this is bbc news, the headlines: sri lanka's president will step down after protesters stormed the palace and set fire to the prime minister's house. hundreds of thousands of demonstrators descended on the capital, colombo, after months of protests of economic mismanagement. sri lanka is suffering high inflation and struggling to import food, fuel and medicine. voting is under way injapan�*s parliamentary elections, just two days after former prime minister shinzo abe was assassinated on the campaign trail. there are suggestions that it could be support for the governing democratic liberal party, of which shinzo abe was the leading statesman. and uk

chancellor nadhim zahawi has added his name to the uk leadership contest, joining a field of eight people, including two former health secretaries, sajid javid and jeremy hunt. now on bbc news, the media show. hello and welcome. now, a week is famously a long time in politics, and the day we recorded this edition of the media show will go down in history as one of the longest. it was wednesday afternoon that we went on air. boris johnson at that point was holding out, but minister after minister were resigning and we wanted to get a sense of how we'd got there, because the media is a central part of the story of borisjohnson. how power and politics intertwine with the media in this country is vital to understanding it. and we also need to look at how scoops about mrjohnson�*s

behaviour ultimately triggered his downfall. for that, we wanted to hear from journalists tasked with reporting events as they unfolded. and when news is breaking every few minutes, how do you cope with that? well, let's begin with kate mccann, political editor at talktv. well, it requires flat shoes, a lot of snacks in your bag and the ability to stay up late, get up early in the morning and pretty much never turn your phone off. in fact, one of the most important things is to have a phone charger in your bag, because on days like today, and pretty much the last couple of weeks, things happen really quickly. and it's quite difficult often to get a handle on how the mood changes. it just. .. it happens so fast. i mean, there's been a lot of disquiet around yesterday, before we saw those very significant resignations from the cabinet, in the house of commons among backbench mp saying, you know, "we've had enough." but i think the problem this time around is that there isn't necessarily one central team organising things.

it's quite disparate. so that makes it quite hard to track exactly what's happening and when. and you're talking to me from westminster. as you go through this afternoon, how do you decide what to do? what are your priorities, between talking to sources and perhaps publishing stories or going on tv or radio? how do you balance that? well, you try and map out where you think the most significant events of the day will come. so today, for example, prime minister's questions and then sajid javid's statement in the commons, and then this afternoon, in around half an hour's time — in fact, they're meeting now in private — the 1922 committee will be really significant because that could be where a rule change happens, which potentially might make it easier for the party to get rid of the prime minister. so you start by mapping out those, and then you try and work out who are the best people to be in touch with today. you touch base with them early in the morning. often, i have to say, before i've got out of bed, i've sent a few whatsapps to see where people

are going to be today. and then you keep calling people throughout the day and you hope that they answer. and often it's really difficult because things, as i say, move very quickly. this morning, for example, we know that michael gove spoke to the prime minister and suggested it might be time to leave. we know that, all afternoon, ministers, very senior cabinet ministers have been meeting here in westminster, talking about whether they should go en masse to make that point, whether or not they need to wait a little bit until after the 1922 to see what happens. so you just need to make sure that you've got the right points of contact to be in the right place at the end of the day and ultimately retain the ability to speak to those on the backbenches and get a bit of a broader view of where the party ends up when it's all said and done. well, i don't want to stop you doing that for too long. thanks very much indeed for speaking to us. i'll let you get back to it. that's kate mccann from talktv. let's also bring in eleanor langford, a lobby journalist with politicshome. eleanor, you have a different audience, differentjournalism products that you need to report for. tell me about how you are organising yourself this afternoon. well, on a day like today,

it's very similar to kate. i like what she said about flat shoes and snacks — cos we need a lot of that. one of the biggest aspects is continually talking to people and continually checking in with with sources and being in the right place at the right time. you know, i'vejust come from portcullis house, which is like the sort of lifeblood of parliament, sat there. mps will come over and talk to me and just give me passing bits of information. and i wouldn't get that if i was sat at home, you know, on whatsapp, on my phone. being there and being outside the room, being in the place is so important. you get those little titbits that you wouldn't get elsewhere. and in portcullis house, are mps talkative or do you have to persuade them to talk? on a day like today, they're a lot more talkative than they usually are. i think there is a sense that it doesn't really matter what they say because everything is... everyone�*s talking to everyone. but on a normal day, you might have to pull them aside, you might have to tap them on the shoulder. if you already know them, they mightjust walk over to you. but if it's someone you don't know, you might have to do a little work to get them

