we then tried to move back to a system where announcements were made in parliament, and they were not prebriefed. they were made in parliament. and, therefore, that moved away from a system where, to be honest, there were a selected group of people who previously could expect to get early access to information. and i think that's been a problem with the way the media system has worked. but i'm afraid it was wholly unsuccess. , and we've moved back to where the head of the communications operation and the lobby system remains intact. it's not the lobby system per se that's the problem, this small group of insiders who get the men be fit of early access to -- benefit of early access, and i think that is one of the problems that prevents the greater openness we have to see. yes, we should have made changes a lot earlier and eventually the changes we tried to make we

didn't make successfully, i'm afraid, because this was a huge resistance to them. and if you announced something in parliament or in a speech, it was not being reported unless it had been given as an exclusive to a paper. they tended to print it on page 6 rather than page 1. .. the huge campaign about how we were selling britain down the river and demanding not only

european referenda but demanding that i support it. then they read i think huge campaign in britain which was taken up by the conservative party, that we simply an attack on -- at no point in these three years that i was prime minister did i ever feel i was -- i think what change, and i've got to be honest about this, is when news international decided that the commercial interest came first, and i've got to be absolute clear about that. i submitted a letter to you about that. a point in 2008 in 2009 where particularly with james murdoch -- at the mact taggart lecture when he set out an agenda which to me was quite breathtaking in its arrogance and its ambition. and that was new to the bbc. it was to undermine the ofcom, the regular. there is holsters a policy aids i itemized for the evidence i've

given you which no government that i was involved in could ever agree to. so the bbc license he was to be cut. they would be taken out of much of the work on the internet, the commercial activities were to be reduced. off, was to be neutered. the listing of sporting occasions was to benefit news international. product placement was to be allowed. a whole series of issues, the impartiality of the news coverage of the news was a requirement on immediate and it should be like fox news and the sky news. now, the remarkable thing about the spirit in government, and i say this with regret and i say this was a great deal of sadness, is that we could not go along with that sort of agenda. we could not go along with the neutering of ofcom or the bbc senior licensee in real terms as i think is happening now, in the order 15% by 2016, plus a whole host of other responsibilities. nor could we see a case of the

bbc taken out of much of its work on the internet. but while we resisted that we would not support it. on each and every one of these issues, i'm afraid to say, i think this is an issue of public policy, the conservative party supported every one of the recommendations that were made by the murdoch group. >> possibly slight danger there, mr. brown, strength away from speed is i want to make a point, mr. jay. you suggested that somehow relations with "the sun" newspaper, with mr. murdoch had broke down because he decided he wanted to support the conservative party. i want to suggest to you that the commercial interest of news international were very clear long before that. and we have support from the conservative party.

>> now move up the general comments now, mr. brown, onto your own experience, which is page 1414, page eight on the internal numbering of your statement. and can i go back to 2006, and the story in relation to your youngest son in "the sun" newspaper. may we start off, please, by establishing the facts as you know them to be in relation to the story, and in particular, do you know "the sun" newspaper's source for that story? >> this is for difficult for me if i may say so, because i've never chosen and never wanted my son or my son and my daughter ever to have been across the media. and i do think there was an issue, and i hope that you i trust this, about the rights of children to be free from their coverage in media publications. but because this issue was

raised and became an issue for me, i've had to look at what actually happened at the time. and it's only in a sense latterly that the fax i think are necessary to a fair examination have come available. >> mr. brown, let me make it clear. i don't want to cause you or your family any distressed unnecessarily. but i hope you will see the value in the example the same way i apologize to those who complained about press intrusion last november when they gave evidence. because they do think it's an important part of the story. >> i'm very grateful to you, lord justice leveson. i never sought to bring my children into public domain, but i do think if we draw out lessons from this we will continue to make mistakes. in 2006, "the sun" claimed that they had a story -- that

happened to be the father of some of his severed from cystic fibrosis. i never believed that could be correct. at best he could have only been -- there was only a few people, medical people, who knew that our son had this condition. and effect for the first three months that our son was alive, i just have to say to you, we didn't know because there were tests being done all the time to decide whether this was indeed his condition or not. and only by that time, just before "the sun" appeared with this information, have the medical experts told us that there was no other diagnoses they could give, that this was the case. the only a few people knew. i have submitted to you a letter from fife health board which makes it the national health service, that makes it clear they have apologized to us because they now believe it highly likely that there was on

arthritis information given by a medical or working member of the staff that allowed "the sun" through this middleman to publish this story. now, whether medical information should ever be handed out without the authorization of a parent, or of a doctor through the willingness of a paired, is one issue that i think is addressed. and i know the press complaints, it is very clear, there are only exceptions on which a child or information about a child should be broadcast. and i don't we this was one of them. i found it sad that even now in 2012, members of the news international staff are coming to this inquiry and maintaining this fiction that a store that could only have been achieved or obtained through medical information, or through me or my wife, which we never did, of course was obtained in another way. and i think we cannot learn the lessons from what happened unless there is some honesty

