democracy works when citizens are well informed, which is why independent, evidence—based journalism matters. the media landscape, as seen in the recent us election, is changing at warp speed. more and more citizens seem to be leaving the legacy media behind. it holds the powerful to account. it empowers the voter. does that sound old—fashioned? maybe it does. my guest is marty baron, pulitzer prize—winning former the media landscape, as seen in the recent us election, editor of the washington post. is changing at warp speed. more and more citizens seem to be leaving the legacy media behind. has old—school reporting had its day? does the future belong my guest is marty baron, pulitzer prize—winning former to the influencers? editor of the washington post. marty baron in massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk. does the future belong thank you. thanks for having me. it's a great pleasure to talk to you, marty. 00:01:01,289 --> 2147483051:37:15,359 you were editing the washington 2147483051:37:15,359 --> 4294966103:13:29,429 post through the political

to the influencers? marty baron in massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. thanks for having me. it's a great pleasure to talk to you, marty. rise of donald trump and donald trump's first presidency. you reflected, after all of that experience, that you felt the american media had a lot to learn from the failings it displayed in covering the rise of trump. you talked about the failure to truly understand many americans and what they were feeling and thinking. do you think, as we reflect on trump's return to the white house, that those lessons have been learned? i think we still have a lot to learn. i think our original problem prior to donald trump running as a candidate for president

back is that we didn't anticipate a candidate like donald trump. we didn't understand the level of grievance and anger against the so—called elites in this country. i think still, even in this most recent election, we had a lot to learn aboutjust how upset americans are about issues that matter to them in their daily lives, or that they think matter to them in their daily lives. certainly, of the cost of goods, the cost of milk, the cost of groceries generally, eggs, you name it, the cost of buying a home, the cost of a mortgage, all of that were... those were deep concerns for many americans. a lot of concern, of course, about immigration across the southern border of the united states and a feeling that that was out of control, which it kind of was in the first few years of the biden administration. and then, of course, concern about us involvement in wars overseas, and particularly the level of spending in ukraine. so, i think we didn't understand the level of grievance and how that would overwhelm other concerns. you referred in that answer

to american elites — isn't one of the fundamental problems that the mainstream media, particularly in its sort of most powerful form on the east coast and the west coast of the united states is seen as part of the elite? yeah, i think that's true. not all journalists are paid like the elites, i have to say that. so... but i think certainly we are perceived as part of the elite, particularly the mainstream media on both coasts, and it is a concern. and i think we have to really dedicate ourselves to understanding the rest of the country, getting out in the country with our reporters and reflecting their day—to—day concerns. do you think that you honestly can? i mean, i'm mindful of your own stellar journalistic career. you began as a reporter in florida, but your keyjobs

have been in la with the times, boston, and of course, with the washington post. i mean, you are a classic sort of senior media executive whose experience has been coastal. it's been amongst the political elite. and i dare say, you know, when you perhaps talk about the middle american working—class people who feel neglected, they feel neglected by people like you. yeah, that's true. but look, as you said, i grew up in florida.

a collective gathering of the post's journalist staff in the main washington post newsroom as you left in 2021, and you asked all of those who were either republicans or trump supporters to raise their hands, what percentage of your staff would it have been? well, there would be more republicans than probably trump supporters. i mean, ithink you have to distinguish between the two. um, i really don't know. it would be a small percentage. i don't think it would be a lot, to be honest with you. would it be beyond single digits, do you think? i... maybe a little bit, yeah. yeah. i mean, i guess that is indicative. and, you know, i'm mindful... this is going back a few years, but it seemed like a sort of totemic moment at the time — you remember when the new york times opinion writer bari weiss, when she

left the times, she talked about a collective mindset — and she referred, of course, to her own paper, but she talked about it being more common in the sort of east coast media establishment — a mindset which made herfeel, as somebody who she self—described as a sort of centrist, made her feel out of place. a liberal, progressive, pervasive mindset which she said had become intolerant. yeah. i mean, i understand where she's coming from. i don't think that the newsroom of the post was intolerant of different perspectives. i've worked with a lot of conservatives, people i know who are conservatives, conservative reporters, and also, of course, on the opinion pages. the post carries political views of all types, all across the political spectrum. and i think that's as it should be. and i think ourjob is really to... the question is, are we open—minded? are we willing to get out