to come to you. well, thanks to you as well forjoining us. that's eleanor from politicshome. so those are some of the practicalities of how the media operates on a day like this in westminster. let's also understand how politics and those within it are using the different forms of media to play out their sides of the story on a day like this. michael crick is a political journalist and author. we're also joined by jane martinson, columnist and professor of financial journalism at city university, and byjoeyjones, who was a spokesperson for theresa may when she was home secretary. before that, he was a deputy political editor at sky news. and, jane, i wonder how you view, say, the few hours between 7.00, 9.00,10.00 in the morning today, where we had the broadcast rounds, we had resignations on twitter. it felt like those in the political sphere understood how to use the media to their ends. yeah. and i think what was clear, ros, as well today, and from last night as well, when both sunak and javid used twitter to release their resignation statements, that they also realise the power of social media and, obviously, the broadcast and the print media. i mean, it's been really interesting, particularly a story like this. i mean, we were talking earlier to say, you know, these are the kinds of days

when it's really hard not to want to be in the newsroom, not to want to sort of be following every twist and turn, cos it is one of the biggest political stories we've had for a long time, particularly about the prime minister. obviously, we could talk about brexit, but, you know, this has been an astonishing day. and, michael crick, if i could bring you in at this stage, how do you compare how political operatives use the media today with how they might have used it, say, when margaret thatcher was under pressure several decades back? well, it's so much more complicated these days. i mean, way back in 1990, when margaret thatcher fell, there were so—called lobbyjournalists. but, i mean, that would all be done literally within the members' lobby of the house of commons, where they were... journalists and politicians would meet. people didn't have mobile phones in those days. people weren't texting each other. there was no social media. you weren't looking out for what was on facebook or on twitter. it was a much simpler world, and alljournalists were working to...

well, printjournalists were pretty much working to one deadline, the evening or maybe the later editions as well. the broadcastjournalists might have one outlook, like i used to have with newsnight or channel 4 news, and it was such a simpler world. well, now, even if we work for a daily paper or we work for, say, channelli news, we're tweeting all the time, we're still trying to get out our snippets of information ahead of our rivals and just putting it on the record that we got the quotes first. so, it's so much more complicated, but it's also so much more exciting, and you feel you're right at the heart of events, right at the heart of history being made. and frankly, today and yesterday are... you know, i think that it is a historic period in politics that really compares with the fall of thatcher in 1990. i don't think we've had a day since then, but no doubt my colleagues will correct me and think of one that i haven't thought of. well, it's certainly

a highly significant day. whether it's the most significant will be something that i'm sure manyjournalists will pore over. but, joeyjones, if we listen to michael crick�*s description of how much more complex the media landscape has become, presumably, as you once were, if you're inside politics, if you're dealing with the media, it's become much more complicated for people in those roles, too. yeah. although, could ijust touch a bit from my l journalistic perspective? actually, there was a parallel when i was at sky news, - a period when there was . a succession of resignations under gordon brown. you had jacqui smith, then hazel blears, - thenjames purnell — - and had david miliband gone, then i think that gordon brown would have been done for. - and at that time, i was in a sort of vintage - period for 24—hour news, obviously, because i hadl an instant outlet in the way i that now has been completely democratised through twitter. so all they had to do i was ring me, and there was a perception that i was... and obviously sky newsl always wanted to be first

with the news, - ahead of the news. and i was able to credibly assert that over those - three days that were - very memorable for me. but i think it's great| that a really chaotic, unstructured event like the one today and social media - are just a perfect marriage. and, yes, it does... it does take me back. from the political side, - i think it just leaves people like borisjohnson's - advisers completely hapless. there's nothing they can do. theyjust don't know- where the next resignation is going to be coming from. they don't know whether anybody is telling them the truth - when they're talking to them on the phone or sending - round whatsapp messages. it must be... i think the only way _ they would get through it right at the moment is through a good dose of gallows humour. - now, let's understand what's happened in the last week from the media's perspective. jane martinson, if i can bring you in, this story began, it was broken by the sun newspaper carrying new allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the then—deputy chief whip, chris pincher. to what degree do you think the media has driven this story? to what degree do you think it's simply tapped into

a broader discomfort with boris johnson's leadership? well, i think that's a really good question, ros, because i think the whole thing... i would argue, and i think lots ofjournalists argue, that the media are there to hold the powerful to account, to follow the news. i mean, this story, this string of stories we've had, you know, the prime minister saying one thing and then it actually coming out that something else happened, sending out cabinet ministers who say one thing and then we find out, well, something else happened, i mean, that constant stream of stories over the last, well, i mean, two weeks — it feels like it's been several years. but, i mean, you know, it's been sort of incredible. so... and i think the fact that most papers, and i know we're probably going to talk about the daily mail, you know, since being elected with such a huge majority less than three years ago, the right—wing papers, as we would call them, the right of centre — you know, the telegraph,

