this is bbc news, the headlines cop27 talks have been extended as countries argue over compensation for poorer countries who have suffered loss and damage from global warming. a new proposal from the united states and the eu has been circulated as discussions continue. the founder of theranos, elizabeth holmes, has been sentenced to more than eleven years for defrauding investors. her company claimed to have produced a medical device which could diagnose a wide range of conditions from a blood sample. qatar has announced a ban on alcohol in world cup stadiums two days before

the tournament starts. majorsponsor, budweiser, had a multi—million—dollar deal with the organiser, fifa, to sell its products at all venues. now on bbc news. the media show hello. how should journalists cover climate protests? the climate conference cop, 27, ended this week, but you might have seen more about the activists who threw oil on a gustav klimt painting in vienna, or the protesters who brought the m25 to a standstill in an era of apparently increasing direct action. what's the media's role? and by giving the latest stunt publicity, is it fanning the flames? i'm joined by cameron ford, who's a carpenter and a spokesperson for insulate britain and rich filegate, a documentary maker

who was arrested last week while filming at a just stop oil protest. also here, wolfgang blough, who left his top job at conde nast and co—founded the oxford climate journalism network. danny shore, who used to be a bbc home affairs correspondent, he's now free to say what he really thinks. and fiona harvey, the guardian's environment correspondent, who's at cop 27 in egypt and hasjust left a session to get on the phone and talk to us. fiona, what's the mood amongstjournalists? have your stories been cutting through on the front pages this week? well, the mood is pretty grim here, actually. last week, we had the world leaders arrived. there was great fanfare. you know, they had great things to say. it was all hugely interesting. what's happening now is that it's a lot of men in suits gathered in windowless rooms, just poring over pages of text, deciding what to do about a semicolon here and a phrase there. it's it'sjust a grind. now, these negotiations and what does it mean for whether the stories

are getting out then? well, for the guardian, we have a commitment to put the climate crisis on the front page of our website every day, and we also cover it very deeply in print. so, we're still covering it. we're still here in london a lot. but i think for my colleagues in other newspapers, it's very, very difficult. 0k. well, we'll come back to you in a bit, fiona, but let's talk first about what happened last week with the arrests of three members of the media alongside protesters by hertfordshire police on the m25. the media three were later released without charge. yesterday, the national union ofjournalists joined civil rights groups to call for an independent review into policing powers and the public order bill, which is currently going through parliament. rich felker, you were one of those arrested from the media. what's the latest? have the police apologised to you? i'm still waiting for an apology. okay. are you expecting one? we'll see. we will see.

just to recap, so you were filming on a footbridge opposite the gantry where the protesters were. what happened ? why were you arrested? yeah. so, i was filming on a in a public space away from where the protest was actually happening on, on the gantry. and as soon as police arrived and closed the road, then i heard them point up to the bridge and say detain them, directed to me and another press photographer that was there. and straight away they came up to us and just put handcuffs on us, no interaction or discussion about what we were doing. they weren't interested in seeing press cardsjust straight away, trying to get us out of the area and to stop what we were doing. and how long were you held? about 13 hours. wow. 0k. and then released without charges. i said, how did you know to be on that footbridge at the time? i mean, had you been tipped off that this protest was going to happen? yes.

so, journalists have sources. otherwise, we wouldn't we wouldn't know about these protests. and were you surprised by being arrested? i mean, did it feel unusual? so, this is the second time i've been arrested whilst filming a just stop oil protest. so, frankly, iwasn't surprised at all. okay, it feels like. 0k. it feels like. where there's so much media attention around the just the oil protests and that, you know, perhaps there's a, there's this trend of arresting journalists at the moment. it feels like this is kind of almost a tactic by the police to make the protest less effective. we've heard the hertfordshire police and crime commissioner saying that criticizing the media for kind of giving the protest oxygen. yeah. i was going to come on to that. absolutely. i mean, and i'd like to say the national police chiefs council, of course, said journalists

have a right to report on any form of protest. so, they were taking a slightly different view from that. but do you think the lines are a bit more blurred in that kind ofjournalism rather than other more traditional types of journalism, perhaps? well, with documentary filmmaking and especially this kind of style of long term, following the the people involved and kind of getting deeper into the story, just it's essential to to not only report on the scene, but to kind of. build. trust. gain. gain access to be able to. held such a close story. and i think it's. it'sjust an essential part of a kind of wider ecosystem of of reporting. it's only possible to kind of really authentically portray what these protesters are doing and why they're doing it and how they're doing it with filmmakers who are using this kind of medium of spending time with them, getting closer to the. to what they're doing, i suppose just. is it difficult, then, do you think, for the police to tell the difference