about what actually happened. and whether payment was made and whether this is a practice that could continue. and if we don't retire this kind of practice, i don't think that we can sensibly say that we have dealt with some of the abuses that are problematic for us. and i would say this about every child. i don't think any child's medical information, particularly at four months, has got any interest for the public, and should be broadcast to the public. >> could you tell us, please, mr. brown, the circumstance in which you or your wife were told that "the sun" had the story and reminded to print its? >> i think again, if i can be for specific about this, because it is something that i believe you have been given information on in this inquiry that is not strictly correct. our press office was informed by "the sun" that they said that the story about our son's

condition, and going to publish it. i was then contacted. i was engaged in a pre-budget report. i therefore informed my wife, and we had to make a decision. if this is going to be published, what should happen. and we wanted to minimize the damage to limit the impact of this. and, therefore, we said that if the story was to be published, then we wanted a statement that went to everyone that was in into this so there would be no further statements and no days and days and days of talking about the condition of our son. unfortunately this was unacceptable to "the sun" newspaper, the editor, from their press office who said this was not the way that we should go about this, and to be honest, if we continue to insist that we're going to make a general statement, "the sun" would've future give us any advance in any other story that they would do. it was at that time that the

editor of "the sun" sought to my wife, who was then having accepted this was a feat of come play, there was no thought that the press complaints commission could help us on this. i think we're in a different world than the nobody ever accepted that the press complaints commission would act to give us any help, help on the. and we were presented with a fate of come play i'm afraid. there was no motion of us. there's no question of implicit or explicit permission. and i ask you, if if any mother or any father was presented with a choice as to whether a four-month old son's medical condition, your child's medical condition should be broadcast on the front page of a tabloid newspaper, and you have a choice in this matter, i don't think there's any parent in atlanta would've made the choice that we were told we need to give explicit permission for that to happen. so there was no question to have

explicit permission. and i think if my son were to -- that he, his mother or i had given permission of his medical information or medical knowledge to be broadcast in a newspaper, he would be shocked at our failure as a. excite just cannot accept as a parent that we would ever produce those in the -- for medical knowledge about our son to be broadcast. we had i'm afraid that previous expense of this when our daughter died. we were very aware that this was a problem, but when you're presented with a fait accompli, there's nothing you can do other than try to limit, minimize the damage. and i may say we have not told relatives about this. you know, this is a hereditary condition. we had to tell them so there was no question about us being willing or complicit or anxious,

as one said this morning, desiring that this information be made public. no question about it at all. you could never imagine a situation. people are able to see in the aftermath of something like this that they have explicit permission when they haven't, and they can -- permission was given when there was no evidence that it was. and that this practice will go on and on and on and children's information and information about people who are glued to the public arena, with this idea that you can claim afterwards that you have explicit permission for something you never had permission for. now, i think this is important because we've got to learn lessons from this, and i think are more general lessons to be learned. but surely the rights of children must come first. >> thank you, mr. brown. another called required me to put questions to you, which i know you have advanced notice. and i will just went through them. that mrs. brooks stated that

"the sun" had been sent from your wife to run the story november 2006. now, do you deny that consent was given? >> absolutely. my wife issued a statement to that effect. >> if no consent was given, you and your wife must of an extremely upset and angry. if so, why was no complaint made by yourself or your wife until june 2011? >> that's not correct at all. and again, i think the trouble is vision of this is really unfortunate. when we found out that this had happened, and we've had our previous expense with information, medical information about our daughter had been made public, before she died, we thought the only way to deal with this, was to get the press completes commission in this case to the editors of the major newspapers to reach an agreement that they would not publish information or photograph our

children. and before i became prime minister i set in motion this procedure that would ask the editors of all the newspapers, we felt this was a structural problem. it wasn't simply a problem with only one newspaper. we wanted them to agree that our children would not be covered in primary school. they are very young as you may know. we didn't want our children to grow up thinking that they were somehow minor celebrities. we've seen the effect of this in other countries. we wanted our children to grow up just as ordinary young kids, that would just go with everybody else and were treated just like everybody else. so it was important to us that we have disagreement with the press. that is how we went about changing the way things have been done. and to be fair to the media, and i say this in my written evidence, that we did have only

two incidents where this was breached. so it was possible after this agreement. but the idea that we did nothing after this incident is quite wrong. and i'm afraid is a fancy. we took action to try to do with it in the best way that we could without any thought and without any noise, but to get an agreement that the children would not be covered in this way. and i hope this is help to others in similar positions. >> thank you. why did your wife in particular remained good friends with mrs. brooks to the extent of arranging a 40th birthday party at chequers for her in june 2008, beginning her birthday party in 2008? and mrs. brooks is waiting in june 2009, if what you say is correct? >> i think there is, one of the most forgiving people i know, and i think she finds good in

everyone. look, we have to accept that this had happened and we have to get on with the job of doing what people expected a politician to do to run a government. and my wife had a massive amount of charity work she was engaged in. and, in fact, if i'm being accurate i think it was wendi murdock, mrs. dash that mr. murdoch's wife, who joined in the lines and in the campaign, the campaign which was incredibly successful by cutting the war, because by 30%. it was wendi murdock, her 30th birthday party as well, and sarah who had campaigned together on this maternal mortality rate. it was something they were engaging quite separate from my political work. as far as i was concerned, i couldn't allow it had happened to to become a huge issue when i had a job to do.

