differently? you are absolutely right. we have covered huge amounts of reality stars, and you start to forget that some — and you start to forget that some of— and you start to forget that some of them started out as reality— some of them started out as reality stars, it is true. i think people who come through the reality route generally speaking are seeking out fame and fortune ideally on the back of it at every possible opportunity, generally have been more

accessible, prepared to bear their souljust for the sake of being more famous, and potentially making a few quid on the way. does that make them fair game in your mind, people you are more willing to i do not want to use the word hound, but you know what i mean? i would object to the word hound, because the symbiotic relationship we have developed with these people over the last 10—15 years, which has a real boom for reality television, probably started with big brother, and the only way is essex. it has been completely relationship—based. a lot of my career, lots of these people i have come to know really quite well, you become friendly, in fairly regular contact. i guarantee the phone rings more frequently from them asking if you can write something than the other way around, there's lots of people

seek attention and publicity. sometimes it works well for us and our readers, other times i'm slightly more dismissive. it goes both ways. pandora, you were nodding earlier. it was reminding me of a contestant from love island who we interviewed, rachel finney, i cannot remember if it made the final episode because we had a lot of footage. she was saying when you come out of love island it is normal to call the paparazzi, anyone who says otherwise is lying. i do not know if that is true but if you work on tabloid websites, i would agree there is much more unlike with an a—list celebrity who i would have thought it's very rarely calling the paparazzi, reality stars, certainly much more of a synergy. unreal, a critical history of reality tv, out now on bbc sounds app.

i'll bring simon back in. how do you maintain the relationship to keep the stories flowing? are you effectively saying you don't need to really because they are always calling you? it is a damn sight easier with the likes of love island and the proper reality stars than with the a—listers. we'd like to think we can do it across the board, i can think of some examples to point to to say the way we do things generally speaking is we try to get ourselves into the mix at all levels. if our readers are interested, we are interested. something like love island, if it is successful, lwant — to know the people on it, get to know them and stay with them. some, with varying degrees of success, have maintained a career long beyond. a friend of mine who won several years ago, amber davis, was successful on the west end a talented young woman, leading two shows,

another one coming. i have stayed friendly with her throughout. others less so. there are definitely occasions in the reality sphere where people continue to call long after their expiry has rather run out. if you can be polite and general, we are no longer too interested in that story, thanks for calling. let's bring it to the wagatha christie trial, maybe not everyone realises how implicated you and your paper are in that case. this is the big libel case playing out in the high court, two wives of famous footballers, accusations for coleen rooney of libel, passing stories to the son. and one was under a byline about the basement flooding, coleen rooney says she planted

the story to catch the leaker. who gave you that story? the same answer we gave in the high court a week or so ago. to some degree we have been at the centre — to some degree we have been at the centre of this. the case between _ the centre of this. the case between the two of them relates directly — between the two of them relates directly to stories we carry, that— directly to stories we carry, that is_ directly to stories we carry, that is true.— that is true. stories are turned _ that is true. stories are turned out _ that is true. stories are turned out not - that is true. stories are turned out not to - that is true. stories are turned out not to be . that is true. stories are i turned out not to be true. were presented as fact online, as you say, directly from coleen rooney. in each case they play out in court. we contacted the rooney's representatives, we are not going to comment, but no problem if you run it. we went to the proper levels of checking it out, we operated with integrity. there is no great secret, my face is in the newspaper six days a week saying, have you got a story?

give us a shout. i can't apologise for that, per se. that is the business we are in. in terms of who gave us the story, we would never reveal it, i never will, and we went to extraordinary lengths— and expense in the high court a week or so ago after being pushed by both sides to come to court, hand over some documents and take the witness stand, that are simply not something we would ever do. on a wider basis it would set a general precedent forjournalism across the board, newspapers and broadcasters. how did it feel to be asked to reveal your sources? presumably they wanted to search your phone, for example. what was that like as a journalist? my first thought was, like everybody else, oh, my god what is on _ everybody else, oh, my god what is on my— everybody else, oh, my god what is on my phone? i was quite happy to take some advice at our end, i knew it was not something

