this is bbc news, the headlines: four israeli soldiers are released under the gaza ceasefire deal. they were led onto a podium in gaza city amid a big crowd of palestinians and surrounded by dozens of armed hamas men. the four were handed over to the idf and have been reunited with their families before undergoing medical checks in israel. families and friends of the women celebrated as they watched the handover take place live. the women had been seized from an army base on the border with gaza when hamas attacked 15 months ago. meanwhile, around 200 palestinian prisoners have been released as part of that same deal. the exchange is the second since a ceasefire began on sunday and hamas handed over three israeli female civilians in exchange for 90 palestinian prisoners.

now on bbc news: the media show. hello, i'm katie razzall. 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 do the deal, it's - worth maybe $1 trillion. a trillion. and the release of the israeli hostages in gaza, and the debate about the responsible way to cover that story. on wednesday morning, prince harry settled his long—running legal battle with the murdoch family's news group 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 david sherborne — barrister for prince harry and the other claimant, the british politician lord tom watson — speaking outside the court in london.

this represents a vindication for the hundreds of other claimants who were strong—armed into settling, without being able to get to the truth of what was done to them. after endless resistance, denials, and legal battles by news group 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 the full picture from coming out, news uk is finally held to account. well, jake kanter, who's an investigations editor at deadline, just explain, to your mind, the significance of what just happened. well, i mean, look, if you're a tv writer, you would be penning this as the kind of final season of phone hacking: the scandal. it has absolutely delivered some high drama, a last gasp

court settlement today. and i think going into this, no—one expected prince harry to settle, but he has settled. and the reason it was unlikely he was going to settle, or at least that was the thought, is that this is a moral crusade for prince harry. he sees it as a battle between good, which, you know, he positions himself as, you know, pursuing truth and justice, and evil, which is how he characterises rupert murdoch himself and his media empire for using alleged illegal tactics to root out private information about him and his loved ones. and you will see from david sherborne�*s statement that they are claiming victory. to secure an apology from the sun and news group newspapers is an effective redrawing of the lines at news group newspapers. it has never conceded to illegal activity on the sun. so that is...that

is a big deal. yes. ijust want to bring in, just sorry to interrupt you, but we've also got joshua rosenberg here, who is a solicitor, legal affairs commentator and journalist, former colleague at the bbc. just for people who've missed it, although it's been going on a long time, outline the case as it was being brought. what the duke of sussex alleged was that journalists and private investigators working for news group newspapers used unlawful techniques to pry on his private life, and executives covered it up. he says that more than 200 articles published by news group between 1996 and 2011 contained information gathered by illegal means, and that it was intended, if this trial had gone ahead, it would look at around 30 stories in detail. yes, half chosen by him and half chosen by news group, as i understand it. and there was also, as i said, lord tom watson, he was a claimant. and, actually, 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. that's right. i mean, he says that his phone was targeted at around the time that he was investigating the murdoch newspapers at the height of the scandal. and it's quite interesting, if you want to get into the detail of it, because in this apology today that was read out in court, the ngn offered full and unequivocal apology to lord watson for the unwarranted intrusion carried out into his private life during his time in government by the news of the world, not the sun, during the period 2009 to 2011. but in a statement from news group newspapers, they denied that his phone was ever hacked between 2009 and 2011. and they said if this had gone to trial, they would have demonstrated that hacking after 2007 was impossible because of security updates to phones. what was the significance of that? well, it is interesting, isn't it, that not everything is accepted, not everything is proved? there are aspects of this case which simply haven't been established, as a result

of this settlement. and in that sense, you can say that news group has achieved something by this, this payment of substantial damages, which it might not have achieved if it had gone to court. on the other hand, prince harry and his team and lord watson are fully entitled to say they were victorious too. and as we've been saying, before we get into what both sides are saying, and it is the first time that ngn has admitted wrongdoing against prince harry, specifically involving unlawful activities at the sun, as jake was saying. they made clear later this was by private investigators working for the sun, not journalists, but it is still a huge win for the prince. of course it is, because, i mean, who instructed these private investigators? you know, somebody signed off the payments to them. they were told what to do. they were paid for information. the information appeared in the sun. you may say it's a little bit of a thin excuse to say,

