this is bbc news. we will have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour straight after hardtalk. this is bbc news. we will have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour straight after hardtalk. what the king of us tabloid tv.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. what do you really want to watch on tv? of course, i'd like to believe it's the serious, challenging interviews you get here on hardtalk, but my guest today maybe has a different take. jerry springer is the king of tabloid trash—talking television in the united states. his show specialises in dysfunctional relationships and sex. his guests curse. they throw chairs. sometimes they fight. critics call it cynical and manipulative tv, but it's made him famous and rich. so, does he care? jerry springer, welcome to hardtalk.

it's nice to be here. thanks for having me. it is pretty incredible. your show, from small beginnings in cincinnati more than 20 years ago, has made you famous around the world, and it is still going across america and internationally. how come? probably because it has a niche. when it first came on, we had never, at least in the states, i can only speak about what goes on in the states, we had never seen people that are on my show on television before. american television was primarily upper—middle—class white. all the sitcoms, whether it was friends or seinfeld or whatever, always well—scrubbed people speaking the queen's english and all of that. and all of a sudden, in 1991, we come on with a show with people that don't speak the queen's english, that maybe weren't so lucky in the gene pool of parents or whatever, didn't get an education, as much of an education. and yet what they are concerned about is the same thing that wealthy people are concerned

about, except wealthy people learn to hide it better. you know, i don't find any difference between the people on my show, and i would even say, let's say the people that ultimately come on your show, except the people on this show obviously are better—educated. but to think that they're morally superior to the people on my show, i would say, "wrong, wrong, wrong." but aren't you missing out one step in your own story, in that when you first switched from politics, you were mayor of cincinnati for a while, to doing tv, you did news, straight news. and then when you first got your interview show, as i understand it, from looking back at the records, it was a pretty serious show. the first three years. i'll tell you... it was more like my show. but then you discovered that the best way to get ratings and make money was to dumb it right down.

0k. that is actually not accurate. but i understand why you would think that. the show did change after three years. there's two things. first of all, let's get the money thing out of the way. you make a lot more money doing an oprah—type show than you do doing my show. but the other argument, the other discussion about how did we get to the kind of show we had? i'll tell you exactly how it happened. at the time we started, there were 20 other shows, talk shows, on television, and everyone was trying to be like oprah. we were all trying to appeal to the demographic, which at that time was referred to as middle—aged housewives. along came ricki lake. she was the first talk show to go after young people, meaning high school and college—age kids. so one day we're walking down michigan avenue in chicago, with the executive producer, and i say to him, "just as a business model, why are we trying to be one "out of 20 shows like oprah? "let's go after ricki's audience, and just be one "out of two." well, that's what we did, starting the very next week. we said, "from now on, only young people in the audience,

"young people onstage, young subject matter." well, young people are much wilder in their lives, much more open about their lives. so the show occasionally went crazy, universal... and then i'll quit. universal bought us and then said, "from now on, you're only allowed to do crazy." and that's what our show is. right. and you accepted the rules. you only did crazy. i'm just... i'm an employee. of course i would. well, yeah, but you have a choice to make. i can quit myjob. you chose... why would i quit?! no, hang on. but i'm just... i'll tell you what i'm interested in. 0k. why you decided to go as far down this track as you did. i mean, again, fairly typical of your show, for people who don't know, it would be the sort of titles that you churned out — "pregnant by a transsexual", "stripper wars", "honey, i'm a call girl", "my girlfriend is a guy." these are all titles... that's a great one. i took these from the �*90s. but as you your ratings got

higher and this audience of yours grew more and more, quote, unquote, "crazy", you went for shows like "i married my horse". yeah. about a guy who'd had a five—year sexual, romantic relationship with a... we don't know sexual. that was the implication of the show. well, if they're married, you think about it. but, yeah. my point is, even a lot of the affiliates across the united states who took your show couldn't take that one. they said it was too extreme, too off the wall. it was. why did you decide that was the kind of tv you wanted to make? were you proud of it? well, yeah, i'm proud of my show. why wouldn't i be? but beyond that... because it's stupid. well, yes, it's a stupid show. i always say our show is stupid, but for one hour, it's an escape from regular life. here's what the show is. i am hired to host the show. now, i don't choose the guests, so i'm never allowed to know what the show is about. i never know what the show�*s about until i walk in and they hand me a card. and all the card, that you see me carrying during the show, has on it are the names