we were going to immediately bite down on because we have always taken that stance with a source, not just for us but a potentially catastrophic precedent for journalism as a whole. it was uncomfortable. and i was lucky _ as an organisation, we are large and well funded. we were in a position to take some legal advice. i was given some legal representation, we went to court and present that argument as to why we shouldn't. the judge agreed with us. i worry that if i were a freelance journalist, i worry — you see the potential expense in losing the money perhaps i would not have been able... how much does it cost? many tens of thousands, i would have thought. if rebekah vardy people will be thinking why don't you say that and protect your actual source. it is not as simple as that. you get into a jigsaw

identification process. once you are on this time, there is no getting away from it, the most expensive barristers in the business, pushing hard and fast, i would like to think, i hope i am relatively articulate and reasonably intelligent. but the speed at which you can be tripped up and tied the knot by a barrister on the stand, anyone who has been in court knows it is very intimidating. i simply did not want to be there. as presumably coleen rooney, and rebekah vardy at the moment. people whose lives have been dragged through the dirt like those two, i am sure you could have ended it before it began. i have not got a horse in this race. there is no doubt in my mind these are two women who did not before like each other, don't now and vote in the future. they started out and we were the genesis of this case and perhaps— the genesis of this case and perhaps we were used as a tool in part —

we have behaved with integrity by protecting anyone we have ever spoken to and will continue to do that and definitely at almost any cost. beyond that, if they want to tear strips off each other in a slightly ungodly soap opera, who am i to stop them? they have had any number of ample opportunities. and i do mean both of them, to come _ and i do mean both of them, to come to— and i do mean both of them, to come to the table and discuss this — we are talking about millions of pounds. it has been suggested online by onlookers perhaps that money could have been better spent. only rich people can do libel cases, i think. a lot of the details that came out have revealed pretty unseemly relationship between celebrities, agents, papers like yours. do you see what is coming out as damaging to your profession?

let's start with the very basics. i wish it had never come to what it has. it is not something i would ever have tried to orchestrate myself. what it demonstrates is that any notion that what appears in tabloid newspapers is not very often very well sourced and very well put together, if the suggestion is, and i am not, this will play out in court anyway, if the suggestion is if people believe we are talking directly to people intimately involved in football, music, other sports, film, whatever else, i would like to think that we are. i do not feel the suggestion that we speak to people intimately involved in any of the creative arts or sports that our readers are interested in, i make no secret about what i do, i am an entertainment, showbiz journalist, i go out frequently, go to parties, events, concerts, like to meet people. if i can form a relationship i always will. i hope the vast majority of the journalism we do is not

tawdry or voyeuristic but positive, engaging with our readers and the industry we are talking about. i do not think there is any shame in that. jim waterson, media editor at the guardian, maybe maybe sorry, maybe you do want _ maybe sorry, maybe you do want to — maybe sorry, maybe you do want to work at the sun next. maybe — want to work at the sun next. maybe they will give you a job after your brilliant coverage of the trial. what is your reaction to what simon has been saying? he has found himself in the position where he is the story. it has been an extraordinary exposure of howjournalism works and it is rare that you want to see how that sausages made. it is not a pleasant sausage in this case. i think there is one particular thing to take away from the trial, though there have been lots of salacious details, this is an example of millions of pounds being spent on something i do not think anyone one's time. in the same way our libel laws

can be used by rich people to fight on small things, who leaked a story or not, they can also be used to keep the secrets of russian oligarchs out of places, used... our courts are increasingly making it harderfor journalists to have libel cases... —— libel cases favour the rich who can afford to fight these cases. it who can afford to fight these cases. ., , ., ., . cases. it does favour the rich and powerful _ cases. it does favour the rich and powerful and _ cases. it does favour the rich and powerful and it - cases. it does favour the rich and powerful and it is - and powerful and it is importantjournalistic and powerful and it is important journalistic lien i said — important journalistic lien i said this _ important journalistic lien i said this before and i will say it again. _ said this before and i will say it again. if— said this before and i will say it again, if any of us as journalists found ourselves in a position to challenge safe disclosure and pressure from wealthy _ disclosure and pressure from wealthy people, in my case, to reveai— wealthy people, in my case, to reveal our— wealthy people, in my case, to reveal our source, or pressure in the _ reveal our source, or pressure in the case _ reveal our source, or pressure in the case ofjohn and many others — in the case ofjohn and many others to— in the case ofjohn and many others to keep their identity anonymous amongst something unpleasant or reader should be aware — unpleasant or reader should be aware of. — unpleasant or reader should be aware of, we need to take that opportunity ever every opportunity. the great shame is

