voice-over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. hello, coming up on the media show. prince harry wins an apology from planet murdoch. donald trump's thoughts on the future of tiktok. if i donald trump's thoughts on the future of tiktok.— future of tiktok. if i do the deal it's — future of tiktok. if i do the deal it's worth _ future of tiktok. if i do the deal it's worth maybe - future of tiktok. if i do the deal it's worth maybe $1 i deal it's worth maybe $1 trillion. �* ., , ., trillion. and the release of the israeli _ trillion. and the release of the israeli hostages - trillion. and the release of the israeli hostages in - trillion. and the release of| the israeli hostages in gaza and the debate about the responsible way to cover that story. it's all coming up on the media show. on wednesday morning prince harry settled his long—standing legal battle with the murdoch families newspapers. the settlement includes a full and unequivocal apology for serious intrusion into his private life and a big

pay—out. let's have a listen to debra chaplin, barristerfor debra chaplin, barrister for prince debra chaplin, barristerfor prince harry and the other claimant, the british politician water tom watson speaking outside the court in london. , , , , speaking outside the court in london. , , , london. this represents a vindication _ london. this represents a vindication for _ london. this represents a vindication for the - london. this represents a l vindication for the hundreds london. this represents a - vindication for the hundreds of other claims who were strong—armed into settling without being able to get to the truth of what was done to them. after amber's resistance, denials and legal battles by newsgroup newspapers, including spending more than £1 billion in pay—outs, and in legal costs, as well as paying off those in the know in order to prevent full lecture from coming out, news uk is finally held to account.— held to account. jake kanter was investigation _ held to account. jake kanter was investigation editor, - was investigation editor, explained to me in your mind except because of what happened?—

except because of what happened? except because of what hauened? ., ., ., happened? you are a tv writer ou happened? you are a tv writer you would _ happened? you are a tv writer you would be _ happened? you are a tv writer you would be paying _ happened? you are a tv writer you would be paying this - happened? you are a tv writer you would be paying this as - happened? you are a tv writer| you would be paying this as the final season of phone hacking the scandal. it is absolutely delivered as a lastgasp settlement today. going into this, no—one expected prince harry to settle. but it settled. the reason it was unlikely he would release that was before but this was a moral crusade for prince harry. he seesit crusade for prince harry. he sees it as a battle between good, which he positions himself as, pursuing truth and justice and evil which is how he characterises rupert murdoch himself and his media empire. for using alleged illegal tactics to our private information about him and his loved ones. you will see from david's statement that they are claiming victory to secure an apology from the sun and

newsgroup newspapers. it's an effective redrawing of the lines at newsgroup newspapers, it is never conceded to illegal activity on the sun so that is activity on the sun so that is a big deal. l activity on the sun so that is a big deal-— a big deal. i 'ust want to brina a big deal. i 'ust want to bring in. — a big deal. ijust want to bring in, sorry _ a big deal. ijust want to bring in, sorry to - a big deal. ijust want to i bring in, sorry to interrupt you but we also havejoshua rozenberg here who is a solicitor, legal affairs commentator and former colleague at the bbc. for people who have missed it although it has been going on a long time, outlined the case as it was being brought. the long time, outlined the case as it was being brought.— it was being brought. the duke of sussex alleged _ it was being brought. the duke of sussex alleged is _ it was being brought. the duke of sussex alleged is private - of sussex alleged is private investigators working for newsgroup newspapers used on lawful— newsgroup newspapers used on lawful techniques to document is private life and executives covered _ is private life and executives covered it up. he says more than — covered it up. he says more than 200 _ covered it up. he says more than 200 articles published by newsgroup between 1996 and 2011 contained information out that by illegal means and it was intended if this trial had gone ahead — intended if this trial had gone ahead to _ intended if this trial had gone ahead to look at around 30 stories in_ ahead to look at around 30 stories in detail.— ahead to look at around 30 stories in detail. archers and b him stories in detail. archers and by him and _ stories in detail. archers and by him and i've _ stories in detail. archers and by him and i've chosen - stories in detail. archers and by him and i've chosen by i

