this is bbc news, the headlines... nearly 130 people have been killed in violence after a football game on the island of java in indonesia. police say there was a stampede after about 3,000 fans invaded the pitch and officers used tear gas to try to disperse them. around 180 people are being treated for their injuries in hospital. ukrainian forces have retaken a key town just one day after president putin declared it was now part of russia. lyman was a strategic target, used by russia as a logistics hub. russia's ministry of defence confirms its forces have withdrawn. a huge clean—up operation is underway in florida after hurricane ian. dozens of people are feared to have died, while many

thousands of properties have been destroyed. causeways linking many islands to the mainland have been damaged, cutting off entire communities. now on bbc news, the media show. hello and welcome to the media show. well, as i'm sure you've seen, these are tumultuous times for the uk economy, and this is a story that is as complex as it is important. and there are ways of getting the journalism right around this story, but there are also ways of getting the journalism wrong. we're going to look at that. we're also going to hearfrom a man behind a whole raft of scoops. gabriel pogrom from the sunday times will tell us how he lands his stories, and we're going to hear the story of fi glover and jane garvey leaving the bbc for times radio. we'll hear the story

according to their agent. but let's begin with the situation with the uk economy. here with me in the media studio is stephanie flanders, head of bloomberg economics, and we're alsojoined by paul lewis, the presenter of radio 4's money box. both of you, you're very welcome. stephanie, even forsomeone like you who's covered these matters for some time, this is a particularly challenging story to get across. yeah, and i think there's sort of a double challenge. i think the british people have always, through history, kind of struggled to understand the importance of the pound changing value if they're not immediately about to go on holiday, and we did start this week hearing about the pound hitting all—time lows. but there's been a sort of another major part of the uncertainty — probably the more important part of the uncertainty in the market this week — which is this big run from uk government debt. and the moment i start talking about gilts and bonds and yields going up, that does become... you start getting into more

technical territory that people don't understand, even though it actually means mortgage products are being taken away, taken off the shelves, and people's mortgage rates are going up. well, here's the question. should journalists even be using those phrases? it's been noticeable in the last few months that inflation has largely been replaced by cost of living, because clearlyjournalists have decided that's an easier phrase to take in. i think there are times when it's easier to talk about squeeze, talk about cost of living. i think even when it comes to the pound, i think you... i find myselfjust saying the world's got a lot more expensive because that gets across what's at the heart of it. the problem with this dynamic in the government debt market is, i think people do have to have some kind of understanding that if international investors are becoming less, you know, more concerned about britain's economic future, about the path the government's taking it on, how much borrowing it's got in store, and charging more to lend to the uk government, that — we do have to start

teasing out the implications of that. so yields — well, it's interest rates. that is borrowing costs not just for the government but also for the rest of us. and, paul, i guess yourjob along with the money box team is to try and connect these macro issues — the price of the value of the pound, the cost of borrowing for the government — with the experience of individuals and the lives they're leading. yes, and that can be difficult. and i thinkjournalists, they tend to worry about mortgages cos i think most journalists probably have them. but you have to remember, only about less than one in three people actually have a mortgage. so if mortgage rates rise, it will affect some people. it'll affect some people now, it'll affect about another million, a couple of million in a yeah _ it won't affect most people even with mortgages. so you have to be careful about saying, "oh, this is a disaster for mortgages." you can say mortgage rates will go up because the bank rate is going up. but every term you use — whether it's gilt, bank rate, inflation — you have to explain it.

