that's all coming up on the media show here on the bbc. but first, what are the challenges and opportunities for the legacy media following donald trump's win? back in 2016, donald trump's first victory proved a boost for audiences of cable tv, news and newspapers. some outlets even took an anti—trump stance, even positioning themselves as the resistance. what will happen this time round? we speak to three outlets with different approaches. firstly, edward luce of the financial times. it's been going on for quite a while, since long before musk bought twitter. 2017 or 2016,

i think virtually every single newspaper in the united states endorsed hillary clinton, and trump won anyway. so we've been aware of the lack of influence of the mainstream media for a very long time, and the declining numbers. i should sort of stress, though, that there are many newspapers, including my own, that have paywalls, that are seeing rising circulation. and if the past is prologue, then trump being elected is going to be good for subscriptions. i mean, last time he was good for business, wasn't he? there were quite a lot of outfits without cnn and msnbc who may have opposed him on air, but he certainly brought the eyeballs, brought the advertisers? he did. i mean, it was like quantitative easing for the legacy media. it was there was a notorious comment by trump's spokesman in 2017 that, um, we have alternative facts, but there was a big rise in demand for non alternative facts for sort of traditional facts. so i'm not sure that this is there isn't a silver lining.

to put it in a very cynical way for the legacy media in trump's victory. and you talk about facts when you describe things accurately, as of course you do on the financial times, do you get accused of being biased when it comes to your descriptions of, for example, what donald trump is saying or...? yeah, for my own mental health, i've stopped looking at the comments beneath the pieces. um, because, you know, there's a lot of id in those comments and there's a lot of allegations of bias. but i'm a columnist in terms of our reporters, we have a very rigorous fact checking machine, and we correct when there is an error and x, i think it's fair to say, although it has this thing community notes. x has become an extraordinary sort of on steroids purveyor

of disinformation since musk took over. yet if we think about, you know, you are in a very different era from x, your financial times, people on trump's side might well be calling you the mainstream media. and that's not they're not using that term in a positive way. but do you think it's time for some soul searching for the legacy media ? do you think that no matter how the media covered this election or whatever it had done, people in america are voting with their feet and saying, we're not interested? we're not interested in you any more, we don't want you any more? i certainly think it's time for some soul searching and business model re—evaluation amongst most of the legacy media, and particularly the sort of tv networks, which are falling, are in freefall. but except for fox news. but, you know, the technology has so fragmented the environment that it's going to be very difficult to to come up with an easy answer. people are used to disintermediation, as it's called, meaning there is nothing between them and expressing their opinions and their opinion is as good as any experts.

and fact—checking is for the birds. i mean, this is a really, really serious challenge that is not easy to overcome. well, next we're going to look at some different ways that journalists are approaching the political and media situation that they're facing. let's begin with katie drummond, who's global editorial director at the tech magazine wired. katie, you're very welcome here on the media show. now, i should tell people listening who some of whom will know, but some may not, that you introduced wired's politics section at a time when lots of outlets were moving away from politics. i wonder why you decided to move towards it. we launched our politics - vertical at wired a little over a year ago, and our rationale, my rationale at that time - was actually very simple. it was, you know, wired . is a publication committed to the future, right? we cover where i the world is going.

of course, we cover technology in a very consistent way. - it is my very firm belief that you simply cannotl untangle technology - from politics any more, right? and looking ahead at the usl election, but also at the time when we did this at, - you know, a historic number of elections taking place i around the world in 2024, whether it was, you know, i the spread of misinformation and disinformation online, whether it was generativel ai and the potential. for al to be used, um, in some sort of capacity around elections, you know, _ or whether it was, as we have seen, you know, some - of the most powerful industry leaders in silicon valley, - elon musk being the perfect example, you know, really. aligning themselves- politically, using platforms like x as a megaphone, | essentially for the gop. it was very clear to us that that we simply could not l continue to do ourjobs with any credibility - without introducing, you know, the notion that politics - was part of the - conversation for wired.