between a protest that and a journalist these days when everybody has cameras, everybody has phones. it's difficult to tell who's a journalist and who's not. all they have to do is ask. which they didn't, do you say? is that right? they didn't. right. 0k. well, let me bring in someone who actually takes part in this kind of protest. cameron ford is from insulate britain. let me just play you a clip that you might have already heard of him on talk radio with mike graham from last year. what do you do for a living, cameron? i'm a carpenter. a carpenter? right. so how safe is that for the climate? while i work with timber, which is a much more sustainable material rather than concrete. i also work with trees that have been cut down, then done. you. it's a sustainable building practice. how is it sustainable if you're killing trees because it's regenerative? you can grow trees, right?

well, you can. you can grow all sorts of things you. well, you can't grow concrete. you can. see you, cameron. cheerio. well, that is the interview. but after the broadcast, it got many millions of views on social media and continues to. cameron, when you hear that again, what do you think? oh, what a shame that that we have to endure such idiocy in our media spaces. i mean, it really is. it's crazy. he still has a platform. really? is that how you see it? i mean, do you think despite, you know, the way the interview went, would that be counted as ultimately a successful media appearance for you? i mean, what's your rationale when you decide who to do an interview with? yeah, i mean, off the back of that, i think a lot of people realised what we're up against. he clearly had his agenda for how he wanted the interview to go. just, you know, drilling into what i do for a living. i can only imagine the sorts ofjobs or notjobs that he was hoping that i had

that he could pick me apart for. so it did shine a light on what we're up against and they will just say whatever they want to to undermine us and belittle us and not really open up an actual conversation about, you know, why we do such, such things. i mean, there's certainly a sense that, i don't know, some people are potentially looking for a reaction and perhaps seen to make good television. i mean, in september, piers morgan had a big mac in front of a vegan activist. i've watched you on gb news get drawn into shouting matches with laurence fox. why do these interviews? i mean, if we if we only take the guardian interviews and we're on page one of the guardian, we're not going to really we're not going to it's not going to cut it. we're not going to change public perception on the most existential crisis that we've ever faced as a civilisation like it is mega. and if we just allow these shockjock right

wing broadcasters to just sort of. belittle the crisis, which they do in every single way that they can in all of their shows and all with all their presenters. you know, some of them are just atrocious and clearly, clearly paid for by the fossil fuel industry. although i suppose some of them are also putting a point, which is by doing these protests, there were people who missed their father's funeral or didn't get to their cancer appointment. they are putting the side of many people in britain who feel, yes, they may be in favour of of sorting out the climate, but they're also thinking that this isn't the right way to do it. sure. i mean, that is the only side that i've ever heard them want to talk about when i've gone into these spaces. i mean, that that we can talk about for maybe a minute and we can if they want to drill down, we can explain why we're doing why we're using these tactics, you know, the concept of the radical flank. and that actually by

being disruptive and more visceral like we are, we actually broader movements that want the same thing. you know, other movements like greenpeace or the green party gain popularity. and so, there is a lot of social science behind why, why we do what we do, but we never really get to talk about that. and clearly, your clip went viral. lots of clips around this do go viral. does it, do you get a sense? i don't know. are you conscious when you go on to these programmes that do you get the do you get a feeling that actually the aim is to wind you up so that you they will get something to go viral? is that is that how you perceive it? i don't know. i'm i think i'm a bit ofan optimist. i think each time ijust hope that actually we'll have a proper conversation. i and that there is there is potential for that in all of these. i mean, they are human. they have got deep down they've got fear, too,

about about our planet changing with the climate so rapidly. and they have children and loved ones. and i know that even though their their whole angle is to anger, they're also human beings who have got complex emotions around this really tricky situation we find ourselves in. and genuinely, i want to open that up with them. well, i've got wolfgang blough in the studio here, as i said. cameron's talk radio interview went viral and now that clip has an advert on it, which presumably makes money. is the current vogue wolfgang for direct action actually good good business for the media industry do you think. media likes events, and that is a big challenge for all. - climate journalism is - when you ask a typical news desk editor who decides - what to put on or what to put on a front page if they'rel still printing and you say, what are the filters? how do you pick this topic and not this? i initially, they willjust brush you off and say, well, -