in the country, talk to people, hear their perspectives? i never gave people a political litmus test, and i don't think that would be appropriate, to be, you know, hiring people based on a political litmus test. i mean, the reality is, keep in mind, trump is not a traditional conservative. i could have hired a ton of conservatives and they still wouldn't be trumpists. they would be completely different. i mean, the old republican party was in favour of american leadership abroad, was in favour of global trade and free markets. it was opposed to tariffs. it was very different policy than trump. he's not a classic conservative, by any means. you, though, did voice a concern about the degree to which young journalists at the washington post were becoming so steadfast in their, you know, progressive views, but maybe their woke views, if you can put it that way, that you felt they were no longer accepting notions of objectivity. why? yeah, absolutely. i mean, that was a concern of mine. i think i tried to enforce the standards of objectivity, and that means keeping an open

mind when we embark on our reporting, looking at the totality of the evidence, ultimately calling things as they are, but keeping an open mind, doing rigorous, comprehensive, honest and honourable research. and so, yes, i was in favour of that. hang on. is objectivity really possible, do you think? you know, because there is a school of thought, and i dare say some of your youngerjournalistic colleagues told you this in the washington post newsroom, that you as a, you know, a middle—class white male, are in no position to really lecture anybody about objectivity, because your entire life experience has been one of entitlement. yeah, i've heard that. so i... i'm not saying it's... you know, you can always achieve perfect objectivity. we can't always achieve perfect fairness. we're probably not perfectly accurate all of the time, putting things in perfect context. butjust because you can't achieve perfection does not mean that that's not a standard that you should strive for. so you...

i mean, the original idea of objectivity is, you do the best you can, as humanly possible, and that's what we should work toward. so, here you are, an absolute champion of objectivity, as far as is possible. why, then, were you so upset in this election cycle when your old newspaper, the washington post, finally decided not to endorse either candidate in the election? i mean, that seems a great symbol of their determination to be objective, in some ways. well, it's not really objectivity. it's a matter of withdrawing from the conversation. look, they had been doing presidential endorsements for almost 50 years. they started doing presidential endorsements at the washington post in 1976, right after watergate, because american politics had changed. you had a president in richard nixon who had abused his power, who had weaponised the us government against his

perceived political enemies. if that sounds familiar, it is, because donald trump has talked about weaponising the us government. he's spoken quite openly about his pledge to weaponise the us government against his perceived political enemies. and, look, they didn't stop doing political endorsements overall. they endorsed in a senate race in maryland. they endorsed in a high—profile house race in virginia. they continue to run editorials on highly charged political issues. they continue to run editorials overall. so, you know, my question is, why do that 11 days before the election? and i was concerned that it was being done for other reasons, not the reasons that they stated. i think that the reasons they stated were not reasons. there was a rationalisation for a decision that had already been made, largely because... right, well, let's test that a little bit. i mean, where's your evidence? because will lewis, the british—born chief exec of the post, said that it was a strategic decision. he said, "we're going

back to our roots." the washington post before the �*70s, as you've just alluded to, did not endorse before the �*705. he says, "we're going back to that tradition." you clearly feel something else was going on, and it is obvious from what you've said — you've called it cowardice, you've called it a betrayal — that you believe the owner of the washington post, jeff bezos, was personally behind this decision. so, as a journalist who always espouses the importance of evidence, where's your evidence? well, first of all, the initial statements they made were highly misleading. they suggested that he wasn't... ..thatjeff bezos was not involved in the decision. and it's been apparent from an opinion piece that he himself wrote and from an interview that he subsequently gave to the new york times, at their dealbook conference, that he was involved in that decision, intimately involved in that decision. so those statements were highly misleading. on top of that, look, they issued an endorsement in 2016. jeff bezos wanted an editorial to be written for an endorsement. they did it again in 2020, and this decision was announced only 11 days before the election. if they had made this decision a year ago or two years ago or three years ago, that's fine.