>> are you aware that your wife, -- wrote mrs. brooks a number of letters and notes between 2006-2010 in which she expressed her gratitude for this? >> well, i think my wife -- a person who is forgiving and would be kind to people irrespective of what happened in this particular incident. and i don't think that that is evidence that we gave explicit permission for a story to appear from. >> the last question, if i can turn to you. the records show that there are 13 meetings between you or your wife after mrs. brooks had caused the article to be published in november 2006. why did you have those meetings to? i'm not sure. i'm sure with regular meetings. look, what is the role of a politician, particularly someone who is prime minister? you have a duty to explain.

you have to engage with the media here they are a medium by which they can -- by which the concerns of the nation are expressed. we are at war with afghanistan, and before that in iraq. we were a country that faced great economic crisis. i would have been failing in my duty if i had not tried, and i listed all the meetings with the telegraph, with the male, they are hardly labour supporters, are they, who did a huge amount to -- i met them all to try to explain that i believed i had a duty to try to build a consensus in this country about how we approached what was the most difficult problem that took after the global economic crisis in afghanistan, and how we approach the economic crisis. i think people would be criticizing me if i had failed to talk to the media, and failed to engage with them. but i may say to you, there was

a red light and everything i ever did. and there's a light in the sand across which i could never cross. if there was any question, a vested interest was trying to promote something out against the public interest, then i could have nothing to do with that. and i think you can serve up dinner but you don't need to serve up bskyb as part of the dinner. you've got to have a clear dividing line between what you do in politics, and for me, there was never a point we had issues related to the takeover of our attempt to take over bskyb. news international were very annoyed by what was happening in ofcom supporting lights -- sporting rights. they were concerned about the licensing, but at no point would i ever allow our commercial interests to override the public interest. i looked at all the records of what happened, including the records of our ministers in this

matter, and we would never allow the public interest to be subjugated to the commercial vested incher of any one company. >> did you sense though in your dealings with news international that they were trying to persuade you to pursue media policies which were favorable to their interests, but contrary to the public interest? >> news international had a public agenda. [inaudible] 2009 and 2010 is that news international moved from being, i think from james murdoch influence not so much as rupert murdoch's influence if i'm a sensor, as having a public aggressive agenda. they wanted not just to buy bskyb of course. they wanted to change the whole nation of the bbc. they wanted to change ofcom. they wanted to change the media impartiality rules but they wanted to change the way that we dealt with advertising so that there was more rights for the media company to go advertise. they wanted to open up sporting

events so that sky could bid for them and away -- that was the agenda they were putting publicly. i think what became a problem for us is that on everyone of these single issues, the conservative party went along with a policy where we were trying to defend what i would think was the public interest. >> is this the gist of your evidence, that the agenda they pursued was done publicly but not privately? >> i think their agenda was a republic, and a don't think that they should be criticized for having a few. i think, however, it is the duty of the political system today seems between what's a vested interest in what's a public interest. and i did so and i think we did so at a cost. >> was that part of your reason, mr. brown, for continuing to have dealings with mrs. brooks, that you perceived it to be a powerful woman and would be against her interest to -- i

spent i don't think i had a conversation with mrs. brooks in the last that i think that one conversation the last nine months of my government. it became very clear in the summer of 2009 when mr. murdoch junior gave the taggart lecture that news international had a highly politicized agenda for change that were in the media policy of this country. and there seem to be little point in talking to them about this. >> page nine understatement. we're just going to note this, mr. brown. this is our page 14215. you identify a number of breaches of your privacy, source of that were -- the national

computer, blinking. we heard evidence in relation to a lot of that already, but you formally draw this to our attention. >> let me say, politicians must expect scrutiny, and i've got no doubt that the level of scrutiny that is going to happen in the modern technology age is going to be very great indeed. so i think the question however is whether we can -- basin nothing other than a political desire to embarrass someone. and i think the evidence that i gave you is in relation to fishing expeditions where newspapers -- look, if you take everything personal in your life, you -- [inaudible] your medical records, your taxpayers, your lawyer and his legal records, in every area,

there was either a break-in or a bridge of these records. in most cases, i can assure know that that happened because an intrusion by the media. now, i have been the first to say that there's a public interest defense if people are looking for information where they feel that there is a crime been committed and the police or someone else is not investigating it, or whether it's a security issue that is vital to the safety of the country that's not been properly looked into, or as the press complaints rules themselves, and individuals line and is conceding. but i look at these as a citizen, and -- [inaudible] i just give it to you, i was accused of buying flats by the "sunday times," and they suggested that i had bought his flight and it hadn't appeared on the open market and i got at a