i remember when i first did wake up to money on radio 5 live a long time ago, i would never say "the ftse 100" without saying "that's the index that shows the price of shares in our 100 biggest companies". and i said it day after day after day, and the producers got fed up with it. i said, "look, somebodyjust started listening today. they haven't a clue what the ftse is." and even that explanation is a bit shorthand, but it helps people understand the importance. and as for the intervention by the bank of england today, i did hear one hapless journalist trying to explain what was going on as he was reading the statement. and, i mean, i don't blame him at all — he couldn't do it, it was completely impenetrable and he made a very good go at it but i don't think anybody knew, except the bank of england had done something very unusual for a very good reason, but we weren't quite sure what it was! well, i'm very sure i've been in that situation myself many times. i suppose the question is, how do newsrooms, how do news organisations cope with stories like this when the majority of their journalists won't be specialists, they will be generalists,

and suddenly a story of this complexity and importance lands on them and they're the ones responsible for explaining it? stephanie? i mean, if i go back to my sort of past life as bbc economics editor, i mean, there are those moments during the global financial crisis and other times where, you know... or the bank of england decides... you know, "quantitative easing" was also pretty difficult to explain, but that is why you have those specialistjobs and you try and do as many explainers as you can, both publicly and indeed internally. you know, we used to — as you know — we have seminars before the budget to say "this is what to look out for", "here are the key numbers that you need to look at". i think that is why, you know — not to be too kind to the bbc — but that is the importance of having those kind of specialist jobs. you've got faisal islam rocking up on the ten o'clock news, the six o'clock news, world at one, today programme, talking people through and explaining people again and again what a bond is. but it also means doing the arithmetic. i mean, the macro stuff in the budget and indeed

in the statement the other day, it goes over most people's heads. they don't really understand why it's important. but if you tell them, you know, you're going to save some tax but it's only going to be around 150 quid a year, then they start listening. if you tell them that, "oh, great, stamp duty has been cut if you want to buy a house," then you say, "but it's only £2,500 for most people," then they realise that these interventions of the government and maybe not quite so major. and then of course you have people coming on saying, "0h, yeah, but the tax cut at the highest rate — that will save somebody on {1,000,000 a year £55,000!" and then people start taking notice of that. and i think the arithmetic is key, and i always prepare budgets with a spreadsheet, so i've got those figures to hand. and otherwise you're relying on treasury press releases to give the figures and i am absolutely not saying treasury press releases are inaccurate, but... they are true, but very misleading at times. and you have to get through that misleading stuff to tell people what's really going on. they do say that the economist�*s most important

superpower is the ability to count, and you have to just keep remembering that, really, you're there to count and to keep the arithmetic going. but even if... abacus economics — abacus watching, as liz truss famously called it. but one last question for you. even if you've wrestled the macro concepts into something we can all understand, even if you've done the numbers behind that, so we understand how it impacts on our individual lives, is there a risk that, in doing that, you take a position on whether a development is a positive or a negative? because there isn't necessarily always agreement that what the markets are doing is necessarily a good or a bad thing. i think even the financial journalist can often tie themselves in knots — and this happens to me, at bloomberg — you'll actually have what looks like a rather mystifying market reaction to something. and then they will seek explanations when potentially the markets have just done something which — you know, investors as a group have done something which isn't entirely comprehensible, according to standard economics. so i think there is a risk that you impose a story

sometimes where there isn't a story there. but i think you can still be true to, you know, what the majority of economists are saying or what the tradition — for example, in the case of the recent growth plan for the government — you know, it was just objectively very different from the previous policies of conservative governments, especially the george osborne era after after 2010. and one could say that, and one could point to why financial markets might find it surprising, they might worry about the lack of costing attached to it. i think all of those things are worth saying without taking a strong position. yes, i mean, it's not so much taking a view, but i have to say, if the majority of economists say one thing and a few minority ones who've always said the opposite for a long time, say another — yes, you have to say that, but, you know, two views are not of equal value. just because one person says black and one person says white does not mean it could be black or white. you have to give the emphasis

to the majority view of people who traditionally have been right and have been sensible. and, again, to come back to tax cuts, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "well, they'll encourage growth," the chancellor believes they'll encourage growth, but for most ordinary people it'll be a couple of hundred quid. how will that encourage growth? and i think that's a perfectly reasonable point of view to take. just before i let you both go, is there just one thing that you think, "please, newsjournalists, get this right this week"? is there one thing that you're watching and listening and thinking, "no, we need to get this across better"? i think the most important thing, which i think does go to a thing that is difficult for everyone to understand — which is the dynamics of a bond. and i won't go into it but when you have... we had the fall in the pound and people sort of may or may not understand that. the the rise in the government's borrowing costs — we know that — we potentially know that that means higher spending, you know, higher costs for the government down the road, and also higher mortgage rates for people who have mortgages. but the flip side of it is