and, katie, i should say that for people who don't know the acronym gop, it's shorthand for the republicans. and ijust wonder, with reference to elon musk and twitter or x as it's become, whether you feel the media missed the story, that it was so focussed on whether musk could make good on that huge investment he made, whether it was a decent business decision that we missed the political dimension. that's a great question, - and i think in many respects you might be right there, right? - there's been a lot of focus on, you know, x's pnl, i sort of its user base, - its financial performance, obviously, which are in in- great and very steep decline. also, a lot of focus . on sort of x and mis— and disinformation and sort of how conspiracies - and inaccurate information- really permeate that platform. what i don't think enough - people saw coming was the idea that, well, maybe ultimately he didn't buy this thing - to run a sound business. he bought this thing. because he could use it essentially as, you know, -

a megaphone for donald trump and to, you know, sway the outcome of the us. election and everything that would come after that. - so i think that's a great point. . and for better or for worse, it was clearly effective. and donald trump, we can assume, sees it as such because musk has been right in the middle of the process that's followed the election result in terms of how this government is taking shape. i think you could say that musk is now one of the most powerful unelected individuals in the world. do you take a position on that at wired when you're covering this story, do you take a position on what's appropriate for how technology works in america and also how democracy works? we do, and that's something that we are very transparentl with our audience about and that we have been. particularly, you know, - in recent months and in recent weeks, really taking this i moment as an opportunity to re—articulate for our - audience what we at wired i believe in, what values we holdl dear, what dangers we see ahead in the future.

and, you know, fundamentally, yes, we believe in democracy. i we believe in elected officials in the united states - at a federal level, holding office for four years, - and then another election being held and so on and so forth. i so, you know, absolutely. i would say to that question. but what about if readers of yours would say, well, how can i trust your coverage? if you are making it clear from the outset that you are in opposition to donald trump, because you don't see him as matching the to use your phrase, values that you have. i think that, you know, - audiences and readers have trust issues with the media no matter what. _ if you articulate your - worldview and your values, or if you pretend that that - you don't have a worldview and you don't have values, right? if you sort of create i an illusion of blanket impartiality across all of your coverage. -

trust in media is- a fundamental issue. what we have decided to do at wired is approach that. with transparency, right? we publish fact. based reporting. we have a rigorous- fact—checking process. every story we publish i on our website and in our magazine is fact—checked. we don't sort of pull any i punches there, or we're not sort of taking shortcuts i in our in ourjournalism. but i believe that in this sort of new moment in time - forjournalism and for media, l being able to be as transparent with your audience as possible about what's informing your. journalism is important. and katie, as i'm listening to you, i'm thinking, i'd like to ask you a question, but you might, i think, reject the premise of it, which is, are you doing journalism or are you campaigning against something as well? or do you not see any distinction? i would dispute the premise. you're right. and what i would say- to that is that there is not a single story that goes upl on wired or that runs in our magazine that is not reported. and do you see this

as a business opportunity, because you've been clear in your communication with your readers that how you're planning to approach covering trump's second term? i wonder if you see that as an opportunity for people to think, well, i want to get behind thisjournalism because i oppose donald trump. our values as a publication in this moment are vastly. more important to me than our business. - what i would say to . that is that, you know, journalism should always be a good business. _ like fundamentally, at the end of the day, journalism - needs to be sustainable. and that's something that| i believe in, that i wake up to do every single day. you know, i think that if more readers are moved in this - moment to subscribe to, whether it's wired or- the financial times or, - you know, to pay for cable news because they want access i to more of this information. that is, of course, . very much welcome. but, you know, we do things at wired all the time that. might feel like they are in - opposition to a sound business strategy, because we want our audience to have access - to the information that we believe they need. | so earlier this week,

we published a veryl comprehensive guide to digital security and how to essentially safeguard yourself from surveillance, | which donald trump has promised to ramp up in this country. - and we put that outside of the paywall. - we made that available - to anyone, anywhere around the world who wants access to that information, simplyl because we think it is a very valuable public service. - i want to keep looking at how journalism and different outlets in journalism approach the situation. and our next guest is megan mcardle, who's a columnist at the washington post and serves on its editorial board. welcome, meghan. i'm very interested in what katie was just saying there. she said illusions of blanket impartiality across coverage leads to a decline in trust. she's essentially saying impartiality isn't helpful right now. how do you perceive that? and is your approach very

different from wired? well, i mean, look, lam a right—leaning columnist. i have worked in mainstream journalism my whole life. i didn't start as a reporter, i started as a columnist. and so, i have always had a point of view. my readers have always known what my point of view was. but i think the thing that i think a lot about in that position is that because most of my readers don't agree with me, i have to buy credibility with those readers. i have to show my work. i have to allow their best points, and i have to be very clear not just about where i'm coming from, but why and how i am trying to be fair to what they think. and i think that that is something where a lot of mainstream publications that have gone in the direction of being more upfront with that, and i don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. i certainly think there are a lot of readers who like that, right? it has been good for subscriptions to have readers who feel like they're aligned with you.