knockdown price. and they would not accept that the starting point of any investigation was something that they would not acknowledge, that is a very flat that i was supposed to have bought had first of all been advertised in the "sunday times" itself. and we had an -- we had what was called reverse telephone. someone syndicate which i passed off to the police, with the sunday times insight people are talking to each other i'm afraid about how they're going to use these what i think are underhanded, perhaps techniques and tactics. but there was no public justification for this because there was no wrongdoing. and even now i'm afraid the editor of the "sunday times" has come to your inquiry and said that he had evidence or something that he was never able to prove, and there was no public interest justification for the intrusion and the impersonation and the breaking into the records. now, i accept a huge amount has got to be tolerated in the

interest of politics that is free of corruption. i don't think a newspaper, when it resorts to these tactics, and then finds that there is nothing to report should hold to a store that they don't is somebody, to be absolutely wrong. and if you can laugh at it now, that they were claiming something that action was advertise in their own paper was not correct, and i think we've got a few lessons to learn from that as well. it's about freedom and where irresponsibility is the way that freedom is exercised. and it casts a doubt on the voters of the media. >> may we look now, please, mr. brown at your exhibit g. b3 which is a list of your meetings of media between 2007-2010, on tap five of the bundle we are prepared. just so we get the flavor of this.

>> it was a duty of office, if i may say so. if i have not met media owners and editors, i would be failing in my duty. we have to explain to them what was basically cute huge national issues, and the reason that calls are greater in some parts than others is because afghanistan, the economic crisis were bigger issues at the time. >> if you see the range of people you were saying, mr. brown, the telegraph on the first page, quite a few interactions within, a meaning at breakfast. i will be coming back to that. the editor of the telegraph. then some meetings quite limited with "the guardian," the times. one meeting with mr. hinton,

it's a full range, really, do you agree? >> yes and i tried my best to meet everyone. i think probably, yes, i met everyone where i could. and i didn't sometimes at events that they organize but i do sometimes add events that we organized, but i did it as regularly as i could. and not may i say with a great deal of success. >> in relation to the murdochs on the interim number of this document, the top right is page 12, do you see that they're only too government meetings with mr. james murdoch, the last on the 19th of january 2009. do you see that? and then there's meetings with mr. rupert murdoch. you put in a revised schedule quite recently, which is -- >> i did so because the cabinet office data media from asian, and i give you what information they have given me originally. now i'm giving you the

information they have given me subsequently. >> we publish the revised schedule. the meeting of the fifth of october 2007, which you say didn't take place. there was, according to exhibit krm 27, mr. rupert murdoch's witness statement, there was a meeting on the sixth of october. i thought there was also a phone call on the fourth of october, and that may not be right. is meeting start on the sixth of october, so there's nothing for the fourth of october. and so, if we can deal with one point, which is loaded in evidence, relates to the snap election to do you call that come in 2007?

that it was an interview pre-recorded by -- with you on saturday the sixth of october. and we know that there was dinner at chequers with mr. murdoch and his wife, and others, on the evening of the sixth of october 2007. >> that's right. i think it was a misunderstanding, that people thought i met mr. murdoch and then done an interview and that some of that would have -- affected to the interview with mr. mark was very careful to do before i had any meetings. i spoke to mr. moore, to the interview which was recorded the day before. so when i went to dinner with mr. murdoch later on, i had already recorded everything is going to say about these issues, and he had no influence on that entity or any decision i made, and he wasn't consulted about it, nor should he, nor to be fair, we had been expected to. >> i think it's also correct that the dinner with president

bush was the 15th of june, august of 2008. and a couple of other meetings which added to your schedule. they will be published in due course, mr. brown. there's also a list of phone calls on gb-3 which will come to any short moment. in relation to mr. rupert murdoch, lord mandelson has told us that relations were closer with wives, and included you in a statement to be agreed with him speak was no, i don't actually. and i'm sorry because i think mr. mandelson is deceptive about this. i think, ipod is came from a scottish presbyterian backcountry rupert murdoch

himself was the grandson of a scottish presbyterian minister. i always found it interesting that his grandfather had gone to australia and italy put in prison because he defended church against state. so the same presbyterian interest in the freedom of conscious, if you like, speaking power with three much part of what rupert murdoch's view of the meeting was. i understood i think quite a lot about his scottish background, but the idea that i was influence in what i did by mr. rupert murdoch's views is ridiculous, because mr. murdoch would have, if he had a chance, persuaded us to leave the european union, not just a out of the euro. he probably would've had us at war with france and germany. he would probably have had is at the 51st state of america, and scotland of course which he wants to be independent. the 52nd state with probably a republican of scotland. so the idea that i went along with mr. murdoch passionate

