the welsh labour conference in opposition to government plans to change an inheritence tax. the changes affect farms worth more than £1 million. and the former world heavyweight boxing champion mike tyson has lost his fight against the youtuberjake paul. now on bbc news, the media show. hello, i'm ros atkins. and i'm katie razzall. this week on the media show — how will the mainstream media evolve after donald trump's victory? with x and podcasts being central to the national discussion, legacy media is looking at ways to stay relevant. we'll speak to different outlets on how they're going about tackling that challenge. and the man behind the global tv hit taskmaster, which sees comedians undertaking weird and wonderful tasks. 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. well, 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, 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, um... there was a notorious comment by trump's spokesman in 2017, that 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 there isn't a silver lining, to put it in a very cynical way, for the legacy media in trump's victory. and what about... 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 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 area from x, your financial times, people on trump's side might well be calling you the mainstream media, and 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 7 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 i certainly think it's time for some soul—searching and for some soul—searching and business model re—evaluation business model re—evaluation amongst most of the legacy amongst most of the legacy media, and particularly media, and particularly the sort of tv networks, the sort of tv networks, which are falling... which are falling... ..are in freefall, um, ..are in freefall, um, except for fox news. except for fox news. but, you know, the technology but, you know, the technology has so fragmented has so fragmented the environment that it's the environment that it's going to be very difficult going to be very difficult to come up with an easy answer. to come up with an easy answer. people are used to people are used to disintermediation, as it's disintermediation, as it's called, meaning there called, meaning there is nothing between them is nothing between them and expressing their opinions, and expressing their opinions, and their opinion is as good and their opinion is as good as any expert's and as any expert's and fact—checking is for the birds. fact—checking is for the birds. i mean, this is a really, i mean, this is a really, really serious challenge really serious challenge that is not easy to overcome. that is not easy to overcome. well, next we're going to look well, next we're going to look at some different ways that journalists are approaching

the political and media situation that they're facing. at some different ways that

disinformation online, whether it was generative ai and the potential for al to be used 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 we simply could not 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. 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 focused 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. there's been a lot of focus on, you know, x's pnl, its user base, its financial performance, obviously, which are 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 think... 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 transparent with our audience about, and that we have been particularly, you know, in recent months and in recent weeks, really taking this moment as an opportunity to re—articulate for our audience what we at wired believe in, what values we hold dear, what dangers we see ahead in the future. and, you know, fundamentally, yes, we believe in democracy. you know, 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. 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," 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 you don't have a worldview and you don't have values, right? if you sort of create 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 on our website and in our magazine is fact—checked. we don't sort of pull any punches there, or we're not sort of taking short cuts in ourjournalism. but i believe that in this sort of new moment in time forjournalism and for media, 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 up 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 this journalism 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 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 very comprehensive guide to digital security and how to essentially safeguard yourself from, you know, 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, simply because we think it is a very valuable public service. katie: i want to keep looking at howjournalism 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, megan. 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, "0k, we disagree, but i'm trying to be fair to you. "so, 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 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 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 is just going to write you off as, "well, "they already think i'm wrong. "they're not listening to me. "and so, i'mjust, 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 — i would like to see us do a betterjob of getting diverse viewpoints within newsrooms, and it's really challenging. there are not a lot of right—leaning journalists out there to hire. erm, 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. taskmaster theme plays ah! ooh!

bell dings ros: 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 are on the series for ten weeks, and they compete to impress a giant, who is greg davies — who is also a comedian — by doing tasks, idiosyncratic tasks set by me. and they do them in isolation, so they don't know how each other's done. 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, erm, silly people doing well. you talk about... it's a celebration of lunacy and ludicrous—y. 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. laughter greg davies: and so, ladies and gentlemen, for your entertainment,

alex will represent - the division of north- and south korea in, erm, in a disco break dance style, singing a funk song. - # in1953 # there was a terrible situation # ow! #er... # and everyone got very sad — # because they divided the nation...# cheering yay! applause 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 by everyone in telly. 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, did a show with them all onstage, and told

the very—late—night audience of 150 people how it went. and there was clearly this thing where comedians 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 subsided, the channel dave, on uktv, and we did nine series with them, and then channel 4 picked it up and we jumped ship. and that was quite a tortuous process, because i love the people of dave. but, terrestrial tv was too big a lure for me. so, yeah, we moved to channel 4 and we've 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. yes. during that four years, did you ever start thinking, "maybe — is it 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 had no certainty, and i still don't. and i've pitched many things since. it does not open doors.