and i think the trade—off for that is that you lose influence with people who disagree with you unless you're very, very careful to make them feel like, ok, we disagree, but i'm trying to be fair to you, so give me give me a hearing before you just close it and tell me that i'm a fascist. but what does that mean in terms of how you and how you think the washington post, of which you're on the editorial board, you know, what does it mean in terms of how you're approaching this situation right now? well, i mean, ithink one thing that, look, i'm in the opinion section and that is a little bit different from being on the news side, but i think one thing that i know my boss thinks about a lot. i know that i think about a lot. i know that the editorial board thinks about a lot is having viewpoint diversity, is trying to make sure that we're getting the best arguments of the other side of an issue inside the room, as well as hearing it outside from critics. and i think that's really valuable because jonathan haidt, who's a social psychologist, talks about a thing that we all do, which is that when we find

a fact that confirms our belief, we think, can i believe this? in other words, has it met the minimum standard for plausibility? when we encounter evidence that disconfirms one of our important, morally important beliefs, we ask ourselves, must i believe this? in other words, is the evidence so overwhelming that i kind of can't avoid admitting that this is true, or quite likely to be true? and that different standard, to be clear, we don't know we're doing this. everyone does this all the time, and because of that, it is extremely difficult to actually do a fairjob of presenting all viewpoints unless you have people in the room who are who are doing them. it is very, very hard to mock up someone else's beliefs because you don't know what questions am i not asking? which experts am i giving undue deference because they seem like nice people who basically agree with me on stuff? that's the stuff that is actually very, very difficult for anyone to do. and i think you certainly see

this at, like, fox news. unless you are, unless that person is on staff in the room, feels comfortable raising those issues, feels comfortable dissenting. that's a really tough culture to build. i like to think that we've done a pretty good job of that in the opinion shop that we really do strive to represent all kinds of different points of view and to get those conversations inside of the room as well as responding to people outside. i got some numbers today about the guardian that in a single day, the wednesday after the election, guardian readers pledged more than £1.8 million to the guardian that was asking for donations essentially to fight trump. i mean, they didn't put it in those terms, but to stand for values—based journalism with facts. i wonder what you make of the idea of resistance to trump from the media, from parts of the media, being a business opportunity or a business model? look, i am always pleased to see...

in a tough time for our industry, i am always pleased to see journalists getting more money. so unalloyed good. look, i think there is a trade—off and the trade—off is influence. and i think you have seen this within the mainstream media where ten years ago, 15 years ago, republicans wanted to sit down for interviews with vanity fair, the new york times magazine or whatever, even though they knew that those reporters didn't agree with them and they were not going to get, on average, as nice a profile as a young democratic politician was. and now they don't care. and that's because we don't influence people who vote for them. the only people we influence are people who already agree with us. and will that change, do you think? is there anything that the media can do that part of the media that doesn't influence those people to make a difference? or is it over? is it game over? i think it is a trade—off between do you want to be more influential with the group of people who is already voting for already voted for. kamala harris was going to vote for kamala harris the second she was the nominee, voted against trump in 2020, voted against trump in 2016.

if you want more influence with that audience, lean into their values. you know, front that you share their values, you will be more influential. and the problem with that is that you will be less influential with people who do not already share those values. the more that you front what you believe, and this is how i believe it. and this is why i think everyone else is wrong. anyone who's on the fence or who disagrees isjust going to write you off as well, they already think i'm wrong, they're not listening to me. and so i don't care any more, and i think that that is the process you've seen on the right. i would like to... i've written many columns on this subject. i'm writing another one now. um, i would like to see us do a betterjob of getting diverse viewpoints within newsrooms, and it's a really challenging. there are not a lot of right—leaning journalists out there to to hire.

um, but i would like to see us work harder at bringing those voices inside the tent, because i think that in terms of influencing policy, of influencing society, we have a better shot if we are not just talking to the choir, if we are preaching to everyone in the pews. now to the man behind the global tv hit taskmaster, alex home is the creator and co—host of the british comedy show. it is a runaway success, broadcasting in 120 countries, including original versions in australia, canada and sweden. but first, here's alex explaining the format. it's a comedy entertainment show where five comedians i are on the series for ten weeks and they compete _ to impress a giant. who is greg davis, - who is also a comedian. by doing tasks, idiosyncratic tasks set by me and they doj them in isolation so they don't know how each other's done. i