mr. murdoch's views is extremely, is quite ridiculous. mr. murdoch has very strong views. he's entitled to these views. the idea that i was following his views is just absolutely nonsense. >> get mr. murdoch himself described the warm relationship yet with you, is that a fair characterization? >> that, i think similar background. made it interesting because i think i understood where many of his views came from, and i also think he has been, as i said, i think publicly a very successful businessman, and his ability to build up a newspaper, media empire, not just in australia but into other countries, in america and europe is something that is not going to be surpassed easily by any other individual. but i think you have got to distinguish again between the views that you have about him as an individual, and the red line that i withdraw, the line in the sand i talked about, between

that and any support for commercial interest. >> lord manderson and stating relations were closer with wives, also made it clear that neither mr. blair know you've crossed that line. so i think his point was more about perception and the reality. on that basis, do you accept his observation? >> no. because the implication was i would be influenced by what mr. murdoch was saying about these big issues. i mean, i thought that -- >> recorded testimony from earlier today from former british prime minister gordon brown. and the british investigation and the politicians enemy. now back to life coverage of questioning to the chancellor of the exchequer, george osborne. >> i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you, mr. osborne. your full name. [inaudible] spent you provide us with two

statements, the first the fourth of may, the second the 11th of may. is this your formal evidence for our inquiry? >> yes, it is. >> you of course are the chancellor of the exchequer and were shadow chancellor between 2005-2010, is that right? >> indeed. just one moment. thank you very much indeed for the obvious effort that you put into the statement. i do want to clarify one fact, or correct that misapprehension since the public domain. for some people, i have made it clear that they will have to give evidence. two others i want to wait to see what they say before deciding what they have to give evidence but it's quite wrong to suggest as i know has been suggested that you have been required to give evidence after the evidence of mr. hunt. the fact is, as you know, but i am very keen the public should understand, sometimes ago having

senior statement, the view was taken that you ought to give evidence it arranges were made accordingly. so i wanted to correct that. >> thank you. >> may we start off, mr. osborne, with the topics. 2.5-2.7 understatement, our page 04089, you speak at our request of the value of these interactions. particularly interested in 2.7 where you say sometimes these, that's the views of your interlocutors, will be presented in a person -- on a vacation it would be presented as the views of their readers. you will presumably know which, and when they claim to present the views of their readers, do they speak with great authority? >> well, and all my interactions

with proprietors, editors, it's a conversation partner with an individual that either editing a newspaper or own a newspaper, or someone speaking on behalf of, or at least claims on behalf of the registered sometimes they're very clear, so quite often when even with a provider they'll have large commercial interest, large business interests. not necessary just in newspapers, and they will speak as you might speak to the chairman of a company or anyone with broader business interests, and a general interest in the economy and things related to the. other times there's a very specific readers campaign or a campaign mounted by the newspaper, and sometimes in private conversation they will say our readers are very concerned about this. i sometimes for my own judgment about whether they audibly speaking to the readers or not. but quite often they purport to be spent do you think that

disproportionate weight is given to the constituency they claim to represent, namely their readers and? >> well, i don't think so but i think that such a. i think throughout -- mr. murdoch will come on and talk about regulations of the press. i would say there's a very important check in the system which these are commercial products that need to be extolled to the public. if they're not affecting any of these soft views held by some part of the public than they may not sell the newspaper. so it is up to them to judge whether their correctly reflecting the views of the newspaper, but they certainly think they are. >> you feel about politicians get disproportionate weight of views -- may be claiming to represent? >> well, i think it's up to the individual politician, frankly. i think politicians are also held to account through the ballot box in this country. and if politicians are seen to be craving to newspapers, i

think the public senses that and i think the public are much smarter than sometimes they're given credit for. and i would say there are moments when newspapers have full campaigns which are not obviously of the highest interest of the readers, but which they nevertheless think is very important. i could give you a couple examples that come to mind if i think about. at times and campaign on adoption. that is probably not at the top of the list of those times readers concerned. "the daily mail" campaign into the injustice around stephen lawrence. i doubt any survey of male readers would have revealed that as one of the leading concerns. but in both cases the newspapers chose to make those campaigns. i guess they were and and editorial judgments of those people. >> you referred to the public being able to sniff out, do you think until the events revealed by the inquiry, the public has

had enough information to make the sort of judgment that you implied? >> well, my personal view about this is they were always aware that the private lives of politicians and celebrities were being investigated by newspapers. where this issue, why this issue suddenly became such importance was that they saw an ordinary family, if i can put like that, the dollar family, suddenly exposed to what appears to be anyway, see what the legal proceedings review, but totally outrageous interest. and that's when this whole issue became much more significant than a guess as one of the reasons why we're all here today. and i think the politicians at the time, myself included, goes to the decision to suggest this inquiry were reflecting public concerned about what they had