it needs to be relevant, - but then when you really have time with them, they say, | "well, it needs to be new, "it needs to be close - to where my audience lives." and ideally, if there is an event or a person angle, and ideally, if there - is an event or a person angle, it's easier to get it on the news and it needs to be simple. so these kinds of protests, they deliver an event - and you see the same in how the media, the news media i covers cop currently, - especially as as fiona said earlier, now we're in - the nitty gritty of week two and discussing formulations. and now you see an increasing number of stories about - the food at cop or at sewage spills or any little event, - only to not look at something. that isjust much more complex. so i think news media in general is better. at covering events than i than covering processes. and so events - or stunts are yes, are easier to cover- forjournalists, especially if they have very little - actual climate knowledge. just i would like to bring in danny shore at this point. interesting. you know, obviously,

we were talking earlier about whether the lines are blurred betweenjournalism and activism these days, butjust the specific one. if a journalist has knowledge of a protest, which is likely to be against the law, what obligation do they have to call the police, do you think? i don't think they've got an obligation to call the police. kate, you know, they are there to report what's going on. and if they get a tip off, which means that they're in position, you know, ahead of the protest or ahead of the event, then good luck to them. that's a journalist using their sources well and being ahead of the game. i think what happened to the three journalists being arrested by hertfordshire police was frankly disgrace. and, you know, it was it was a bad day for policing when that happened. we've seen it happen occasionally at protests before, but for three journalists to be arrested by one police force does indicate that something was going wrong, systemically. and can you see how it happens?

can you see how in the days where it used to be, the case thatjournalists or broadcastjournalists carried cameras and nobody else did? but obviously now everybody�*s got a camera. but then you may well have heard, which was talking about, you know, they didn't even ask. you know, they would have been able to tell you as a journalist if they'd had had a look at his press card sort of thing. yeah. i mean, itjust doesn't make sense at all. it's so easy. i mean, there is this system by which reporters, journalist news gatherers carry a uk press card. it's accredited, it has the national police chiefs council on the back of it. it actually says that it's that it's recognised by them. there's a hotline number to call to, to verify the, the press card it's got, you know, his, you know his mind. he's my press card right here. it says the national police chiefs council recognised the holder of this card as a bona fide news gatherer. it's got the number to call if you need verification and it's got security features.

all they needed to do was to ask those people, you know, do you have a press card? and there it is. you can solve the situation. no need to arrest them, to take them into custody, whatever. and that's often what happens, you know, journalists going around doing, you know, reporting on things, you know, coming into into contact with police and they're asked to show their press card. so, this to me suggests that some kind of directive had gone out from hertfordshire police or a directive to kind of get tough on the protesters have been misinterpreted by someone in the chain of command and theyjust didn't care what anyone said. and they were just scooping people up and then holding them in custody for hours, which isjust frankly, adding insult to injury. and the national police chiefs council, i do have to reflect their position because obviously they've said thatjournalists have a right to report any form of protest and that it's very regrettable that journalists were caught up in it all. protests, they say, come with an enormous amount of pressure for policing, butjournalists shouldn't be

prevented from legitimately doing theirjobs. and there's college of policing guidelines on this. _ absolutely. in black and white reporting or filming from the scene i of an incident is part of the media's role. | and they should not be prevented from doing i so from a public place. police have no power or moral responsibility to stop - the filming or photographing of incidents— or police personnel. so it's there - in black and white. there's, you know, and a number of senior police officers have - come out and defended the right of the press to report. _ okay. so this was, if you like, a kind of a rogue - action, i think. but it is very worrying. and it's right that there's an inquiry into it. okay. and fiona harvey. i could just bring you in from cop from the guardian. your view on the protesters? does it help or hinder yourjournalism? well, protesters are really important. i mean, here we are in egypt for 27 and there are almost no protests going on. the few that there are are very muted. people are sort of taking out banners and then running amok