that's a perfectly reasonable decision to come to, but it was not part of an initiative to restore trust in the post. you're the same marty who wrote a memoir in which you were full of praise forjeff bezos. you described going to a dinner with trump and bezos inside the white house in 2017, where you described trump as essentially trying to intimidate the two of you, literally poking you in the ribs, telling you that he was fed up with the bias and the prejudice against him and he wanted change. and you said, "bezos would neither be courted nor "clobbered into submission." you likejeff bezos. you believed injeff bezos. so what's changed ? well, that's a very good question because something has changed, because i was describing in my book what was, and now i'm talking about what is. and something definitely has changed.

and i think what has changed is that donald trump very clearly intends to exact vengeance on people who are perceived as his political enemies. and jeff bezos has been perceived as his political enemy for one reason and one reason only, and that is the coverage of the washington post. and he has... donald trump has elon musk at his side, a clear rival ofjeff bezos, particularly in the area of commercial space. and that has to be worrying to someone likejeff bezos. so, in essence, right...in essence, you're saying bezos has been intimidated and cowed by trump and the prospect of the return of trump. ijust wonder whether, again, considering your absolute commitment to, you know, impartiality, objectivity, you are not going too far right now. cos i note the other day you said, "they," — that is the new trump administration — "intend to go after the press in every conceivable way." i mean, this sounds apocalyptic. are you sure you really believe that? i am sure i really believe that, and it's evident from all that he's doing. it's evident from what he has

openly said, what he has said quite explicitly. and it's evident from the nominations, his nominations for the top positions in his government. these are also people who have spoken openly about seeking vengeance on the press and going after the press, particularly his nominee to be head of the fbi. don't people like kash patel, who you're talking about — the nominee to be the new director of the fbi — don't they say things which, when they get into power, they don't really intend to deliver on? it's a rhetorical device. when he said, "we're going to come after the people "in the media who lied about american citizens "who helped biden rig the election," i mean, he's just paying lip service to a whole trump narrative. he didn't know at the time he was going to be nominated to be director of the fbi. i mean, you're taking that and you're then saying,

"look, the guy's coming after us. "it's some sort of authoritarian purge." i would put it to you that that's probably going to prove to be a massive exaggeration. well, i will put it to you that it probably won't be a massive exaggeration. the reality is that, you know, they're already plotting a lot of libel suits against the press, probably be underwritten by trump's rich friends. and, look, i mean, they haven't disavowed their statements, that's for sure, and i doubt they will disavow their statements. the reality is that trump said... ..as soon as he got elected, he said, "promises made, promises kept." and i believe... and sometimes you should just listen to what he's saying. and i think he intends to keep his promises with regard yeah, we still do. let's hope we keep it. i mean, marty, you still have a us constitution. you still have a first amendment. yeah, we still do. let's hope we keep it. well, again, i mean, the reality is that trump's not going to be able to rescind the first amendment of the us constitution, is he?

you know, and he's not... i think he will challenge it in every conceivable way. he will saddle the press with enormous costs. he will threaten... he's already... the person that he intends to name as the head of the federal communications commission has already talked about potentially rescinding the licences of stations that are affiliated with the major networks. he hasn't mentioned that with regard to fox news, by the way. he's only mentioned that with regard to abc, nbc, cbs, and those are the kinds of things that... that's the kind of retribution that they're talking about and they're talking about openly. and that individual, by the way, has said that after he was named by trump as his nominee to be chairman of the fcc. let me flip this argument around a little bit and suggest that maybe there's another reason why your doomsday scenario might not come to pass, and that's simply because the trump 2.0 administration may realise