learned. whereas i think the public had probably suspected for a long time that those practices were going on with celebrities and politicians, as i said. >> two separate issues here, mr. osborne. they may be public concern in press in conclusion, but there may be some -- in getting too close to the press, and they are separate issues. and my question was until this inquiry, the public might not have had enough information to be able to assess that second concern, let alone, would you agree with that? >> again, i think the public probably is not given credit for. public i think certainly over my lifetime have become much more aware of the interaction between politics and the media. there's been all sorts of television drama, film space around the interaction, spin doctor. so i think the public have become quite smart about the

interaction. and i think as i say, the public judge when they think a politician is great into a particular interest or a song to represent a national interest, i think they're not doing very well representing the national interest, they kick them out of. >> do you feel that some witnesses have felt that the fusion of news and confidence is an issue of particular concern? >> well, my feeling is i think this is a bit of a blind anti-inquiry personally. i think there are lots of things to concern us, lots of things i want to get right, personal government, talk about how the press can better self regular it so. but i think you were trying to distinguish between fact and comment and opinion, or at least that out in more prescribed ways, some way policing that. i think you will find that extremely difficult.

now, i know it is part of the pcc code, but it is proved possible to police under the code. possible to police under whatever body replaces it. and ultimately if you look at the history of politics and public opinion, the facts are very fiercely disputed, and one person's facts are those, another person's comment or opinion. >> so your diagnosis is not, is this right, the root of the problem, and the deterioration is standard in the press. the fact that over the last generation there has been a fusion, so the argument runs of facts and comment, is that right the? >> i would say, i don't think that's been the last generation of fusion. i think that has always existed in the british press, right back

to 18th century -- they are very aggressive in promoting a particular opinion, which they state to be fact. and it's just a part of our written press. by the way, it's part of our broad press, of course the forecasters are under particular rules about impartiality, which i think is reasonable given at least until the internet has been a limited amount of spectrum that is allocated in some way. there's a limit on the amount of free -- not free. provided you get someone to pay for it. >> do you feel as though, some of said again, that the news agenda tends to be driven by the printed media and the bbc and other broadcasters follow suit? or do you feel it is the other way around? or a mixture of the two? >> i saw tony blair's evidence on this, and i think that might've been the case, perhaps

when he was prime minister. icon and thinking personally, summon in politics today, i think a broadcasters are incredibly import but it's not clear that they are always falling a newspaper judgment. i would say the significance of the story is massively elevated, if it is right at the top of one of the daily news, news shows. and that's often the judge of whether something is really going to have an impact in the political theater. they will be picking up indeed stories from newspapers, but quite often they will have their own investigations, and you know, quite often those, the bbc, for example, and i'm a supporter of bbc sense i'm not seeking to criticize the entire institution but they will run a panorama report about the top of the today program, ad suddenly we're all expected to treat that as the most important thing happening in britain that they. so, you know, i wouldn't say

it's a straightforward process whereby the newspapers run the story and the journalists cover, the broadcast journalist cover. i think is more call to get it than that, and i think the power of the broadcasters is enormous. it is power exercised with responsibility, but nevertheless it is significant. >> okay, well, we may come back to some of those at the end of your evidence. when we do with the future. but can ask you now, mr. osborne, finally to look at your table of interactions with media proprietors, which is annexed eight of your evidence under tab two other bundle which starts at 04061. and obvious a there are two sections to this. the first period is shadow chancellor, and the second period from the advent of the coalition government, which was 11th of may 2010.

further, we are click on you cover this in your evidence, passionate we were looking at the period when you were shadow chancellor? >> well, we have been able to retrieve at the request of this inquiry, so this was not something which we are readily available, but we have been able to retrieve my diary, my electronic diary from the period as shadow chancellor. it is accurate to the best of my knowledge, although i put a caveat on it, because i had a very small seats compared to the front office, i now have as chancellor of the exchequer but if meetings were canceled i can't promise that those meetings were removed from the diary. they may remain in the diary. so it was not a diary, at least kept accurate, you know, after the event if i can put it like that. phone conversations were never die arise in the way they sometimes are.

and there are one or two occasions like party conferenc conferences, for example, where i've put a general holding, because there simply were no diapers reference is because we kept separate diaries that investigated subsequent and they were just word documents kept of the time while we are either, while we were the particular covers the but to the best of my knowledge, this is accurate. >> now, we can review the individual license, but it is clear from this material, it's been clear from other witnesses, the whole gamut, your whole calculation is that news calculation is that news international accounts for about a third of all the entries, is that rights because well, it's a very rough calculation. i basically added up all the entries, and is just over a third, which i think is roughly,

again, their share of the newspaper at the time. >> we see there are one or two dinners certainly in 2006, and thus continue with mr. james murdoch. on a third of may 2006, 04064, it's an invitation. then you reciprocate on the fourth of july, is that right? >> yes, that's right. >> it's impossible five or six years ago to recall exactly what was discussed on any particular occasion, but presumably political matters would be on the informal agenda, is that fair? >> yes, that would be fair. i think the independence of the united states was discussed, from memory, on the fourth of july. >> that's a reasonable inference.