of the guests. i'm supposed to ask questions that you would ask sitting at home watching, and then makejokes. that's my job. it's not my interest. i don't watch my show. if i could do a show, i would do a show on basketball. i mean, on sports or on politics. that's my interest. i'm not hired to do a show on my interest. no, but you're sort of taking out your own volition. i mean, you choose to do this show. nobody forces you to. well, i'm not saying i shouldn't do it. i love doing it. you're telling me it's stupid. you're telling me you would never watch it yourself. and it does turn the people on the show into freaks and losers. you say it gives them a voice, but you make them look like... you have just made an elitist judgment that you're superior to the people on our show. what do you think...? you are not. you're better—educated. you had a better luck in getting parents. that's what you got. you have a better life, but you don't... these people, we're all alike. do not think that well—educated people are morally superior,

in any way, to people that are of lower income. for one hour a day, our show is about people that act outrageously. that's what the show is. when you do the news, do you say, "i'm not going to report a murder "because i find murder dysfunctional, ifind "murder a horrible thing, i don't want to be associated "with it, i will not do a show that talks "about murder and rape"? you don't say that. that's yourjob to report it. it doesn't mean you endorse it. if myjob is to show dysfunctional behaviour, i dare you to say that a man marrying his horse is not dysfunctional. but the point is... of course it's dysfunctional. ..the murders reported in the news are real. tragic, but real. yours is a circus show. it is exploitation. but it's real! he's living with. .. no, they don't get paid. he's living with his horse! you don't think that's real? that's real. trust me. if your kid came home one day and said, "i'm marrying a horse," you would say, "that's real."

you may have found the one human being in the whole of america who thought he had married his horse. but let's not get stuck on the horse. let us watch a clip, a clip from the show, because for people who don't knowjerry springer, it may be worthwhile just looking at the style of the show. this particular edition was about transsexuals. it was called "transsexuals attack", and what we're going to see is a woman, a transsexual, who is furious with her boyfriend because he has run off with another gay guy. so let's have a look at the clip. a woman don't conduct theirself like this. awoman... he wants to be a woman! he can't fulfil my shoes i with a lime green shirt on! he's not... look at this. sound drops out. i mean, he's what... if i wanted a woman... i worked hard. i put time in this relationship. - you're going to flush this down the toilet. | you didn't do it by yourself. with that? it takes two. are you going to flush it down the toilet with that? - yeah, of course. of course. crowd react. right. now, you're telling me that that's not real? those people aren't really angry about that? of course, they are. well, that's a great question about honesty and reality.

and by the way, let me just explain to everybody watching that the sound dropped out because you do take out all swearing. the show runs during the daytime, so if they use the f—word. .. there's lots of swearing, but you don't hear it. right. but what you do see is plenty of fighting. and you talk about it being real, it being honest. yeah. you know that back in the late �*90s, i think it was 1998, i think 16 people who'd been on your show then went to the media and said, "you know what? the fights aren't even real. "we're told when to fight, how to fight. "it is staged." yeah. and, as it was proven, they were wrong. it is not staged. the lawyers are all over it. they made that accusation and, you know, we got duped by them because they made up their stories. so that's how that sometimes happened. but i can tell you, if you come and watch us, before the show starts, they meet in a room with the lawyers. there's a camera on them while they swear that everything that happened, there's documents to show it's true. so, you know, to pick out

that in 1998, you know, someone said, you know, they... they said it was staged. yeah, well, none of it's staged. that's wrong. it's not staged. whether an individual guest may be dishonest from time to time... i'm telling you, a4,000 guests, i'm sure... i'm sure someone was on this show and didn't tell the truth and duped you. that doesn't mean don't watch hardtalk any more because people lie on the show. right. you talk to politicians. so it's given that they're not telling the truth. well, politicians may come in to a different category. but let's stick with what you do and let's talk about vulnerability, because you've said you've had thousands and thousands of guests on the show over the years. you can't even remember how many — so many of them. yeah. there are many people who've been on your show who probably were on your show against their own better interests. how often do your staff, your team of researchers come across a great story, an unbelievable story of emotional turmoil and say, "you know what, we're not going to put you on the tv "because that would be counter to your own interests"? well, quite a few times.