by him and i've chosen by newsgroup as i understand. also there was more tom watson was a claimant and there was more tom watson was a claimantand in there was more tom watson was a claimant and in some ways that's more extraordinary the allegations being made there about a sitting mp at the time with oversight of the dcms committee?— with oversight of the dcms committee? that's right. he sa s his committee? that's right. he says his bone _ committee? that's right. he says his bone was _ committee? that's right. he says his bone was targeted i committee? that's right. he l says his bone was targeted at around — says his bone was targeted at around the time he was investigating the murdoch newspapers at the height of the scandal — newspapers at the height of the scandal. it's interesting if you — scandal. it's interesting if you want to get into the detail of it because in this apology today— of it because in this apology today that was read out in court. _ today that was read out in court, the mgm offered the full and unequivocal apology to lord watson — and unequivocal apology to lord watson for the unwarranted intrusion— watson for the unwarranted intrusion carried out into his private _ intrusion carried out into his private life during his time in government. by the news of the world _ government. by the news of the world not— government. by the news of the world not the son during the period — world not the son during the period 2009— 2011. in a statement from newsgroup's papers, — statement from newsgroup's papers, they denied his phone was ever— papers, they denied his phone was ever hacked between 2009 and 2011— was ever hacked between 2009 and 2011 and they said if it had — and 2011 and they said if it had gone to trial there would have — had gone to trial there would have demonstrated that hacking after _ have demonstrated that hacking after 2007 was impossible

because of a security update two phones. because of a security update two phones-_ two phones. what is the significance _ two phones. what is the significance of _ two phones. what is the significance of that? - two phones. what is the significance of that? it'sj significance of that? it's interesting _ significance of that? it's interesting that - significance of that? it's interesting that not - significance of that? it's interesting that not everything is accepted, not everything is proved — is accepted, not everything is proved. there are aspects of this— proved. there are aspects of this case _ proved. there are aspects of this case which simply haven't been — this case which simply haven't been established as a result of the settlement. in that sense you can — the settlement. in that sense you can say newsgroup has achieved _ you can say newsgroup has achieved something by this payment of substantial damages which _ payment of substantial damages which it— payment of substantial damages which it may not have achieved if it had — which it may not have achieved if it had gone to court on the other— if it had gone to court on the other hand. prince harry and his teanr _ other hand. prince harry and his team and lord watson fully entitled — his team and lord watson fully entitled to say there were victorious as well. as entitled to say there were victorious as well.- entitled to say there were victorious as well. as we have been saying — victorious as well. as we have been saying before _ victorious as well. as we have been saying before we - victorious as well. as we have been saying before we get - victorious as well. as we have | been saying before we get into what both sides are saying, it's the first time that mgm has admitted wrongdoing against prince harry specifically involving on lawful activities as the sun and jack was saying, they made clear letter this was by private investigators working for the sun, not journalists. this is still a huge win for the prints. {lit huge win for the prints. of course it — huge win for the prints. of course it is because who instructed his private investigators? instructed his private investirators? ., , investigators? someone signed off the payments _ investigators? someone signed off the payments to _ investigators? someone signed off the payments to them. - investigators? someone signed| off the payments to them. they