were issues of media regulation do you think ever discussed with mr. james murdoch on this sort of occasion? >> not to my recollection. i mean, there was one issue which he was confirmed -- concerned about which came up on occasion in conversations with him, which was the bbc and the licensing. but i would never come it was never, it was more of a complaint that we had in this country, a taxpayer-funded broadcast a. but i made clear to him then as i made clear that we're not going to change that, and, indeed, we hadn't. >> is that the topic which he bend your ear on, on quite a few occasions, mr. osborne? >> he raised on a number of occasions. and, indeed, i think eight a number of speeches and if you -- and it is about poker. i would say he's not the only person in the media who is concerned about the funding of

the bbc. but i was a particular benefit. >> and was another tribe wants to post to my recollection he never raised ofcom with me. >> okay. looking in -- idm at this schedule -- looking again at the schedule, look for example, on the third of june, 2008, which is paid 04072, there's recorded their agenda with paul dacre. do you see that? are we to deduce that that was a one on one occasion, or not? >> i can't read number, although most of my dinners are times i met mr. dacre he would usually have within his political editor, one of his lead writers,

maybe a columnist. so they were almost like editorial boards. they weren't a full editorial board but he would get a selection of people from the newspaper, and then he would allow them to pick up the conversation, ask me things and the like. there were a couple of occasions when i had social encounters with mr. dacre, but normally that is how he would meet with me. >> now, these are sort of semi structured occasions. would they be regarded as off the record, or not? >> well, they were regarded as off the record, although, you know, i've always taken the view that you should be careful to say things off the record that you would want to see on the record. and certainly if there's a group of people, there is a bit of, they had safety in numbers. >> i'm not quite sure you can do. i think you mean you're careful to say not to say things off the record, that you wouldn't be prepared to see on the record.

>> sorry. spin you put it the right way around. spent i didn't mean that. >> you can have a more informal conversation off the record, but i think you have two just have to be careful. you are telling a journalist something that is so interesting that they feel bound in some way to report it, they will. and, of course, they have, there are all sorts of conventions that exist between the -- to say close as source to the shadow chancellor or source in the conservative leadership, or whatever it happens to be. but, you know, as i said i think as long as you are relatively careful not to say things that you wouldn't be happy to see put on the front page of newspapers, then i think you'll be okay. >> thank you. the summer of 2008, if i can just look at two entries there,

page 04073, we've heard all about from another witness, indeed to witnesses, the famous birthday celebration of elisabeth murdoch, the 40th birthday. and i'm going to does the point people by not ask you questions about that. the sixth of september we see there is a dinner with james murdoch, and rupert murdoch. do you remember whether the visit was discussed on that occasion or not? >> i think my trouble had come from another greek island. which is i think what the summer was referring to, which you didn't want to bring up. so there was no mention of it. >> are you sure about that? >> pretty sure. spent at least not with me. maybe among other people.

>> and if we can go to december 2009, 04078, on the 19th of december there's been a with rebekah brooks, james murdoch and rupert murdoch. the invitation with rebekah brooks, presumably at her home, is that? >> yes, i think so. yes. >> the pre-christmas celebration. can you remember whether political matters may been discuss on that occasion? >> well, i'm sure political matters were discussed, as they normally were. i do whenever any improper conversation or any conversation about the commercial interest of new scoreboard news international. i think it was a general discussion about the political situation in britain, as we were headed nation heading into a general election year, and, indeed, the economic situation

with the rest of the world. normally when rupert murdoch was at one of these events, the conversation was about global, the global economy, and at the time of course we're right in the middle of a financial crisis. >> yes. the 21st of january there's a dinner with rebekah brooks and james murdoch. the world economic forum, the annual meeting at the post, is that right? >> yes. >> many people have suggested that there was a private meeting when news international executives -- [inaudible] is that correct or not? >> no, it's not too. a good example actually of comment getting blurred. i don't remember, i'm certain i did in the rupert murdoch. he was not there. the only event i recollect is a semi-public event which was hosted by news international,

which david cameron spoke at, and a u.s. senator lindsey graham also spoke are, maybe about 100 people in a restaura restaurant. there was a meeting a year earlier in 2009, in a chalet with rupert murdoch and james murdoch and rebekah brooks, which was also a conference. but obviously 2009, unlike 2010, and doesn't fit with some of the theories around in some of the newspapers. >> okay. so if we are looking at january 2009, rather than january 2010 being the date, can we declare there was a meeting in a private chalet, and rupert and james murdoch whether, if i understood your evidence. >> yes. >> can you remember the subject matter of the discussions and that means because first of all,

the context was the davos conference, people rent hotels and chalets and different news organizations do that, so it's not particularly unusual when it's in a chalet. i think it was part of the conference at a ski resort. and the meeting was a lunch with david cameron and myself, and rupert and james murdoch, rebekah brooks. and so i remember the conversation was partly about the domestic political situation, but actually the focus of the lunch was the global financials -- mobile financial crisis. and i remember that david cameron and i were trying to bring the conversation gently onto the domestic politics and what everyone was doing to put ourselves in a position to win the general election. ..