we get... i'll tell you exactly what the process is. we get thousands of calls a week from people who want to be on the show, and then they give us the story and the producers and the researchers check to make sure it's a true story. every once in a while, during that interview process, it becomes clear, for example, that a person may not be mentally stable orjust, as you say, really, really vulnerable. and then they don't get on the show. but unfortunately, they sometimes do get on the show. i mean, i'm thinking about the panitz story. you knew i would... i asked you to ask that question because... which is, fine, ask me anything you want. but the asking of that question assumes, which is exactly what i'm fighting against, it assumes that because a person is of low—income... you in the news would never, ever ask a question about... this is nothing to do with income. this is to do with what happened after one of your shows. let me explain to everybody.

yeah. nancy panitz came on the show with her ex—husband, ralf. he was in a new relationship. yes. the new woman came on the show, too. and the new woman and ralf panitz panned the ex—wife, nancy. they called her old, they called her fat. the audience got involved. there was a lot of booing and shouting. nancy panitz went off that show, distraught, apparently, but not so long after, when the show was actually aired on tv, within hours, there had been a murder. and ralf panitz was convicted of murdering nancy panitz. having exactly nothing to do with the show, which is a part you didn't bother to tell. how do you know? because the court determined. but frankly... i'm answering your question. you ask me how do we know. you just made the inference that because someone was on a show, four months later, they commit a murder, that that has to do with the show. you don't know what happened that day. that day, they got into a big fight over being evicted from a house, which had nothing to do with the television show. if you're asking me if1t1t,000

people on the show, whether any one of the a4,000 people subsequently ever committed a crime, of course. you give me any population of a4,000 people and i'll tell you, a certain percentage of them will have committed crimes. don't connect it to the show. when the warring couple who ended up in this tragedy after the show was aired, hours after the show was aired, i just wonder whether you sat yourself down and for a moment had a think about whether it was time to move on to do something else. they were fine when the show ended. you're going back to your assumption, which i'm saying, respectfully, was totally incorrect. you did not mention to the audience what caused the murder. it had... which is four months, four months later. why did...? the murder was born out of a dysfunctional relationship, which you aired on national television.

i'm just asking you whether having done that and seen what happened to that couple in the end... it had nothing to do with the show. i'm not respons... excuse me. no, i am not responsible for the behaviour of a4,000 people who, at some time in their life, was on our show. if later on in life, they commit a crime, you're going to say that the reason they committed the crime, because for one hour, for 20 minutes, they were on there, for 20 minutes, they were on a show, which, by the way, the murder had nothing to do with what they were arguing about on the show. but you just told everyone that our show had something to do with that. that's totally incorrect. i'lljust ask the question... yeah. ..which is obviously what you do on your show... i am just saying, there is no correlation. let me talk about the course of american culture over 20 years of your programme. when it started, it caused a huge stir because it was, as we've discussed, doing something different. now, pretty much every nation in the world has what they call reality tv, and gives voices

to people that you've said in america, so long, were voiceless. that probably isn't so much the case anymore. do you think the role that your show played has served its purpose, that it actually is not the novelty, does not have the shock value it used to have? it's not supposed to have shock value. let's say this. we in television get too impressed with ourselves, like we are really shaping society. let me tell you. human behaviour has not deteriorated because of television. in fact, i would argue that human behaviour has not deteriorated, period. there is nothing you will ever see on any television show in england, great britain, oramerica, oranywhere in the world that is something that has not existed for thousands of years. the difference is, 3,000 years ago people would gather in the marketplace, gather in the town square, and they would chat with each other about who was doing what in the neighbourhood. the difference is we now have technology, and technology has