well, we didn't do it, we got somebody else to do it for us. but, nevertheless, the sun is saying that its journalists didn't do this, it was simply freelance investigators. jake kanterfrom deadline, vindication for both prince harry and tom watson? well, i mean, they're certainly claiming that, i mean, asjosh has just outlined, i mean, you know, the settlement unfortunately obfuscates some of the truth here, and we may never get to the bottom of exactly what happened. i think for... that, i mean, that is, i think, that's a big, that's a big win on the side of news group newspapers. you know, they have avoided a situation in which they were going to be dragged into a ten—week trial. they probably would have faced potentially embarrassing revelations and drawn—out allegations of a cover—up. the fact that they've been able to pin it on private investigators commissioned by the sun gives them some sort of, you know, it puts it at arm's length. and also it potentially means that rebekah brooks,

who was the editor of the sun at the time of these allegations, won't face scrutiny and won't take the stand. i mean, it wasn't clear whether she would, but, you know, i think that's a distinct possibility. it's probably important to say that she's been acquitted of four criminal charges in the past, in 2014, including conspiring to hack phones when she was the editor of the news of the world. but she is now the boss of news uk, which is the media empire that houses the sun. and, you know, i wouldn't be surprised if she faces a... ..faces further scrutiny and questions over the coming days and weeks. and she's always been backed by rupert murdoch, but i suppose positions can change. yeah, i mean, she's absolutely a key ally of rupert murdoch and has been for decades now. you know, she is a bit of a reclusive figure, actually. she rarely appears in public but is still a major media power player here in the uk and internationally. you know, i'm sure she's regularly courting politicians. she's even spent time with the bbc director—general

in recent years. you know, is she about to be thrust into the spotlight again? we'll have to wait and see. well, i'd like to bring in chris huhne too here, former cabinet minister in the conservative lib dem coalition. chris huhne, your reaction first to the settlement because you have been in this position yourself. yes, we're in a very ironic. position for anybody making a claim against news group, which is that you could go i to court, you could win - a settlement from news group but if that settlement . was lower than they had already offered you, - you would be liable for all of rupert murdoch's legal fees, which could be £10 million. - and that's in terms of if you'd gone to court and had damages awarded against you, then if you'd previously been offered

a settlement that was higher than that, you would be liable for the legal costs? no, you could go to court and you can win damages in your favour- from news group... yes, exactly. ..and if that happens and those damages are less than - you've already been offered, then you are liable for all. of rupert murdoch's legal fees, which could swamp the amount| of damages and cause your bankruptcy. - is that why you settled, then? was that your position? everybody. — that's why everybody settled. i mean, that's why hugh grant, you know, hollywood a—lister, i settled, it's why i settled, it's why vince cable, - sir norman lamb, - everybody has settled. we all would have liked to see this ventilated properly - in open court because, frankly, ithere is an awful lot of detaill in the evidence which i the murdoch companies do not want to see out, - which is extremely embarrassing for them about the cover—up, about everything else - that they were up to. most importantly, and i knowj you're the media show rather than the politics show, is that tom watson's . allegations and my allegations, those of vince cable, _ of norman lamb and others, l

are really crucial because this was not ordered byjournalists, this was ordered by executives| for executive power- because they were worried about the investigation that| tom watson was involved in on the select committee i or because they wanted to get approval for their bid for sky television. - and this had nothing. to do withjournalism. this was the use of hacking and other means of intrusion into people's private lives, . of politicians, in order- to pursue corporate objectives. it was corporate espionage. and they would have settled without any admission of liability when it came to your case. they settled without - any admission of liability. and the interesting thing - in this case is that they have had to admit, harry has - extracted, like drawing teeth, he's extracted _ an admission of wrongdoing, of criminal activity, | of unlawful activity. i would say that's

criminal activity. i this is, as tom watson said, a criminal enterprise - in the way in which they were targeting politicians - who got in their way. and the reality is that - it is now over to the police to complete this investigation. if sir mark rowley and - the metropolitan police decide that they should go ahead with a full investigation, l then the full, murky business can- come to light in another trial. but. sadly. — the full, murky business has not come to light as i a result of this settlement. and you were saying at the top that all of you, whether it's you or hugh grant or sienna miller said this too, the actress, you would have liked to have ventilated this in court, your own cases, but you couldn't because of this, this business with the damages and the settlement and the costs. but do you think, would you have preferred harry, prince harry and lord watson not to settle this case? did you want to go to court? i think you'd given a witness statement. you know, you had planned to be a witness if they wanted you.