where boris obviously was a very highly paid columnist for a long time, the mail — all of those papers, were all so, so positive about boris — and the sun, actually — until i think there's been such a drip of stories, again, following the news, that it's been quite difficult for them to keep slavishly supporting somebody who. .. we've had several examples of the public feeling that maybe this sort of... you know, whatever you think of boris, he'd sort of been elected — you know, that they had started to lose faith and trust. they were booing him at thejubilee celebrations. so it becomes a story. by the way, it was the bbc and the sun, wasn't it? i think ione wells, as well as the sun... you're quite right. my colleague ione wells followed up with the original sun story. she broke a further story three or so days later. i'm sure the newspapers you mentioned would push back at the idea they're slavishly

covering the prime minister in one way or another, but let's quickly run down how they've covered the events of the last 2a hours. the mail on sunday... sorry, if we go back to sunday, the mail on sunday ran a critical page. today, criticalfront page. today, the daily telegraph ran a column by lord frost, who negotiated brexit on behalf of borisjohnson. lord frost is calling for the prime minister to go. the daily express stayed on side. it said the resignation of rishi sunak was a potential for tax cuts. the front page of the mail today talks about mrjohnson as the greased piglet. and a mail editorial on monday said, "well, mrjohnson�*s the best man to lead britain." so we've been getting different messages from the mail across the last few days. but more broadly, michael crick, there does appear to have been an evolution in the position of the right—of—centre press. how do you explain that? well, it's inevitable. i mean, the right—of—centre press took the view that "we've

got to do everything we can to get borisjohnson elected, or re—elected," three years ago at the general election. and i think, gradually, they've realised that he doesn't stand for... he's not doing the conservative brand any good. he does not stand for many of the things that they believe in, particularly when it comes to issues such as family values, that his economic policies are not necessarily conservative, and they've become disillusioned... and that the incompetence and dishonesty and untrustworthiness of his government aren't the values that conservative newspapers espouse. and that's why they've gradually dropped him. in the case of the mails, well, it's complicated because, traditionally, the mail and the mail on sunday have not always taken the same line. we saw that on brexit three years ago. and of course, the problem is lord rothermere and his family that own the group don't necessarily agree with the line taken by the newspapers. and in the last few months, we'd seen the sort of moving about all over the place, in terms of their attitude towards the prime minister. you've got the bringing back of soon—to—be or now lord dacre, paul dacre. of course, he's, you know, traditionally a great believer in family values. never been a great

fan of borisjohnson. the position of the mail in this has been extremely complicated. and as somebody who worked, until a few weeks ago, in the periphery, occasionally, of the building, i still don't quite understand what's been going on there. but, yeah, certainly i think the desertion of the press, the desertion of borisjohnson by the right—wing press has been crucial in all of this, although, of course, a lot fewer people read newspapers than did, say, 20 years ago. but let's explore how the evolution of these positions occurs. jane, if i could bring you in again, when you study different publications, whether it's the daily telegraph or the mail or the sun, how do we assess the relationship between the readers, the editor and the owner in establishing, first of all, an original

position, but also deciding when that position needs to shift, as we've evidently seen in some cases in the last fortnight? ithink... obviously... michael's right, the sort of declining power of the press we've been talking about that for decades. however, the front page of a paper and the way that a paper writes about a big political story like this is massively important. still to this day, it dictates the broadcast agenda the next day and, in fact, the social media agenda. you know, you only have to google... you only have to look at the daily mail and boris on twitter. and it's... you know, it's nearly always trending. i would slightly disagree. ithink, again, michael's right. you know, when boris was elected and those papers that backed brexit, it was really significant that the papers absolutely

were team boris. and no—one working in newspapers were not aware of borisjohnson�*s... some of those family values that michael talked about, no—one at the daily mail, no—one at those papers were in any doubt about borisjohnson the human being. what i think is different is what we've seen in terms of managing the country — you know, how, actually, he has just told lies to the electorate. and that's where you get a problem because... and this is... i think the mail is where it's really interesting, because when a paper diverges so much from its readership, then you get something which we've had in the last three days, which is the front page of the mail on sunday completely different from the, you know, "actually, boris is the best man to lead britain", and then today, which is the "greased piglet" — "we're trying to hedge our bets." and i should say that number 10 and mrjohnson have