made the neighbourhood global, so all of a sudden, and now with kids going with their facebook, going on the internet, with their cellphones, everybody is talking about what they do in their lives, so the whole world knows. the only difference... do they need jerry springer anymore to put people on a set in a tv studio? do we need hardtalk anymore? why do we need any... that's a great question, i'm just asking. yes! people like...we are social beings. we are fascinated by what other human beings are doing. but it's not needed. it's television! it's not critical. i love the honesty which you tell me that you wouldn't watch the show and you think the show is stupid. i want to, if i may, get a little bit personal and reflect on how you feel about a long and successful career doing this show when, in so many ways, your early years pointed to something else. you were hired to work

by bobby kennedy and �*68, just before he was assassinated. you were a very committed political lawyer who then turned to politics, you were a progressive liberal city mayor in cincinnati. you clearly believed in things. you were a passionate progressive. still am. politics is a major... how do you feel about spending so long in this particular niche in the tv business? the way you ask the question, which is good, you are a great interviewer, the way you are asking the question, you make it seem like this is something i should feel bad about. i am still as passionate about my politics as i've ever been. and people in the states, particularly in ohio, know that i am every week giving political speeches,

raising money, organising campaigns, iam very politically active. that has not changed. i am just not running for office. but you wanted to change the world. i still do! but that's not how i make my living. in other words, i believe in politics like i believe in my religion. i take it very seriously. i don't want it to be tainted by the need to make a living. i believe that when politicians have to make a living being re—elected, that you build into it an incentive for at least intellectual dishonesty. if i know that the only way i'm putting food on the table for my family is by winning the election, there is going to be real incentive for me to say whatever the public wants to hear, whether it is but i honestly feel or not, because i have to win the election, that's how i make my living. i early on decided that my politics would always be pure, that i'd never stop being a liberal, i have never stopped being progressive, but i always decided i would not make a living in politics, so myjob is being an entertainer, my passion is political. and i am just as active, i worked tirelessly for barack obama, campaigning all around the country for him, contributing a ton of money for him, and i'll do the same to hillary, god bless her. you can't assume

because i have a job... what i find fascinating, it's a cliche, thejourney of your life, because it is incredible. people won't know that your parents just, thank god, escaped nazi europe and your grandparents did not and were killed in the camps. yes. i know that you were very close to your parents and in a sense a lot of your life has been reflecting on what they went through. again, i come back to this point, you have been a huge success, but were there not other things you really wanted to do in your public life that meant at some point you might want to leave the tv business? no, and n tell you why. i'll say it again. i am very active politically. understood. so i have not given up on that at all.

i just don't run for office. ijust said the reason i don't run for office, i am 70 now, what's the point, but i don't run for office because that's not how i want to make a living. politics is my religion — it's not my only, i am jewish — but it is like a religion to me, is i really believe in liberal causes, so that's really important to me. i don't compromise on that. but i make my living — how i make money? i am an entertainer. why, in a free enterprise system, do i apologise for being an entertainer? but my views, someone to challenge me on my political views. that's...not because i make a living. listen, as we close, let's talk politics a little bit. you've always been very open about, maybe you're more left than most democratic views. you are very, quote unquote, "progressive." you've just seen barack obama in powerfor, what, a term and a half? yes. there are many liberals in america who are disappointed with what obama has actually delivered. are you one of them?

no. look, would i like him to be successful in every single thing he is in favour of that i'm in favour of? of course. but i realised, when you're president of the united states, you're not a dictator and you don't get everything you want or everything i want. what i am happy about on the big issues, boy, he has been a great president. big issues. he came in and saved the financial system, he saved the auto industry, he saved the economy, he got us almost out of iraq, out of afghanistan, and now for the first time, embarrassingly, we americans, we are the last to come to the table with health insurance for our people, so at least now — we got off to a sloppy start — in a couple of years from now all americans will have health insurance. god bless him for that. history will look back and see these achievements and say, "wow, great. "is it 100% that he got everything? "no, but no president does 100%." so, i'm happy with him.