most ideas fall by the wayside. and, you know, when we were pitching it, i was still a jobbing comedian. so, you never pin your hopes on something like that, you just... there's so much luck involved, the right person thinking there's something in it, cos commissioners tend to commission things that look like things that are already successful. and fair enough, 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 comedians for ten weeks, and people weren't doing that. so, someone had to take a risk on us, and, yeah, i'm very grateful to them. but also, i really don't mind people who don't accept my 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, 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 inspiration to strike, which sounds a bit 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, long baths and a waterproof notepad. and for people who've watched it, 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's improved, having sat naked on a cake... what kind of a cake? it was quite a... sponge? victoria sponge? it was cream, i know that. 0oh. it had profiteroles in it. and once you do that live on tv — or not live, but once the nation sees that, you sort of lose 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 do what they're told and lose a bit of dignity occasionally. tell us about the expansion outside of the uk. because now the additions that you make are not the only additions 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. 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 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 tojust 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 say, "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 longer — to be a bit more space? exactly, yeah. it was very rushed and it was, erm, 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. 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 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 raise our heads against the pulpits, above the parapet — we try 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 very much 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. we have had a wintry look as the temperature has started to drop. there will be some snow for some northern parts of the uk in the next few days. the low pressure will go to scandinavia and change the wind direction towards the arctic in the uk. that colder air will begin to arrive in scotland today. from 16 to 6 degrees in aberdeen. some clear skies must follow and

wintry showers continuing in northern parts in scotland and weather in northern scotland crossing the sea. the winds will ease overnight in scotland and we will have clear skies in the east and north—east of england. frosty and a bit icy in places early on sunday morning but some sunshine here. more cloud elsewhere and showers will continue to affect scotland. wintry in the north over the hills and some wetter weather in northern ireland, heading over the sea and heading into wales and england. temperatures in double figures in southernmost parts of england and wales but a lot colder further north and feeling cold, though with less

strong winds in scotland. as we head into monday milder air towards the south and longer boundary between the two and a deepening area of low pressure which is possibly bringing in snow monday night. wintry showers continuing in northern scotland on monday and thickening cloud coming in in many areas. rain in southern england and getting wetter in northern ireland as the low pressure begins to arrive. so a cold day and temperatures are beginning to drop further across wales and the midlands. through the evening and overnight we may find some snow in northern ireland but especially in southern scotland and northern england which could be over ten centimetres of snow. will bring some disruption to the northern pennines. that snow will continue overnight and into tuesday morning than the low pressure moves away and more snow showers in northern scotland which will continue into next week in the blast of colder air will push its way south.

live from london. this is bbc news. hundreds of farmers protest outside the welsh labour conference, angry with the government's recent tax plans. at least 10 babies die in a hospitalfire in northern india. 16 others are receiving treatment. president zelensky says russia's war on ukraine will end sooner than it otherwise would have done, with donald trump's return to the white house. and anger boils over in eastern europe, as georgia's election results are officially announced. and the former world heavyweight boxing champion, mike tyson, has lost his fight against the youtuber, jake paul.

hello, i'm rajini vaidyanathan. we begin here in the uk. hundreds off angry farmers have protested outside the welsh labour conference. they're furious with the uk government's decision to impose a 20% inheritance tax on farm estates worth more than £1 million. that's around $1.25 million. but the prime minister says he will defend the government's budget announcements all day long. here's damian grammaticas. 0n the north wales coast, the rumblings of rural protest. could this swell into a real political problem for the government? the morale, the mental health, you know, everything is at an all time low. and what do they do? they kick us again. galvanised by the budget and the government's decision to levy inheritance tax on farms, they descended here

from across wales and as far away as yorkshire today.