there's no script. they don't know what's coming. they've got to do their best. so you see very clever people being undone and very, um, i silly people doing well. you talk about celebration of lunacy and ludicrously well. before we carry on talking, let's just play a little clip from taskmaster of you in action alongside the actual taskmaster, greg davies. so, ladies and gentlemen, for your entertainment, alex will represent the division of north and south korea in a disco break dance style, singing a funk song. # in1953, there was a terrible situation. # and everyone got i very sad because they divided the nation. yay! take us right back to the start. how did you come up

with this idea? how did it happen? well, it was not meant to be a tv show. - i'm not a tv producer. i'm a comedian. and i think that's part of the success of it. . it was turned down i by everyone in telly. um, my wife had a baby 15 years | ago, and i wasn't allowed to go| to the edinburgh festival. quite rightly so. i sat at home enviously- watching my friends having a good time, and i woke up. with an idea where i would set these comedians a challenge once a month for a year. - and the following year i went to edinburgh, l did a show with them j all on stage, and told the very late night audience of 150 people how it went. i and there was clearly this thing where comedians i are competitive and funny without a script. - so i did that again— the following year, and then a tv company came in and said, you should pitch— that as an idea. we pitched it for four years. everyone said no. four years! and then eventually dave, um, i subsided the channel dave on uk uktv and we did nine series with them, and then - channel 4 picked it up and we jumped ship. i and that was quite a tortuous process because i love - the people of dave, but,

um, terrestrial tv was . too big a lure for me. so yeah, we moved to channel 4 and we've l been there ever since. and i'm sure there are people listening who have had ideas of their own, which they've tried to get off the ground during that four years. did you ever start thinking, maybe it's only me who thinks this is a good idea? maybe it isn't a good idea? or were you certain all the way through that if you were given the chance by dave, by channel 4, by whoever it might be, it was going to be good. i have no certainty, and i still don't. - and i've pitched many things| since it does not open doors. um, i've most ideas fall by the wayside. | and are you know, when we were pitching it, - i was still a jobbing comedian. so it you never pin your hopes on something like that. - you just it there's - so much luck involved. the right person thinking there's something in it. i because commissioners tend to commission things that i look like things that i are already successful, and fairenough. you know, it's a toughjob, - i think, being a commissioner. but to take a risk _ on something, we had a few things that no one else had. so we had no script. we had the same five i comedians for ten weeks and people weren't doing that. so someone had .

to take a risk on us. and, um, yeah, i'm . very gratefulto them. but also, i really don't mind people who don't accept myj ideas because who knows what's going to work _ and when you sat down, i wonder how you come up with these tasks. do you actually sit down at your desk and go, right, it's time to create some tasks? or do you just sit on the bus or sit behind the wheel in the car or whatever it might be, and just muse on it when you've got a moment? well, so i was a comedian for like 15 years before, i and it's the same as writing jokes — you don't really... well, i don't sit| down at a desk. i don't deliberately do it. you wait for inspirationj to strike, which sounds a bit, uh, highfalutin. but if i have a deadline, - i can go for a walk with my dog and come up with ten. but it's myjob, - weirdly, is to come up with these nonsense scenarios, and i really enjoy doing it. - so, yeah, it tends to be long walks. i to be long walks, long baths, and a i waterproof notepad. and for people who've watched it well, people will know that some of the tasks involve you actually being a victim. any of those that you'd really like to forget? so i like being a victim. there's something in my personality i quite - like being the underdog

and being the sidekick.| and i honestly, my personality has improved having _ sat naked on a cake. what kind of a cake? victoria sponge? it was cream, i know that. um, it had profiteroles in it. and once you do that| live on tv or not live, but once you once the nation sees that, you sort of lose i a lot of inhibitions. and i was quite shy before, and i think i'm better now. at complaining in restaurants and that sort of thing. - so i advise anyone to, i um, to do what they're told and lose a bit - of dignity occasionally. tell us about the expansion outside of the uk, because now the editions that you make are not the only ditions being made. how did that happen and how involved are you in overseeing the different iterations, whether it's taskmaster in sweden or portugal or new zealand or wherever it might be? i'm loosely involved. so, we just try to do things well, that's our ethos. - um, so belgium, first of all, came in and did a version . of it, and i went over and watched it being| filmed in flemish. didn't understand a word of it, but i could see -