all those government bonds which are sitting — gilts — sitting in pension funds, in insurance companies, in people's isas — many, many people have a big chunk of their savings in those assets. and what has happened in the last few weeks is their value has gone down dramatically. from the start of the year, they've gone down by a third. i think when people look at... those of you who... those people who do have occupational, defined contribution pensions with their... i'm sure money box is going to be explaining this — but all of those assets have gone down by a third and i think we tend to think, "0h, higher interest rates, that'll be good for savers." well, in the end, it might be betterfor savers who are doing new savings now, but the people who had things locked away in those assets have just had a massive hit. just briefly for me, paul, if you would? i would pick a different topic, to be honest, because this weekend we're concentrating on the rise in fuel bills on saturday. and, you know, they have not been frozen — they won't be £2,500 for everybody — and those are common misconceptions that we will be debunking on saturday. they are frozen from saturday, but on saturday they go up, and that's where they're

going to be frozen. and £2,500 is not a cap. yes. your bill could be much higher or much lower, and that hasn't always been got over properly. the energy cap that isn't a cap. paul, we'll get more details on that from you and the money box team on saturday on radio 4. stephanie flanders, head of bloomberg economics, thanks very much indeed to you, too. now, our next guest who's here in the studio with me is a journalist who's currently so prolific that his scoops are in danger of becoming part of the nation's weekly routine. more often than not recently, on a saturday night or a sunday morning, you may become aware of a story from gabriel pogrom. he's the whitehall editor of the sunday times and, well, i could list a long — give you a long list of stories he's broken. go back tojuly, he told us about then—prince charles securing money from 0sama bin laden�*s half—siblings despite the objections of palace aides. last year, he won a british journalism award for anti—corruption reporting, in part for his work on david cameron and lex greensill. if you remember those cameron texts to rishi sunak,

what we know about them, thanks to gabriel. and then in the last few weeks there was the scoop that liz truss' chief of staff mark fullbrook had been interviewed as a witness by fbi agents investigating an alleged criminal plot to bribe a puerto rican politician. and then we learned, courtesy of gabriel, that mr fullbrook had been paid — was being paid — via his private lobbying company, not as a civil servant — something that has now changed. i should say, in both cases, mr fullbrook denies doing anything wrong. but let's meet the man behind the sunday scoops. hi, gabriel, thanks for coming in. that was... i couldn't have dreamed of a more generous introduction. you're going to be very popular with my mum and dad this evening. well, if they're listening, hello to them, and it's all entirely factually correct — you're on quite a run. let's talk about the mark fullbrook fbi story. how did that one come together? this was a weird one of a story and circumstance aligning in quite serendipitous fashion. we were interested in reports

that the fbi were investigating a venezuelan—born italian citizen based in mayfair, over claims that he had channelled money into the us—administered island of puerto rico. and the reason why we at the sunday times became interested in this was twofold. the first was that the man in question, julio herrera velutini, was a party donor — how does a venezuelan—born italian citizen donate to the tories? and, two, why is the fbi looking into him in an american territory? we also heard that ct group — a well—known lobbying firm, very active in westminster — had been consorting with this velutini character. and i've got to say, much of investigative journalism nowadays — i mean, i'm sure this has always been the case, but i think we feel this very acutely in the newsroom right now — much of what we do

involves dealing with lawyers — both our lawyers at the sunday times and the lawyers of — maybe our adversaries isn't the right word — but for legal reasons, we never managed to publish anything. it was only months later when ct group's director, mr mark fullbrook, became chief of staff in downing street, that we thought... "do you remember that name coming up a while ago?" and in the intervening period, charges had been brought, indictments had been unsealed, and the reporting environment became much, much easierfor us. and i wonder, as you deliver scoop after scoop on a sunday, do those scoops become easier in some ways because people come to you, because they associate you with someone who can give a story impact? um... in some respects, working at a sunday paper is a most kind of anxiety—inducing experience because you're there every day, restrained on six days, only... you can stage an intervention kind of once a week. and it means sometimes that you've done an impactful story