that the so—called legacy media — that is the traditional mainstream media sources that we've been talking about in this interview — theyjust don't matter that much any more. all of the polling evidence suggests that the american public is getting less and less of its information from the mainstream media and more and more of its information from social media sources, from elon musk�*s x and from very influential social media figures likejoe rogan. sure. well, if they didn't think we were relevant, i can assure you that they wouldn't be obsessing about us so much. i think what they're concerned about is actual reporting, digging up facts, revealing things that they would prefer not to have revealed, including about many of their nominees for the top—level positions in the administration. i think the fact that they are so obsessed about us means that they do care and that we are not irrelevant. how much does it worry you that the latest gallup poll, just from october of this year, recorded record low levels

of trust in the us mass media? 31% expressing either a great deal ora fairamount of confidence in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly, but 36% saying that they had no trust at all in the media. i'm hugely concerned about the decline in the level of trust and approval for the american press. i think that's something that is one of our greatest challenges, there's no question about it. and we have to figure out ways of addressing that. that's largely the result of market fragmentation in the media market and a high degree of polarisation in our society. and people are going to sources of information — so—called information, i should say — that confirm and affirm their pre—existing point of view. so it is a huge concern. is it? i should point out that... let mejust finish... yeah, go on. sorry. let me just finish here a point, a key point. that decline, the most recent decline in the gallup poll, was largely because of

a decline among democrats, by the way, a feeling that the press was not tough enough on trump. it was not a decline among republicans. if you actually look at that data, it was a sharp decline among democrats. is it possible to turn this around? you talk about the polarisation in society which is a part of the problem. you talk about the technological changes which are a part of the problem, and the massive decline in, for example, local and national newspapersales, i mean, to the point where the paper version of newspapers is something that's becoming completely obsolete. i mean, you can't turn these trends around, can you? well, look, i mean, there's been a significant growth in digital consumption of media. i don't really care whether people read us via a printed paper or whether they read us via on the internet. i couldn't care less as long as they're reading and as long as they're absorbing facts rather than complete complete fabrications, which i'm afraid is what we're seeing from a lot of different so—called source media sites out there. yeah, but i mean... i take your point. nobody, i guess, in the long run, really cares about

the demise of paper newspapers, but the fact is, if you look at the demographic profile of readers online of the post, the new york times, they're largely older. young people aren't turning to those news sources. young people... and donald trump knew this when he talked tojoe rogan and a whole host of other younger bro podcasters. he knew he was reaching the 18—35s, and if you look at the evidence, you know, the republicans did remarkably well. well, much better than they've done before amongst young people. so there's something happening here which, again, the mainstream media is struggling with. yeah, absolutely. i think that we have a lot to learn from influencers. so, you know, we are communications companies, but what's transpired has revealed that we have a lot of failings as communicators. we have to understand that we have to speak with people who are rejecting our authority and they're rejecting our authenticity. there's no question about that.

we have to learn how to communicate with greater authenticity. we have a lot to learn from influencers in terms of how to communicate and communicate our authority. i guess the ultimate... so... yeah, the ultimate influencer is elon musk, isn't he? i mean, he bought twitter. he turned it into x, and he's become an influencer with unparalleled power, not least cos of his very close association with the president—elect. well, his power also derives from his enormous wealth and the fact that he's the owner of x, also known as twitter. and the reality is that he shoves his commentary down the throat of anybody who uses x, whether they happen to be a follower of his or not. they are the single largest... he is the single largest spreader of fake news and conspiracy theories on this planet. yeah, he... i'm sure he would deny that. he's not here. you are, and... he can deny it, but there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. now, listen, what strikes me about you is that you very deliberately, in 2017,

put a new masthead on the washington post. that slogan — "democracy dies in darkness". right now, do you feel it's getting darker, and do you feel it threatens democracy? well, i think we do face an existential threat to democracy in the united states. i think we're discovering that a lot of our institutions are more fragile than we imagined. among the most fragile is congress. it's not doing itsjob. i mean, at the time of nixon, at least congress was willing to investigate the abuses of richard nixon. that is not the case today in this congress, a republican—controlled congress. they would never investigate anything by donald trump, but i think we've learned about the fragility of our court system. we've learned about the fragility of our independent press.