that it was was going to work. people thought it was quite a british show, but actually| it'sjust people doing things and competing _ against one another. so even though i didn't - understand it, i still found it funny because i knew roughly what was going on. _ so now i tend to just let countries get on with it. i don't know portuguese| audiences, so if they say we want to do a two—hour show, which is what they do, _ i said, that's fine. however, we did it in america and it didn't quite _ work there because it was - a 22—minute show and adverts every four minutes. so i think if we did it there - again, we would try not to make quite so many compromises. so you'd want it to be a bit more space? exactly, yeah. it was very rushed and it was, um, it was interesting. - it was a learning experience. but now we try to... yeah, we curate from| a distance, i suppose. so we really care about it, but we also try to just - employ good people. i think that seems quite important. l do you think viewers are looking for something different these days from these kind of shows that we're becoming a bit kinder, a bit less political, perhaps? i don't know what you

think about that. i mean, i definitely think they're looking for escapism. i mean, we really had a purple patch during i mean, i definitely think they're - looking for escapism. i mean, we really had a purple patch during| the during lockdown, _ which, you know, you don't want to profit from that in any way. but people did turn to us as families, as a safe - place where we're not going to talk politics. | and, you know, your discussion earlier about trump and musk, | i was pretty happy that we're not part of that chat. - and we never raised our heads against the pulpits. _ we above the parapet, - we tried to do the right thing, but we also don't talk politics _ and i think our viewers appreciate that. - that's it from us though for this week. thank you for your company. goodbye. bye. and if you'd like to hear a longer version of today's show, search bbc the media show wherever you get your bbc podcasts. hello there. it's turning a lot colder for all of us next week. the transition starts this weekend — colder air already across northern scotland will continue to push southwards. and that will introduce the risk of snow showers, certainly in northern areas,

but we could even see a spell of rain, sleet and snow during sunday night into monday. more on that in just a moment. but the colder air is moving around this area of low pressure from the arctic, already across northern scotland, and through saturday, it will push further southwards. but across the south of britain, it will stay fairly mild but with a lot of cloud around. now the boundary is this cold front with some rain on it as it continues to push southwards, so rather grey day on saturday — central and southern areas. behind the cold front, the cold air is digging in, so it's brighter with sunny spells, scattered showers, these will be wintry over the hills across scotland. you can see the temperature contrast from north to south — milder in the south, pretty cold in the north, particularly factor in the strong northerly wind. and then through saturday night, the colder air continues to trundle southwards, eventually reaching all areas and will continue with wintry showers, mainly around coastal areas. and a risk of ice as well — it will be a cold night to come across the northern half of the country and turning colder in the south, but it does mean sunday will be cold but brighter, with sunshine across large parts of england and wales. further wintry showers across northern and western scotland. then we look to the west to an area of low pressure that

will start to push rain into northern ireland and increasingly across england and wales. temperatures on sunday could reach ten or 11 degrees in the south, but it's another cold one for central and northern areas. now, through sunday night, that rain becomes heavier and it pushes its way eastward. so rather a wet night to come for the southern half of the country. it turns milder and windier in the south, but it stays cold across the north with further wintry showers. you can see that temperature contrast to start monday. but the start of next week through monday could cause some issues. a bit of a headache to the uncertainty. this area of low pressure could be further north, it could be further south, but it looks like its northern flank could see some snow on the hills across northern england to scotland, whereas further south will mainly of rain and there'll be strong winds. as it pulls away, though, into the near continent, opens the floodgates to an even colder arctic northerly from tuesday onwards. and you can see that here on the outlook — chance of snow across northern areas, rain in the south, and then from tuesday onwards, it's very cold with cold nights.

live from washington, this is bbc news. controversy around president—elect trump's cabinet nominations continues as a top republican comes out against releasing an ethics report on former congressman matt gaetz. at least 15 lebanese rescue workers were killed in israeli air strikes overnight as israeli bombardments continued around beirut for a fourth consecutive day.

ukraine's president zelensky claims russia's war on his country will end sooner than it otherwise would have done, with donald trump back in the white house. hello, i'm carl nasman. president—elect donald trump is continuing to name key allies to join his government, amid public backlash for some of his top picks. the latest nomination is doug burgum to the department of the interior.its agencies are responsible for public land, as well as domestic energy production. the governor of north dakota joins a growing list of trump cabinet hopefuls, which includes robert f kennedy junior and matt gaetz — trump's pick for attorney general. both men have been the subject of scrutiny since their nominations this week. there have been calls for the house ethics committee to release its report into gaetz, who was being investigated over misconduct allegations. but gaetz�*s abrupt resignation from the house on wednesday halted the investigation, as only current members can be investigated. we've also learned who will be behind the podium in the white house delivering briefings to the press. karoline leavitt, the trump transition team's spokeswoman, has been named white house press secretary. she will be the youngest to hold that position at 27 years old. shejoins another trump spokesperson: steven cheung, who will become white house communications director

in the new administration.