very quickly so that they don't get chased away. we had a small protest during president biden�*s speech a few days ago, but we're not really seeing the civil society activism that we would expect to see in a free society, because, of course, here in egypt, dissent is banned effectively in the jails here are heaving with political prisoners. so, i think that really shows the difference that protest can make when you see a cop happening where it's it's almost nonexistent. wolfgang, you were nodding there. i remember last year i'm advising the unf to say that that's the united nations climate change division at the negotiations in glasgow. how several negotiators said we're really happy there are protesters outside. it really helps build the pressure we need inside this venue for negotiations. and and i often think that journalism and activism, of course, are two very different things, but that

journalists should never forget that we owe all of our rights to freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to gather, the right for us to speak here. we owe that to activists of earlier generations. 0k. well, what is responsible journalism when it comes to the climate? i guess that's a big question. but should we see climate change as a subject like no other to be covered byjournalist fiona? i wonder what your views are from cop 27. can you be impartial on the subject of climate change, do you think? i think you can be impartial, but i think you have to present the facts. and the facts are the scientists have told us very clearly that we are on a precipice, that we are facing tipping points, where if we surpass them, we will be living on a planet that is unlivable. we will be seeing changes to the climate that are catastrophic and irreversible. now, that's not me. that's scientists saying that. i'm just reporting the facts here. and i think that we have to do that. and all the lines,

though, blurring between journalism and campaigning. you know, i'm thinking of the guardian's front page yesterday. you know, you organise a global climate leader with newspapers and media outlets around the world, co publishing an editorial calling for urgent action on the climate crisis. yeah. that's a leader. you know, newspapers have always carried leaders, their opinion articles. they're often not on the front page. i suppose it was right on the front page. yeah, well, occasionally one one can run a leader on the front page and yeah, i mean i think it was really important that we got a huge number of other networks around the world saying the same thing, giving that opinion. but that doesn't affect what i do as a news reporter in any way. and rich fella, i'd be interested in your views on campaigning journalism. do you see yourself as a campaigning journalist? i don't really see the situation we're in as a campaign. it's not it's not really a cause. it's life or death for everyone. so i think it's it's not really a a situation where it's

so valid to take sides. we need to get realistic about about what's happening. okay. wolfgang blau, rich felder doesn't see his campaign in journalism. clearly, it can be. it's often called that. does it work? who does it convince? does it undermine, you know, objective reporting, if you like, on this subject? it's really difficult _ to discern between journalism it's really difficult to discern between journalism and activism because there is also a form ofjournalistic activism in the form of omission of simply not covering a topic. and you could argue that a large part of the news industry is simply not covering climate change sufficiently, whether that's intentionally or not. but increasingly it looks conscious because it's really hard to look away now. personally, i think that journalism should stay away from activism. there's always the short term, short term impact of activism because you leverage the brand

and all the trust that your news brand has built, often over decades and longer. but in the long term, climate change is not going away. we will still wrestling with it in 15 and a hundred years from now. it's really important now that news brands do not take sides other than to force the issue into the public sphere. 0k. so, when you think about this front page stories and dropped of the guardian, you know it's a leader, but it's on the front page. do you see that as activism? i do. you do? i do. it's interesting. but, fiona, you don't. am i right? i'm a journalist. i'm not an activist. i'm not an opinion writer either. i don't write leaders. i write news. and what i present are the facts of what's in front of me. and here i am at a climate change conference where we're discussing the entire future of humanity. so, that's what i reflect. and over your time reporting, do you think the language has changed? i mean, i think at the guardian you've taken the decision

to use the term climate crisis, for example. that's an evolution in language. oh, that's hugely important. when i started 18 years ago, we were writing about climate change and global warming. global warming sounds lovely, everyone, you know, if you ask someone if they'd like a bit of global warming, they'd say, oh, yes, please. climate change songs nice and gentle. it sounds like something gradual. what we know is that when the climate changes, it does so abruptly, it goes to extremes. and what we're going to see is nothing gentle and nothing pleasant. we're going to see real extremes of weather. we're already seeing them. we're seeing floods in pakistan. we're seeing droughts in africa. and so we need to reflect that in our language. we need to reflect what the scientists are telling us. so, we've stopped talking very consciously at the guardian. we have stopped talking about climate change and started talking about the climate crisis, climate emergency, climate breakdown. and we talk about global heating because these are words that reflect what's