and you're getting all these tips and intelligence and you know that you're not going to be able to... doesn't that feel a bit out of date? you know what? i'm sure your editor's not listening — you can tell us. yeah, well, what i would say, as a good corporate citizen, but genuinely, this is the case — is that on one hand, it's difficult, cos you can't kind of unburden yourself when you want to all the time. 0n the other, this is a kind of unique privilege of everybody else is running this daily sprint and we run a weekly marathon and have time to kind of consider and shape the stories we're working on. and it actually structurally encourages people like me to think beyond what is happening on a daily basis. i mean, i can't step into that daily hamster wheel, so i have to think about things that have a shelf life of at least a week, which is probably why, for decades, the sunday times and other sunday papers have had this kind of distinct role in our media landscape. presumably, the flip side of not being on the hamster wheel, though, is that you feel a pressure come sunday

or come saturday night — which is when we often see your stories appear — to deliver. absolutely. i mean, you know, it is a blessing, but it's not one to which all journalists are entitled. and, i mean, you have to sort of... i think sunday papers have to earn their right to kind of play this unusual role of only opening their mouths once a week. and, you know, as a human being, you know, if you don't get anything in a paper on a given week, then sunday, full—blown existential crisis, you know... you're only as good as your last story, but sunday you're thinking, is that the last story i'll ever write? and i suppose that can be the locomotive of your productivity, as well. and inside the sunday times, is there a culture from your editors and your colleagues that scoops matter — perhaps scoops matter the most? i mean, stephanie was talking earlier about the importance of explanation and of explainers. of course, journalism comes in many forms. is scoop — are scoops still the pre—eminent form in your newsroom? i mean, it's really interesting. so, sunday times, one of a number of publications that has a paywall, so we don't

just want reach — i mean, it's sort of good for our prestige and our public interest role when scoops get followed up and widely reported. but we also want to serve our readers and, you know, once upon a time, the metric of a decent story was whether it was discussed on the andrew marr show or whether it got on the front page. now we have these terrifying acronyms like dti — our dwell time index — which... dwell time index! everyone listening is jotting that one down. yeah, absolutely. that acronym basically denotes whether people are making it to the end of our stories. i mean, we often feel like we're doing things that are important, but occasionally, you know, we'll dedicate a lot of column space or pixel space to a piece and it transpires the readers don't necessarily care as much as we'd like them to. so dti — sounds a bit like a completion rate on a video. same thing, i guess. absolutely. it's that same — that kind of data—driven approach. well, thanks for coming in.

can you tell us what's coming next? ithink my... our lawyers at times newspapers ltd would be very angry at me if i said anything now, but stay tuned. nice to see you, thanks for coming in. thank you. appreciate it. there's gabriel pogrom — whitehall reporter, correspondent for the sunday times. now, to finish off today's edition of the media show, we're going to turn to one of the big stories of the week, because on saturday, we heard that jane garvey and fi glover were leaving the bbc for times radio. now, for almost all of you listening, you don't need me to tell you who fi and jane are — in different ways, they've been giants of 5 live and then radio 4. no more, though — they're shifting across to times radio and so theyjoin quite a list — jon sopel, emily maitlis, andrew marr, lewis goodall, vanessa feltz, simon mayo, mark kermode — and if we go back a little further, eddie mair, chris evans, john pienaar and others — all of whom have departed the bbc�*s tv and radio output. so let's understand how these deals happen,

and the calculations that are involved. we're joined by sue ayton, who's fi and jane's agent — also co—founder of knight ayton management, which represents a whole raft of the biggest names in broadcasting. and we're joined by megan carver — founder and managing director of carver pr, which does publicity for some of the biggest names in broadcasting. megan and sue, thanks for being with us on the media show. sue, i've got to start with you. tell us how it happened. well, we did this because it was a return to live broadcasting, which is their roots, their first love, and they were really being under—used at the bbc, even though they had this huge podcast, which, as we know, has downloaded millions over the last few years. they had a yearn to get back to broadcast. and times radio very cleverly identified them as this magical duo who needed to be back broadcasting daily.