yes, i had given- a witness statement. i was down to appear - to give evidence and to be cross—examined on monday. so are you disappointed? i am disappointed. i would very much have liked to see this properly ventilated. . all of the facts that i know as part of the disclosure . that was given to me, as part of my case, i the disclosure that was given to other people and - as part of the generic case, l none of that is going to come out in open court and therefore be able to be reported - under privilege by. news organisations. and that is a very- regrettable situation. i have written to| sir mark rowley, the metropolitan police commissioner, - to offer full cooperation with any police inquiry. | but i entirely backi tom watson's view and the view of the former. prime minister gordon brown that there now needs to be a police investigation. - and joshua rozenberg, just to bring you back in, news group, in its statement, appears to be claiming that harry settled because he saw the details of their defence,

including the witnesses they would call. what do you think about that? well, they would say that, wouldn't they? and he would say the opposite. i think chris huhne is right about the financial imperative, no doubt news group made a large offer — meaning they offered money by paying it into court, as the phrase goes, and, as chris says, if he had secured lower damages than the presumably large sum they were offering, he would have got nothing. indeed, he would have had to pay their costs. and that's how it works. now, is that fair? chris says he wants this information brought out — it won't be. well, you could say it's very unfortunate, from the point of view of the claimants, but from the court's point of view, it takes a view that it's there to provide compensation for a loss, damages if you have been damaged, and if the defendant is willing to pay you, and you're willing to accept that money, well, that's the end of it, and that's why the case doesn't come to court.

well, jake, just to bring you back in, nobody from news group obviously had to testify, because there hasn't been a court case. do you think there has been reputational damage to ngn because, you know, they've won in the sense that they don't have to have a drip, drip, drip of allegations made over the next few weeks. i think admitting liability here is, without doubt, reputationally damaging. i'd be hard to argue otherwise, i think, and i think it's notjust... but we're a far cry from back in the day, when they had to shut the news of the world. i mean, the sun is not in existential... i mean, yes, we're not in that territory. but i think, in any situation in which a newspaper group is admitting to using, you know, illegal tactics in which to, you know, obtain information, i think that reflects very poorly on both news uk, but also on journalism as a profession, unfortunately, even though the majority, the vast, vast majority ofjournalists work responsibly and ethically, it does not — it does not bode well for trust in journalism at a delicate time

for trust injournalism. last weekend, the first three israeli hostages were released by hamas. cheering. video of the handover showed chaotic scenes in gaza as crowds, including masked and armed hamas fighters, gathered around the vehicle they were being transported in. it started a debate inside israel as to how news organisations should handle footage like this. chanting: allahu akbar! allahu akbar! _ noga tarnopolsky is a freelance journalist, and she joined us from jerusalem. israelis got their coverage from israeli channels, i think, almost exclusively. there are three main channels, you know, there's a right—wing, sort of... there's several right—wing, more political channels. but israelis were really riveted to the images shown by their own tv,

which, in this case, actually did mirror, to a certain extent, images being shown around the around the world as well. and i suppose i'm asking where the actual footage came from, cos there were multiple pieces of content portraying it, you know, everyone from the israeli government to hamas, to aljazeera, and apparently some from palestinian civilians. yes, in particular, i would highlight really brave gazan civilians, because the first pictures we saw, which you're describing, were really, i think, very disturbing pictures of these three young women dressed in kind of fuchsia pink, being paraded through what looked like a braying mob of masked, heavily—armed men. and these were pictures very, very well—engineered by hamas to show hamas as a powerful force transporting these women. these images were, by and large,

transmitted around the world with very little comment. "here they are, see them, they're walking." and it didn't take very long for gazans using their own cameras, in some cases their own drones, individual gazans to put up pictures and video on twitter and on tiktok, and on instagram that actually showed that these crowds were very small, that it might have been 100 or 150 men, that they were really... it was created like almost a movie scene around these trucks in which they were transporting the women. and this was unbelievably important context, because much of the world leapt on these images to show in a way that no gazans are innocent, right? a line that has been going around right—wing media a lot in recent months, unfortunately. they wanted to show hundreds, thousands of gazans, and in fact, it wasn't.