iwonder, coming back to the point we talked about of changing social energies, do you think, and surveys would suggest that this is true, that america is still a deeply conservative country, with a small c? no. we all give conservative speeches, but if you look at how people live, liberals always win in the end. i'll say it again. liberals always win in the end. laughter. in the beginning, conservatives will fight. conservatives fought in america against social security. now, no american would even think about going without social security. conservatives fought against civil rights. now we have an african american president. conservatives fought against women's rights and we may have a woman president, and women have much more equality in america now compared to 20, 30 years ago. conservatives fought against gay marriage and now, as you said, over 50% of the country is accepting gay marriage, and it's not even going to be an issue five years from now. liberalism ultimately will win,

but there will be battles along the way. if you had your time over again, would you choose to have the political career, that you tried to have but in the end did not go national, or would you still take the deal that you actually have on tv? if god comes to me and says, "gerald," which is my full name, "gerald, iwill...you can have another life. "and you can sign on for the exact life you've had "or take your chances on another one." "god, where do i sign?" i am the luckiest person in the world. i have no right to complain about anything. i have a privileged, lucky life — and i say luck — i didn't choose to be born, i didn't use to whom i'd be born, with what health, with what brain, in what country, the whole bit — i was born here in england, by the way. all of this is a gift,

life is a gift. sure, i work hard. lots of people work hard. but i don't know why i got lucky. but what i sign on? hell, yeah. jerry springer, that's a great way to end. thank you for being on hardtalk. this has been great, thank you. thank you very much. hello. bank holiday monday did not feel the same everywhere. in wales, it was the warmest day of the year so far, 19.7 celsius in cardiff, very close to 20 celsius. compare that with just 6 celsius across many parts of shetland, some cold arctic air digging its way down from the north. behind this strip of cloud here, a very weak weather front, but that will still be with us into tuesday in the form of this band

of cloud, which will be slung across many parts of the uk to start the day. underneath this cloud, some spots of rain and drizzle. through the day, the south west of england should see some sunshine, albeit with some fog around the coasts. wales, the west midlands brightening up too, northern ireland as well, although there is the chance of catching a shower. more cloud further north and east, although northern scotland should stick with some brighter skies. it will be rather chilly across some northern and eastern parts, whereas out towards the west, say western counties of northern ireland, we could be looking at 18—19 celsius. through tuesday night, more cloud will topple its way across northern ireland into western scotland with the odd spot of rain. the clearest of the skies and the lowest of the temperatures will be found across eastern england. some places in east anglia getting close to freezing. but into wednesday, it will be southern parts of england, wales, the midlands, east anglia that see the best of the sunshine. more cloud for northern england. northern ireland cloudy at first, although it should brighten up a little here. for scotland, the cloud will produce some spots

of rain, particularly up towards the north west. temperatures between 10—16 celsius. the breeze strengthening in the south later with the odd shower down towards the far southwest. and for thursday, we will see more widespread showery weather pushing its way northwards across a good part of england and wales into northern ireland. something a little bit drier but rather cloudy across scotland. and with this keen easterly breeze coming in off the chilly waters of the north sea, if you're spending your day along the east coast, it will feel really rather cool. and even further west, not as warm as it has been, 17 celsius the high for london. now into next weekend, it's another bank holiday, it is the coronation weekend, of course. and this is not great news if you were hoping for dry weather because we've got low pressure in charge, a frontal system pushing in from the west. so that brings at least the chance for some rain at times. we'll firm up on the details, and we'll keep you up to date.

live from london. this is bbc news. fears from the un that the situation in sudan is turning into a �*full blown catastophe' — as a failed ceasefire gives way to more violence. princess anne speaks up for monarchy�*s relevance in an interview with cbc news ahead of king charles' coronation. the monarchy provides, with the constitution, a degree of long—term stability that is actually quite hard to come by any other way. a leading figure in the development of artificial intelligence has quit his job at google so he can speak about the dangers posed by ai. australia introduces sweeping measures to curb teenage vaping addiction.

the move marks the country's largest anti—smoking