always denied lying, though they do accept that on several matters, they have said things which weren't true and then have corrected that. we're going to talk about the relationship between the number 10 press operation and the press in a moment with james ball, who's going to join us. but, joeyjones, i'd like to bring you in, because i've been talking about the evolution of the position of certain papers on notjust mrjohnson, but on politics more generally. but do you think there can actually be moments, high impact moments, say — i'm thinking back to michael gove�*s turning on borisjohnson back in 2016 — that can instantly shift where publications and people sit on a person or an issue? yes. and i tend to feel that that is l more what has happened here. i don't really buy the idea i that this has been some sort of gradual evolution, - where it's dawned on all these newspapers that the qualities that michael outlined there, i negative qualities associated with the prime minister, - actually make him unfit for their support. - i'm not sure... i mean, i give the sun. great credit, obviously,

for reporting the story- a little under a week ago, but i'm not sure they would i have necessarily anticipated it would lead to his downfall, his likely downfall, - in less than a week. the thing that has done i that is that borisjohnson was already in the l last chance saloon. he was already on his final warning, if you like, - and he just handled it cataclysmically over. the weekend. and the trigger was that he started sending out, | just with utter complacency, all these ministerial- colleagues and giving them . lines that they later found out were not true, so he was — and his operation was — . bluntly treating them with contempt. - that was the thing that changed the weather. i and i think that, yes, i the newspapers always like to say that they make . the weather, but i think that, here, they perceived _ that he had lost the confidence of his parliamentary - colleagues and that left them with no choice... and what's interesting is that you're describing how that's impacted his political relationships, but it's also impacted number 10's relationship with the press because, of course, number10

was briefing for several days that the prime minister didn't know about specific allegations concerning the former deputy chief whip chris pincher, and they've now acknowledged that he did. they say he'd forgotten about that. and, james ball, we've asked you to come on — you're global editor of the bureau of investigative journalism — because you've been writing specifically about this issue and saying that the way number 10 is able to brief the press needs to change because of what we've seen in the last few days. yes, i think specifically for this particular press team. i think if anybody�*s sort of brought down borisjohnson other than himself, it's probably his successive press operations. it's quite unusual to have flat out untruths said in politics. people will dodge a question, they'll sort of answer very specifically, they'll twist something, but straight up untruths are unusual. and when number 10 comes out with those, the people who say them don't get named. the sort of lobbyjournalists know who they are,

but by convention, they can't say it, and so the consequence for the individual — you know, they don't get attached to the falsehood. incredibly, sort of unfairly, cabinet ministers who go out and do the morning rounds might be told something and say it in good faith or broadcast tv, but their name gets attached to the lie. so i think the hope was... you know, ministers and mps were quite disappointed and annoyed that they'd been sent out to say there was no wrongdoing in number 10, there were no parties, there was none of that, and the press operation was changed, a new director of comms came in, and thenjust days after the confidence vote, you saw the new operation actually send people out on the morning rounds saying things that weren't true. and i think that's why the frustration�*s come so much. it's not actually over what pincher did. it's over how the reaction was the same. but here's the question. and, michael and joey, i'd like to put this to you — maybe michael first. does the system need to change?

or are the problems thatjames is describing, where untruths are being briefed to the press, perhaps that is a problem specific to the current operation in number 10? well, i mean, i'm not, you know, involved in reporting the news on a day—to—day basis these days. but i don't see that the system needs to change. ijust think that the culture needs to change. and you probably need a clearout, not only of the prime minister and his political aides, but probably some of the civil servants in number 10 as well. and you need to get back to a system where it is understood that you don't go around telling lies tojournalists, a, because it's morally wrong and, b, because it's going to get you into trouble. and you probably need a culture where people are much more willing to turn around and say, "well, boris — or prime minister — is that actually true?" and what's happened now is that people have been going out and basically telling lies on behalf of the prime minister, having already done so in previous episodes over the last few months.

and you would have thought that by now, there would be an element of revolt. and it will be interesting to see, when the diaries and memoirs are written, how much revolt there was to being willing to go out on the today programme or newsnight or whatever and come out with this stuff. i have to also say that, in a way, the media is a little bit guilty here, too, in that... and myself... i mean, many of us, probably all of us, heard rumours about chris pincher many years ago, and we didn't follow them up perhaps as assiduously as we should have done because it was complicated and we had to... you know, it was easier to do day—to—day stories. but let's not put the blame entirely on the government. we in the media do have a holding to account role, and that role continues with some of the appointments that have been made of actually looking into the pasts of some of these people and following up rumours and allegations that we've heard. and we need to be constantly vigilant in doing that.