and that's really where it started. we had had other offers, but those other offers were podcast—based, and this wasn't about taking a podcast from the bbc that had been hugely successful and transporting it somewhere else — this was about them going back to what they had always done, which was live broadcasting, and they hadn't been doing a great deal of that over the last few years. and so that was really what drove this. some people listening might be surprised to hear that and think, "well, didn't the bbc want to offer them more live broadcasting?" well... good question — you should put that to the bbc, maybe! they had been working on other programming, but there wasn't enough of it, to be honest. the podcast was extremely successful. jane had another series called life changing, but across the year there wasn't a great deal of live broadcasting, and that's really what they wanted to do. and because the podcast with the two of them together had worked so well, the times wanted to make the most of that and put them

together doing daily news, which is where they started. i should say, before we go any further, that fortunately the podcast will continue on the bbc until the end of the year. it will. we also invited the bbc to take part in this discussion. i'm interested from your point of view, though, sue — here you are, one of the best—known broadcasting agents in the country, you've got two of the best—known stars on your books and an option of leaving the bbc after many years comes up. what position do you take? do you advise them to do one or the other, or do you... how does that... how does that relationship work? well, you have to look at, overall, the family commitments, the lifestyle. obviously, the financial implications and considerations are important, but you have to look at... this was two people at the same time, so it was more complex! at this moment in time, what is right for their career, what do they want to do? this was an exciting idea thatjust grew and grew, and it took many months to pull together. and they were very sad to leave the bbc and it's very

hard to leave the bbc. i have worked with other people that have been at the bbc — moira stuart, for example, that have had her whole career at the bbc. and to leave is very difficult — it's like leaving home. what i have to do, if it is the right thing that we have decided we are going to leave — in moira's case, it was because she was going to classic fm and it was a whole new life for her and has proven to be the right move. yes, it's a big responsibility because it's someone�*s livelihood — it's their career, it's their mortgage. it's all of those things you've been talking about earlier. but if they've made their decision and you know it's the right thing to do, what i have to do is make sure we carry that through and we don't get pulled off in different directions with people saying, "well, why don't you do this, why don't you do that?" if it's the right thing to do and the circumstances are right — and the finances are part of that, but it's not... it can't be driven by that. there's lots of factors that have to come in, and i have to keep a cool and steady head. well, in this case, you got the deal done.

fi and jane are moving across to times radio. megan, i'd like to bring you in here. you would have heard that long list of big bbc stars i said have left in recent years. do you think that's just normal moving and shaking within the media, or is there something else going on here? i think it's normal. i think it's a bit of normal moving and shaking in the media. ithink... i think what happens is that, when people leave something in the media, because they're well—known names, people get really, really excited about it. but, actually, it's not unusual for people to change jobs, and many people in many industries change jobs and it's never seen as a big deal. what happens when it's someone in the media, because they're household names, we create this real excitement around it and we think, oh, there's got to be this big drama, people have got to be really angry, people are really unhappy. there's a lot of speculation that there's huge dramas and people running around corridors panicking. but, honestly, in my experience, it is a series of adult conversations without dramas that's based on many factors. but do you think those factors that you referenced there have changed? yeah.