i think we've learned about the fragility of a lot of institutions. and that is a deep concern to me, because donald trump intends to challenge any independent arbiter of fact. and that's notjust the press, by the way. that could be medical authorities, scientists — you name it — judges — any independent arbiter of fact. a closing thought, marty. the paper that you worked for for so long and love, the washington post, was responsible for the watergate expose in the 19705. it effectively brought down a president. if that story were broken by your newspaper today, would it actually make much difference? or has the landscape changed so much that reporting like that doesn't matter any more? well, it would make a difference, and it would still matter because it's important for the public to know the facts. 0n the other hand, at the time of watergate, we had a congress that was willing to do its job, which was willing to hold the president accountable, to make sure that he abided by the constitution of the united states. and today, in this congress, we don't have that. and so they would not do the kind of investigation that we saw at the time of watergate. marty baron, we have to end there. i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you.

hello there. we again saw temperatures reaching 13 celsius on tuesday, but the cloud this time brought with it more rain. and into the southwest, we'll find this rain arriving later in the day on wednesday. but at the moment, this area of low pressure is bringing the rain into the night. it's also bringing some strong and gusty winds, and that's all keeping the temperatures up. it's very mild — these are the temperatures of 12—13 celsius by the end of the night. but it will still be windy into the morning, and the strongest of the winds

are likely to be over and to the east of the pennines. gusts 50—60mph in the morning — could be quite tricky if you're travelling on the m62 or the a1, for example. may well be some early rain across northern england to move through, and then, following that, sunshine and scattered, blustery showers will develop in scotland and northern ireland. and across england and wales, it may well brighten up as well, before we see this cloud and rain coming in to the southwest of england and wales later on. temperatures still in double figures for england and wales — but with that northwesterly wind developing in scotland and northern ireland, things will get colder as we head through the day and temperatures will be falling. 0vernight, we've got that rain coming in from the southwest to push across england and wales — it should've cleared away from the southeast by thursday morning. and then, we'll all be feeling the effects of these brisk northwesterly winds, and it will feel colder on thursday.

showers, too, and those could be wintry over the hills across northern scotland. quite a few showers for northern ireland, over the irish sea into wales, perhaps the west midlands, and the southwest of england — and again, a bit of wintry over the hills. more sunshine, though, further east, where it should be dry. we'll all feel colder in those brisk winds, temperatures 6—8 celsius — but at least there'll be more sunshine around. pretty chilly overnight for a while, before we see this rain coming in from the northwest on friday — that rain pushes away from scotland and northern ireland, into england and wales. it'll be followed by some sunshine and a few showers, and we'll end the week with temperatures of around about 9—10 celsius, so pretty good. heading quickly into the weekend, though, and it looks like a very unsettled weekend ahead. this weather system bringing some rain on saturday, and around the area of low pressure, we'll introduce a polar maritime air mass. and throughout the weekend, it looks like it'll be really quite windy. but through the weekend, it willjust get colder — and, as we see that colder air arriving, particularly on sunday, those showers will be turning wintry.

live from washington, this is bbc news. ukraine says it killed a senior russian general in moscow, that's as the us says hundreds of north koreans have been killed fighting for russia. the un and syrian rebels ask

for sanctions to be lifted as the country starts to rebuild. and the us says talks on a ceasefire deal in gaza are making significant progress. welcome to the programme. a united states military official says north korean forces fighting for russia against ukraine have suffered severe casualties, several hundred people now killed since going into battle. the official said the casualties included all ranks and ranged from light wounds to being killed in action. the north koreans had little battle experience. some un estimates that 12,000 north korean troops have been sent to fight for russia, many in the kursk region. ukraine says it was responsible for a bomb that

was responsible for a bomb that was hidden in a scoot that are killed general igor kirillov. kyiv claims he controlled russia's nuclear and chemical weapons and was a legitimate target. being filmed from a car opposite, a russian