although that footage, i suppose, was startling, it did look like a great pr moment for hamas, if you like. when we first saw that footage, this was a terrorist organisation, according to the israelis, that they were going to wipe out. and what we saw was something different. yes, it was a very bad moment for the israeli point of view, trying to argue that it has almost wiped out hamas militarily, which it has. but i want to say about us, as journalists, it was a bad moment for us. i understand what happened. you know, these women haven't seen the light of day in 15 months. we haven't seen them. everyone watching was dying to know, are they all right? are they, you know, mobile? are they alive? so hamas engineered the entire transfer even before the images. for example, hamas�*s insistence on not letting israel know if the hostages it's releasing are alive or dead ahead of time. they have succeeded brilliantly in creating a situation

in which we're all hanging on their every word and their every image. but i really think that we, as journalists, have to shape up before the next round, which is coming as early as saturday, because we did a terrible disservice, i think, to our profession by basically transmitting pure propaganda. and are you just saying propaganda on the hamas side, or what did you think of what. . .— ..the involvement of the israeli government as well, what footage. . . ? i. .. this was absolutely hamas propaganda. i thought that the israeli government, in its own way, also behaved abominably, to be honest with you. israelis were... why? because israelis were told and were warned that these women were in a very fragile state, that there would be no access to them before they got into closed hospital rooms, that they wouldn't even be able to see their families. there was all kinds of caution put out there, and at the end, the israeli government, what is called the government press office cameras, which is...

the government press office is a branch of the israeli prime minister's office. they were waiting for these women literally behind the hospital doors. ifound this to be prurient and verging on the obscene. so these women, these young women, even if they were asked for their permission, were in no position to give it. so imagine the situation with these families, the tension, you know, lack of clarity in their situation. i don't know, i have no evidence to suggest that they did or did not give permission, but even if they were asked to give permission, they were in a situation of coercion. and how widely held do you think the view is that it's wrong to show this footage, would you say? i think i may be the only one in the state of israel who feels this way, to be honest. i have asked one or two colleagues. the only person

who agreed with me is a colleague, an israeli abroad. but despite my situation in an extreme minority, i do feel strongly about it. and i wouldn't be surprised if, in a year and a half, we hear from one of these women saying how violated she felt to have cameras, you know, every whimper, every expression in the most intimate and vulnerable situation in their lives. i don't think this had to be transmitted necessarily to the public. and as we've been reporting many times on the media show, internationaljournalists have been banned from gaza by the israeli and egyptian governments. now a ceasefire has begun, are there any signs that those journalists will be allowed into gaza? not yet. i belong to the foreign press association here in israel. we have petitioned the supreme court to allow us. the court, by and large, has just, without comment, accepted the army's argument that, due to security reasons, journalists can't be let in. the last supreme court hearing was just yesterday. the army received

another postponement. there seems to be, among the judicial authorities in israel, very, very, very little awareness, if you ask me, about the importance of having independent professional media coverage in gaza. and i would even argue, if i could speak to these people directly, that the state of israel itself has been very ill—served by their policy of not allowing anyone into gaza, because basically, the narrative that has taken over the world — and specifically very much the arab world — is hamas�* narrative. and i think israel should ask itself pretty big questions about this choice. now, this week, there have been some developments on the future of tiktok. on tuesday, president trump was hosting some big tech players in the white house when he announced his thoughts on a deal that could keep