for example, tv and radio presenters — state the obvious — used to primarily sign up to present tv and radio programmes. yeah. but now there's intellectual property, there are live events, there's a... there's a broader range of factors here, aren't there, megan? there are, you're absolutely right. there are so many more options. so if you go back... even four or five years ago, if you're a speech broadcaster in the uk, your options really were fairly minimal. you were basically at the bbc or maybe kind of one commercial. but there are more options than ever before. you know, just... i mean, just in radio — lbc is now national, there's times radio, we've got talkradio. and then of course there is podcasts. and what podcast offers presenters is a new global audience, it offers them the chance to take shows on tours and go into that live... that live arena, that's real fun. and i'm just going to bring in sue because i'm short on time here. sue, do all of those factors mean that perhaps being outside the bbc is a simpler experience, because you can do these things without. .. with fewer obstacles, perhaps?

well, if someone�*s in current affairs — news and current affairs, wherever they are, rules are in place — so there's certain things they can and can't do and we have to abide by them. so it's... yes, you can look at opportunities, but people are allowed to do things within the bbc, depending on what their role is and what part of the bbc they work in. so it doesn't close everything off, but when people want to leave the bbc, very often the bbc will say, "well, you owe your career to us." whereas, actualfact, the people owe their career to a number of things — that they've worked very hard all their life and they had to have been at the bbc and then they want to break free and they should be allowed to do so. but it's not an easy decision for anyone, and it's certainly not breaking free necessarily means someone�*s going to earn pots of money in all different ways because it's not as simple as that — it's certainly isn't, it's much, much tougher and harder. sue, i'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there. thanks to you, megan, as well, forjoining us, and of course to our three

other guests, as well. but that's it for this edition of the media show. thank you very much indeed for watching. we'll be back at the usual times on the bbc news channel next week. hello. a slightly different focus to the weather on sunday. whereas saturday was a day of sunshine and showers, for sunday many will be dry, but not all. i'm sure your eyes are drawn to this frontal system sliding its way eastwards across the south of england and south wales. and through sunday morning that will be bringing some heavy rain to south west england, some rumbles of thunder, too. that rain also extending across into south east england, potentially a little bit into south wales and the south midlands. and we could see some patchy rain for a time for the london marathon — particularly through the morning.

as the day wears on, that rain will tend to pull away southwards and maybe some late spells of sunshine for the late finishers. but as that rain pulls away, actually, for much of the uk, sunday is a fine and dry day with spells of sunshine. still some showers to watch out for — particularly for western scotland and the northern isles, maybe later in the day for the north west of northern ireland. where we've got the sunshine, temperatures in the mid—to—high teens — up to 17 or 18 celsius at their highest. the winds not as strong as they have been, but still quite noticeable for the western and the northern isles. could also see some stronger gusts for a time for southern coastal counties associated with that band of rain, which continues to pull away southwards through sunday evening. most of the showers will fade and, actually, for much of the uk dry and clear, but with some cloud pushing back into northern ireland ahead of some rain on monday. but under clear skies, could be quite a chilly night for england and wales, with temperatures down to four or five celsius. we start the new week with an area of high pressure in charge for much of england and wales, but this frontal system bringing outbreaks of rain and some stronger winds into northern ireland and scotland. so northern ireland seeing

the rain first through monday, then pushing its way eastwards, getting into scotland around midday and then into the afternoon. but for much of england and wales, it stays dry with some good spells of sunshine — although northern england likely to see more cloud. in the sunshine across england and wales, temperatures getting up to 18 or 19 celsius. where we've got the rain across scotland, more like 13 or 1a celsius. and we've still got that area of rain across scotland and northern ireland on tuesday. area of high pressure drifting away southwards, so some of that rain likely to move into wales and northern england on tuesday. by and large, most of the rain in the week ahead will be for scotland, northern ireland, northern england and wales. drier conditions with some sunshine further south and east. that's all from me.

good morning. welcome to breakfast with rogerjohnson. 0ur headlines today: a man's been charged with the murder of nine—year—old 0livia pratt—korbel in liverpool. liz truss's first party conference as prime minister gets under way, where she will try to rally support for her controversial economic plans. late goals in the premier league saw drama for liverpool and chelsea. a 90th—minute winner for graham potter's side gave the chelsea boss his first win, but liverpool drop down the table as they draw with brighton.

lam iamat i am at the start line of the london marathon _