joey, you were wanting to come in. sorry, jane. let me just bring joey in, and then i'll come to you, of course. well, look, what it feels like we're going to see, | with borisjohnson brought down by the events of the past few - years, suggests to me that, no, the system isn't broken. - this is an example of| proper accountability, where an issue comes to light, it's grievously mishandled - by the man at the top, and he has to pay thel consequences of that. where i've had an issue over the past few months, - as a formerjournalist particularly, is that, i very often, particularly around partygate and the sue gray. report, one has felt that proper accountability - would actually lead to - senior people, and indeed the prime minister, really, - genuinely taking responsibility in a way that didn't happen over quite a long period. . and i think it's perhaps fair that some journalists, - looking back on that period, might feel that they could . have held the mirror up to the prime minister. a little bit more forcefully. jane? i thinkjoey made some of the points i would have made. i would say, in response to michael, in a way,

that i think the press particularly has been too ready to turn the other cheek, to not really do it enough. but when push comes to shove, journalists are finding those stories. they are finding out. i mean, i would argue that the pincher story — you know, that could have been written about several months ago and nothing would have come of it. the actual story is that the prime minister said he knew nothing, and then a journalist found out that two years ago, he was the one who said, "pincher by name, pincher by nature." that's the important thing. that's the final straw, isn't it? and i think what seems to have happened — to me — is that over the past months or so, the press has probably been as a whole... i hate to say "the press", but manyjournalists have probably been too supine, whereas actually they are now doing theirjob at least, and you would hope they would do that of prime ministers and politicians of all stripes rather than just the ones that they don't particularly like. and actually, now, we have a prime minister that they are holding,

or trying to hold, to account. and i should say that line that you allude to, keir starmer asked the prime minister about that in prime minister's questions — he said, "yes or no, did you say it?" and the prime minister declined to give a yes or no answer. james, you began this section of the programme saying that the system needed to change. in different ways, joey, michael and jane have made a case that perhaps the media is functioning reasonably well in westminster. do you think perhaps the system doesn't need to change? i think there's been some very, very finejournalism done in the last few weeks, but there's been a lot of problems, too. and i think if you're a journalist, you're responsible if you spread on untruths to the public. now, the first time a source lies to you, that's on the source. the second time you let a source lie to you, especially without their name attached to it, i think that's on you. and you can report that someone�*s saying something, but their name should be next to it if you know they have a track record of speaking other statements that aren't true. and that's a really interesting area.

it'll be interesting to observe whether westminster journalists shift their position to the one that you're suggesting. james, we're going to leave it there. thank you very much indeed to you forjoining us. thanks indeed to all of my guests. of course, you can watch back editions of the media show on bbc iplayer. and you can receive many updates on british politics and british media through the bbc news website, too. that's it from me, though. from me, ros atkins, and the rest of the media show team, thanks for watching. see you soon. bye— bye. hello. away from some cloudy parts of north, north—west scotland, it'll be a widely warmer day on sunday with more in the way of sunshine around. some misty low cloud to begin in northern ireland, much of western scotland, north west england, north wales — a lot of that disappears, some patches linger around

the irish sea coast. but on the whole in the afternoon, it's a story of lots of sunshine. feeling warmer in scotland and northern ireland, low—to—mid 20s, mid—to—upper 20s in wales and england. up to 30 in south east england, somewhat cooler around the coasts with sea breezes kicking in. some of that low cloud just across north—west scotland again going into monday morning. saw some patches of it around the irish sea coast. the nights starting to get a touch warmer, as well. and, although during monday, we'll see some cloud increasing into scotland and northern ireland, there'll still be some very warm, sunny spells around. the sun might be hazy through wales and england on monday, but there'll still plenty of it, and it will feel even hotter. and for tuesday in south east england, it'll be hotter still.

good morning. welcome to breakfast, with rogerjohnson and nina warhurst. our headlines today: former health secretaries sajid javid and jeremy hunt throw their hats into the ring to become the next conservative leader. sri lanka's president flees as protesters storm his palace and set fire to the prime minister's house. a big day ahead at wimbledon for the men's final, history for elina svitolina as she becomes the first player from svitolina as she becomes the first playerfrom kazakhstan svitolina as she becomes the first player from kazakhstan to win a grand slam title. —— elena rybakina. and it's looks like it's shaping up to be a beautiful morning, but health alerts have been issued in parts of the uk.

we'll have the latest. good morning. the heat continues to