were _ off the payments to them. they were told — off the payments to them. they were told what to do, they were paid for— were told what to do, they were paid for information, the information appeared in the sun — information appeared in the sun it _ information appeared in the sun it is, _ information appeared in the sun. it is, you may say it's a bit of— sun. it is, you may say it's a bit of a _ sun. it is, you may say it's a bit of a then _ sun. it is, you may say it's a bit of a then excused to say we didn't— bit of a then excused to say we didn't do— bit of a then excused to say we didn't do it _ bit of a then excused to say we didn't do it we got someone else — didn't do it we got someone else to _ didn't do it we got someone else to do it for us but nevertheless the sun is saying its journalists did not do this, _ its journalists did not do this, it _ its journalists did not do this, it was simply freelancer investigators.— this, it was simply freelancer investigators. jake kanter from deadline, vindication _ investigators. jake kanter from deadline, vindication for - deadline, vindication for prince harry and tom watson? our certainly claiming that. the settlement unfortunately obfuscate its truth here and we may never get to the bottom of what happened exactly. i think for that, that is a big win on the side of newsgroup newspapers. they have avoided a situation where there would be dragged into a ten week trial. april we would have faced a potentially embarrassing revelation and join our allegations that would cover up the fact that they have been able to pin it on private

investigators commissioned by the sun, give some sort of, it puts our times length. also it potentially means that rebecca brooks, who was the editor of the sun at the time of these allegations, would face scrutiny and won't take the stand. it wasn't clear whether she would but i think that's a distinct possibility. it's probably important to say she's been acquitted of full criminal charges in the past in 2014 including conspiring to have phones hat which was news editor of the world which is now the boss of news uk which is the media empire which houses the sun and i wouldn't be surprised if she faces further scrutiny and questions over the coming days and weeks. she is was been backed by rupert murdoch but i suppose positions can change? she rupert murdoch but i suppose positions can change?- positions can change? she is absolutely — positions can change? she is absolutely a _ positions can change? she is absolutely a key _ positions can change? she is absolutely a key ally - positions can change? she is absolutely a key ally of - absolutely a key ally of rupert murdoch has been for decades.

she is a bit of a reclusive figure actually. she rarely appears in public but is still appears in public but is still a major media powerplant here in the uk and internationally. i'm sure she regularly according politicians. is she about to be thrust into the spotlight? i’d about to be thrust into the spotlight?— about to be thrust into the s-aotliht? �* ~ ., , spotlight? i'd like to bring in chris huhne, _ spotlight? i'd like to bring in chris huhne, former - spotlight? i'd like to bring in chris huhne, former cabinet | chris huhne, former cabinet minister in the conservative lib dem coalition. your reaction first to the settlement because you have beenin settlement because you have been in this position yourself? very ironic position for anybody— very ironic position for anybody making - very ironic position for anybody making a - very ironic position for. anybody making a claim very ironic position for - anybody making a claim against newsgroup _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is you - anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is you could . anybody making a claim againsti newsgroup which is you could go to court. — newsgroup which is you could go to court. when— newsgroup which is you could go to court, when a _ newsgroup which is you could go to court, when a settlement - to court, when a settlement from — to court, when a settlement from newsgroup _ to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but - to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but if- to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but if that. from newsgroup but if that settlement _ from newsgroup but if that settlement was _ from newsgroup but if that settlement was lower - from newsgroup but if that settlement was lower than from newsgroup but if that- settlement was lower than they had already _ settlement was lower than they had already offered _ settlement was lower than they had already offered you - settlement was lower than they had already offered you you - had already offered you you would — had already offered you you would be _ had already offered you you would be liable _ had already offered you you would be liable for- had already offered you you would be liable for all- had already offered you you would be liable for all of. would be liable for all of rupert _ would be liable for all of rupert murdoch's- would be liable for all of rupert murdoch's legall would be liable for all of- rupert murdoch's legal fees which — rupert murdoch's legal fees which could _ rupert murdoch's legal fees which could be _ rupert murdoch's legal fees which could be £10 - rupert murdoch's legal fees