the app running in the us. the deal, i think, is this. and i've met with ownersl of tiktok, the big owners. it's worthless if - it doesn't get a permit. it's not like, _ oh, you can take the us... the whole thing is worthless. with a permit, it's worth, like, $1 trillion. _ so what i'm thinking - about saying to somebody is, buy it, and give half to- the united states of america, half, and we'll give you the permit. - well, that was president trump answering questions about tiktok while meeting with oracle founder larry ellison and other tech bosses in the oval office on tuesday. we've obviously seen these huge pictures through the week of his inauguration and actions since. jake kanter, just bringing you back in, from deadline. have big tech and the us government somehow merged, do you think? well, we're seeing something quite extraordinary that we just didn't witness in 2016. i mean, just to take tiktok as an example, i mean, trump previously led efforts

to ban tiktok, arguing that it posed a threat to us national security. and here he is as tiktok�*s saviour. and i think that achieves a couple of things for him. firstly, you know, being painted as a saviour thing for an incoming president, and, you know, i'm sure will win him many fans among tiktok�*s loyal base of i think it's about 170 million american users. we won the young vote. i think i won it. through tiktok. so i have a warm spot- in my heart for tiktok, ok? the other thing, which i think probably gets to your question a bit more, which is that, you know, it gives him space in his efforts and gives him power in his efforts to bring the tech titans to heel. he now has the power to sort of extract concessions from tiktok, maybe even encourage some tweaking in its algorithm. you know, turn the trump dial up a little bit. i mean, look, that's speculation on my part,

but we are seeing tech companies take massive steps in his direction. you've only got to look at meta, the owner of facebook and instagram, which is now dropping fact checking across its services and has appointed trump allies to some very senior positions. you know, we're in a totally different climate to previously when trump was in office and he was talking about breaking these companies up nonstop. that's it for this week. thank you so much to all my guests, and to you for your company. i'll be back next week. goodbye. 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. with storm eowyn continuing to drift away northwards, the weather today is a good

deal quieter for most of us. some sunny spells, some wintry showers out there, but if we take a look at the satellite picture, we can see exactly what is going on. eowyn now pushing away northwards. it has been very windy in the north of scotland so far today, but those winds are easing. this little frontal feature pushing in from the west will bring some squally showers and another bout of brisk winds later, and then another area of low pressure is developing in the atlantic. that will start to influence our weather tomorrow, but in the short term, mostly fine as we head towards the end of saturday afternoon. but then our band of squally showers pushes in from the west. some of those wintry, particularly across scotland, and it will turn really windy for a time in the north—west of scotland. not as windy as it has been, but any further strong winds could cause a bit more disruption. some ice is likely to form as well across parts of scotland. temperatures dropping away, a cold night for many. a little bit milder, though, down towards the south—west as this next area of low pressure approaches.

this low has been named storm herminia. not named by the uk met office, it's been named by the spanish weather service for the impact it is expected to have in spain, but for us it is going to bring some heavy rain in from the south—west as we go through the day tomorrow, and some pretty brisk winds as well. that rain spreading northwards across england, wales into northern ireland, southern scotland, eventually. a bit of snow over high ground. northern scotland seeing some sunshine and relatively light winds, but elsewhere, for western and southern parts gusts of 50mph, 60mph, possibly 70mph in exposed places. temperaturesjust four degrees in aberdeen, ten degrees in plymouth and in saint helier. this area of low pressure, instead of moving through quickly, isjust going to linger. it's going to spin around just to the west of us as we head into monday, so it's going to remain very windy, particularly for western and southern parts. some outbreaks of heavy rain, which could cause flooding again across the south of the uk. some rain further north as well. it will be quite blustery for all of us. temperatures north to south around six to ten degrees.

it does stay unsettled through tuesday on into wednesday, but there are signs that things will turn a little bit calmer and quieter as we head towards the end of the week.

live from london, this is bbc news. in the last few hours, 200 palestinian inmates have been released from israeli prisons. four female israeli soldiers were released by hamas. this has been the second exchange under the gaza ceasefire deal. the four hostages have reunited with their families. the women had been seized from an army base on the border with gaza when hamas attacked 15 months ago. and nick live in tel aviv at the place they call hostage square where our day they have been watching and absorbing everything that has been happening. —— all day. hello, i'm luxmy gopal. four female israeli soldiers freed by hamas have beeen reunited with their parents at a reception point

in southern israel. they were taken by helicopter to a hospital and are now