really going on. danny shaw. the bbc no longer balances the question of whether man made climate change is happening, but it's still very careful with its language use. yes, i'm sure it is, i and quite rightly so, because it's got a very- different position, i think, from some other media outlets. it has to be very careful, - but it's you know, it's around the evidence and it's around trying to be true to - the evidence, but also - at the same time reflecting different different shades - of opinion, but not giving too much weight to opinions that are perhaps outliers - and are reallyjust sort - of frankly not worth you know, not worth the paper they're written on. i wolfgang bauer, iwonder what your assessment is of how, for example, the heat wave this summer was reported by the media. you know, ifeel at the bbc we're encouraged not to, for example, use pictures of people eating ice creams

when it's a a0 plus heat wave. yeah. is there's an issue around the illustration where that the journalism has become better in terms of really warning people of the dangers. but then often you see these really well written pieces and then they're illustrated, which also has to do with workflows in newsrooms as who chooses the picture to an article? who writes the headline? you saw illustrations of dogs playing in fountains in parks and people on the beach that belittled the actual danger. ijust wanted to make one more point where i often think this question whether climate change is human made, that's a bit last years or last decade's discussion. and it's almost a sign of false courage to still make a point of that that's kind of done what where the denial sits now or the ignorance where media plays a hugely important role while media can do it on its own, is to really help the public understand the dramatic difference between global heating orwarming by1.5 degrees versus two degrees oi’ more. and currently we're headed for more that the consequences are so, so radical and that

i don't see sufficiently covered. and there's also a lack of proportion missing. to me, climate journalism looks like watching a football game with no goalposts. and the goalpost is the remaining carbon budget. this is how much more we can put into the atmosphere and this is how much time we have left. and against that, for instance, we could measure the entire business journalism as an axis. and there are news organizations that do that. how do you force, for instance, said just like the east west conflict was an organizing theme for much of our coverage in the seventies and eighties. climate change is one of our new organizing axes for every department, from culture to politics. fiona, how do you tell the story of 1.5 degrees, for example, or climate change, not climate change? we don't call you don't call it that, but as something that engages people, that hooks them in. i think you're told what's out there, because if you're not engaged, if you're not hooked in by the story of how floods

are covering nearly a third of pakistan and 20 million people there are needing humanitarian aid. if you can't get a story out of the fact that there are 150 million people in africa at the moment in the worst drought for a0 years, and they're on the brink of extreme hunger. well, then you shouldn't be doing journalism if that doesn't strike you as a story. the examples of the extremity of climate change are coming thick and fast. not what really counts is trying to explain to people some of these very technical terms. but 1.5 degrees, as wolfgang just said, 1.5 degrees is the kind of temperature increase that if you sitting in a room, you probably wouldn't even notice it. but when you translate that into the whole planet, it's actually a huge difference. and the way i try to explain it is that at the moment, we're only about five degrees warmer as a planet than we were in the last ice age. and that's the kind

of difference that a few degrees can make when you're talking about the whole globe. we could keep talking about this and no doubt. well, but i'm afraid that is all we've got time for this week. thanks to all my guests and to you for watching. that was the media show. goodbye. hello. it's still raining in eastern scotland, but at least it's not as bad as it's been, so some good news there. other parts of the country are quite clear, and a touch of frost expected saturday morning — for example, in northern ireland, wales and south western england. in plymouth, only a couple of degrees above freezing. belfast, not far off zero. how about the weather on saturday? well, out towards the east, it will be cloudy at times, spits and spots of rain possible through the morning into the afternoon. central parts of the country will actually have a sunny morning and afternoon.

but the next weather front is approaching, and that does spell rain for belfast later in the day, or the evening hours. but saturday night, that weather front will sweep across the country. this is where it will be early on sunday morning, pushing out into the north sea. and then behind it, the skies are clearing, but the winds are strengthening — there's a strong atlantic breeze pushing in showers, and some of them could be heavy, perhaps even thundery out towards the west, and a chilly sort of day. bye— bye.

this is bbc news, i'm lucy grey. our top stories: climate talks are extended as nations argue over who should pay for the destruction caused by global warming. theranos boss elizabeth holmes is sentenced to more than 11 years for medical diagnosis fraud. qatar bans the sale of alcohol in world cup stadiums just two days from kickoff. twitter closes its offices to staff until monday — the white house expresses concerns about user data. and, "gross sabotage": the verdict of the swedish prosecutors investigating the series of blasts that damaged the nord stream pipelines in september.