which could be £10 million. i rupert murdoch's legal fees i which could be £10 million. [5 which could be £10 million. [£3 that which could be £10 million. that in terms of if you've which could be £10 million]- that in terms of if you've gone to court and had damages awarded against you, than if you previously been offered a settlement that was higher than that you would be liable for legal costs?— legal costs? you can go to court and _ legal costs? you can go to court and win _ legal costs? you can go to court and win damages - legal costs? you can go to court and win damages in | legal costs? you can go to - court and win damages in your favour— court and win damages in your favour fronr _ court and win damages in your favour from newsgroup - court and win damages in your favour from newsgroup and i court and win damages in your favour from newsgroup and ifl favour from newsgroup and if that— favour from newsgroup and if that happens. _ favour from newsgroup and if that happens, and _ favour from newsgroup and if that happens, and those - favour from newsgroup and if - that happens, and those damages are less _ that happens, and those damages are less than _ that happens, and those damages are less than you _ that happens, and those damages are less than you already - that happens, and those damages are less than you already have - are less than you already have been — are less than you already have been offered, _ are less than you already have been offered, then— are less than you already have been offered, then you - are less than you already have been offered, then you are - been offered, then you are liable — been offered, then you are liable for— been offered, then you are liable for all— been offered, then you are liable for all of— been offered, then you are liable for all of rupert - liable for all of rupert murdoch's— liable for all of rupert murdoch's legal- liable for all of rupert murdoch's legal fees. liable for all of rupert - murdoch's legal fees which could — murdoch's legal fees which could swamp _ murdoch's legal fees which could swamp the _ murdoch's legal fees which could swamp the amount l murdoch's legal fees whichi could swamp the amount of damages _ could swamp the amount of damages and because - could swamp the amount of damages and because yourl damages and because your bankruptcy. _ damages and because your bankruptcy. ls— damages and because your bankruptcy-— damages and because your bankruptcy. is that why you settles? — bankruptcy. is that why you settles? was _ bankruptcy. is that why you settles? was that - bankruptcy. is that why you settles? was that your - settles? was that your position?— settles? was that your osition? ., �*, ., , position? that's what everybody settled. that's _ position? that's what everybody settled. that's why _ position? that's what everybody settled. that's why hugh - position? that's what everybody settled. that's why hugh grant, | settled. that's why hugh grant, hollywood — settled. that's why hugh grant, hollywood a _ settled. that's why hugh grant, hollywood a list _ settled. that's why hugh grant, hollywood a list of _ settled. that's why hugh grant, hollywood a list of settle, - hollywood a list of settle, that's _ hollywood a list of settle, that's why _ hollywood a list of settle, that's why i _ hollywood a list of settle, that's why i settle, - hollywood a list of settle, that's why i settle, that'si hollywood a list of settle, - that's why i settle, that's why vince — that's why i settle, that's why vince cable _ that's why i settle, that's why vince cable and _ that's why i settle, that's why vince cable and norman- that's why i settle, that's why vince cable and norman lan,| that's why i settle, that's why. vince cable and norman lan, we all would — vince cable and norman lan, we all would have _ vince cable and norman lan, we all would have liked _ vince cable and norman lan, we all would have liked to _ vince cable and norman lan, we all would have liked to see - all would have liked to see this— all would have liked to see this as _ all would have liked to see this as weighted _ all would have liked to see this as weighted properly i all would have liked to see i this as weighted properly and open — this as weighted properly and open court _ this as weighted properly and open court because _ this as weighted properly and open court because frankly i open court because frankly there — open court because frankly there is— open court because frankly there is an _ open court because frankly there is an awful— open court because frankly there is an awful lot - open court because frankly there is an awful lot of - open court because frankly l there is an awful lot of detail in the — there is an awful lot of detail in the evidence _ there is an awful lot of detail in the evidence which - there is an awful lot of detail in the evidence which the - in the evidence which the murdoch— in the evidence which the murdoch companies- in the evidence which the murdoch companies do . in the evidence which the i murdoch companies do not in the evidence which the - murdoch companies do not want to see _ murdoch companies do not want to see out — murdoch companies do not want to see out which _ murdoch companies do not want to see out which is _ murdoch companies do not want to see out which is extremely i to see out which is extremely embarrassing _ to see out which is extremely embarrassing for— to see out which is extremely embarrassing for them - to see out which is extremely embarrassing for them about| to see out which is extremely - embarrassing for them about the cover-up. — embarrassing for them about the cover-up. about— embarrassing for them about the cover—up, about everything - embarrassing for them about the