the huge — opportunity. the great shame is the huge expensive involves. 0he — the huge expensive involves. 0he day— the huge expensive involves. one day in court and a couple of days — one day in court and a couple of days beforehand speaking with — of days beforehand speaking with lawyers and as i said earlier, _ with lawyers and as i said earlier, it would not surprise me of— earlier, it would not surprise me of our— earlier, it would not surprise me of our total bill ran into marry— me of our total bill ran into many thousands of pounds because _ many thousands of pounds because that is simply the sort of market— because that is simply the sort of market you are in with this sort — of market you are in with this sort of— of market you are in with this sort of stuff and that is dangerous. ifjustice is not available to most people and open — available to most people and openjust is not available to most — openjust is not available to most people we get into murky territory~ — most people we get into murky territory. the m3 case this week— territory. the m3 case this week is— territory. the m3 case this week is a _ territory. the m3 case this week is a good example of a constituent who has no idea that— constituent who has no idea that their mp is not accessible to them — that their mp is not accessible to them and not in a position to them and not in a position to help — to them and not in a position to help them with anything if they— to help them with anything if they have a problem and could still he — they have a problem and could still be continuing to engage with— still be continuing to engage with that very mp expecting something to be done and whether or not they would be told at — whether or not they would be told at the time i cannot help you at— told at the time i cannot help you at the moment, who knows? it is you at the moment, who knows? it is a _ you at the moment, who knows? it is a very— you at the moment, who knows? it is a very murky position for me and — it is a very murky position for me and i_ it is a very murky position for me and i think is a journalistic industry, tablets, broadsheets, broadcasters and otherwise, it is one we need to put together and stick to. do ou put together and stick to. you agree put together and stick to. drr you agree with that point? libel laws are made for celebrity? slightly strange situation. we have the issues affecting

the sun could also affect bloomberg. ironically could also affect coleen rooney's instagram account when she makes a journalistic allegation. because she bypassed the media. we all have to deal with the same issues and we all end up being held to the same standards. i think libel law in the uk is in need of another look, the extent to which it can be used to bully people around the edges. where in—house lawyers say we may not want to take the story on because of potential risk. it is important places like bloomberg thought to the supreme court on that one even though they lost because they at least managed to make a stand on that. that is it for today. thanks tojohn micklethwait, editor in chief at bloomberg, jim waterson, the guardian's media editor, pandora sykes, co—host of unreal reality tv podcast on bbc sounds. simon boyle, executive editor of showbiz at the sun. thanks for watching, goodbye.

nuisance rain will continue to linger over the next few hours, spilling in more cloud across was facing post as well and conditions "murky first thing on sunday morning. the conditions "murky first thing on sunday morning. the best of the clearest _ on sunday morning. the best of the clearest guys _ on sunday morning. the best of the clearest guys across - the clearest guys across central and southern areas and one or two local rural areas where we could see temperatures drop as low as five or six degrees. but there will be lovely sunshine here from bristol over towards norwich, anyway south and east of that will stay dry, settled sunny and warm. we keep a lot of low cloud out of the west with a few scattered showers, persistent rain lingering in the far north—west of the great glen. two temperatures here

around 11— i7 glen. two temperatures here around 11— 17 degrees but in the best of the sunshine could see highs of 23 celsius. it looks likely as we move into monday that the wind direction will change to more of a north—westerly with slightly cooler and a few scattered showers as well. that is it. take care.

good morning. welcome to breakfast, with sima kotecha and ben thompson. our headlines today: deadline day for partygate. those named in sue grey's report have until 5:00pm to respond ahead of its long—awaited publication this week. a city remembers, five years on from the manchester arena bomb that killed 22 people. the premier league title race will be decided today, but who will be celebrating? it is in manchester city's hands, but any slip—up and quadruple—chasing liverpool are waiting to pounce.