cover—up, about everything elsel cover—up, about everything else that they — cover—up, about everything else that they were _ cover—up, about everything else that they were up _ cover—up, about everything else that they were up to, _ cover—up, about everything else that they were up to, most - that they were up to, most importantly— that they were up to, most importantly and _ that they were up to, most importantly and i— that they were up to, most importantly and i know - that they were up to, mosti importantly and i know your nredia — importantly and i know your nredia show— importantly and i know your media show rather- importantly and i know your media show rather than- importantly and i know your media show rather than a l media show rather than a politics— media show rather than a politics show, _ media show rather than a politics show, is - media show rather than a politics show, is tom - media show rather than a - politics show, is tom watson's allegations _ politics show, is tom watson's allegations and _ politics show, is tom watson's allegations and my— politics show, is tom watson's allegations and my allegations| allegations and my allegations and those _ allegations and my allegations and those of— allegations and my allegations and those of vince _ allegations and my allegations and those of vince cable - allegations and my allegations and those of vince cable and i and those of vince cable and nornran— and those of vince cable and norman lamb— and those of vince cable and norman lamb and _ and those of vince cable and norman lamb and others - and those of vince cable and | norman lamb and others are really— norman lamb and others are really crucial— norman lamb and others are really crucial because - norman lamb and others are really crucial because this - norman lamb and others are really crucial because this isi really crucial because this is not ordered _ really crucial because this is not ordered by— really crucial because this is not ordered byjournalist, . really crucial because this is l not ordered byjournalist, this was _ not ordered byjournalist, this was ordered _ not ordered byjournalist, this was ordered by— not ordered byjournalist, this was ordered by executives - not ordered byjournalist, this was ordered by executives forj was ordered by executives for executive _ was ordered by executives forl executive power. because they were _ executive power. because they were worried _ executive power. because they were worried about _ executive power. because they were worried about the - were worried about the investigation _ were worried about the investigation that- were worried about the investigation that tom| were worried about the - investigation that tom watson was involved _ investigation that tom watson was involved in— investigation that tom watson was involved in in— investigation that tom watson was involved in in the - investigation that tom watson was involved in in the select . was involved in in the select committee _ was involved in in the select committee or— was involved in in the select committee or because - was involved in in the select committee or because theyl committee or because they wanted _ committee or because they wanted to— committee or because they wanted to get _ committee or because they wanted to get approval- committee or because they wanted to get approval forl wanted to get approval for their— wanted to get approval for their bid _ wanted to get approval for their bid for— wanted to get approval for their bid for sky— wanted to get approval for| their bid for sky television. this— their bid for sky television. this had _ their bid for sky television. this had nothing _ their bid for sky television. this had nothing to - their bid for sky television. this had nothing to do - their bid for sky television. j this had nothing to do with journalism, _ this had nothing to do with journalism, it— this had nothing to do with journalism, it was - this had nothing to do with journalism, it was the - this had nothing to do with journalism, it was the use i this had nothing to do with i journalism, it was the use of hacking _ journalism, it was the use of hacking and _ journalism, it was the use of hacking and other— journalism, it was the use of hacking and other means - journalism, it was the use of hacking and other means of| hacking and other means of intrusion— hacking and other means of intrusion into _ hacking and other means of intrusion into people's- hacking and other means of . intrusion into people's private lives — intrusion into people's private lives of— intrusion into people's private lives of politicians _ intrusion into people's private lives of politicians in - intrusion into people's private lives of politicians in order - lives of politicians in order to pursue _ lives of politicians in order to pursue corporate - lives of politicians in order - to pursue corporate objectives. it 1516 00:10:47,754 --> 00:10:48