>> and we would use every opportunity to do that. >> and can you recall how the murdochs responded to your pitch on that occasion? >> well, as i say, i think rupert murdoch kept bringing the conversation back -- understandably because, frankly, at that point the international economic crisis was probably of more interest to him and most of the world than what the conservative wanted to say in the general election. but he kept bringing the conversation back to the global economic situation which, of

course, was also what most of the conference was about as well. >> so are we to understand that you failed to get your message across as regards -- >> i think we did our best. >> didn't fail altogether, is that it? >> ultimately, of course, there's no doubt you'll come on to some newspapers supported us, but i don't think this lunch was the crucial encounter. >> but was it one step on the road, as it were, to the ultimate goal? >> well, i tell you, i don't think that the decision of those newspapers to support the conservative party in the general election was simply because we'd had quite a lot of lunches or dinners with the murdoch family. i mean, as you've heard this morning and on private encounters our political opponents were having quite a lot of lunches and dinners with the murdoch family.

if it were simply a question of outlunching them, i don't think we would have beaten new labour. >> okay. can we move back to your witness statement now, mr. osborne, and -- >> just before we move on from these meetings, i've tried to make it clear that politicians, like everybody else, are entitled to be friendly with whomsoever they want. that's absolutely fundamental as far as i'm concerned. the issue that just does concern me, and it may not matter in opposition as much as in government, but i'd be interested in your view is how one prevents the perception of influence. >> i wouldn't draw a huge distinction, lord leveson, between opposition and government because i think opposition particularly in this case on becoming the government or part of the government the encounters opposition has are

important and the thoughts it has are important. so i wouldn't draw a huge distinction between the two. i think in the end maybe i trust too much in the public, but i think in the end the public have a sense of what motivates these people and are they trying to pursue their idea of the national interest? and i think people understand that politicians hang out with journalists and people who run newspapers. the history books are littered with very close personal relationships between the openers of national newspapers and -- owners of national newspapers and some of our most famous and successful politicians. so i think the public broadly understand that. i certainly think an improvement has been the decision last year to publish now the meetings between members of the government and journalists. now that, of course, has been brought on by the events that this inquiry has been looking

at, so i'm not claiming we were prescient in introducing that, but we have introduced that change, and i think it will help. but in the end you can have any amount of, any amount of paragraphs in ministerial codes and pcc codes and web sites publishing meetings. in the end, the public are going to make a judgment about the politician. and in the end, the public are also through the purchase of a newspaper going to make a judgment about the newspaper. and, you know, be that newspaper -- if that newspaper was holding back from criticism of a government x the government was unpopular, then i think the public would start to question why they were buying that newspaper. >> yes. may i be just a bit more subtle. i understand the point that the public will see what's going on provided they know what's going on and, therefore, you're right when you say publishing links makes it all the more

transparent. but i was in part thinking about the evidence, i think it was from alistair campbell, that one of the criticisms that he makes is that the attitude of new labour and opposition before the 1997 general election was taken into government when perhaps it shouldn't have been, and the approach to the press should have been recalibrated for the fact they were then in government. >> well -- >> you may -- >> i mean, it is going to sound like talking my book, but it also, i think, is genuinely the case that i think new labour were very aggressive when they became the government in pursuing the media management techniques they'd developed in opposition. and they'd developed those techniques in opposition, to be fair to them, because of the way they'd been treated by all the press beforehand. now, we, we learned in a way from that. we came of political age,

myself, david cameron and others, during that period. and we felt, too, that that government in its early years had been too obsessive about tomorrow's headline and tried to control every aspect of the media. that's not to say when we came into government we didn't want to have a good and effective media operation. but we were more relaxed about fighting for every single headline or fighting for every news bulletin. and i think that is also partly an understanding on our behalf that in what has become a much more fragmented media, it is impossible to manage every single headline or fight for every headline. and in the end we had a belief that we came into government, we had to set up difficult things we needed to do, and we would trust, ultimately, to the judgment of the public but also trust to the judgment of the media even if along the line you got some bad headlines. certainly, i have been more relaxed as chancellor of the exchequer in that earlier period

than i would have been as shadow chancellor about some of the headlines we have. >> paragraph 3.1 of your first statement now, mr. osborne, our page 04090, you say you never discussed with rupert murdoch government policy in relation to the bbc, the only discussion you can recall -- and i paraphrase -- is one with james murdoch which you think must have been after the 20th of october, 2010. can you recall whether that was in a meeting or by phone? >> well, i, i remember -- this was a very specifically about the bbc license fee rather than as james murdoch would up let us have -- would off let us have his views about the bbc. but specifically about the license fee and our decision in october 2010 to freeze the license fee but not to dismantle it and, indeed, to, in effect,

continue for the next five or six years with the current structure of bbc fund being. now, i, as i say in this statement, i cannot remember exactly how this conversation took place, and it may well have been on the phone because it's not obvious that there was a meeting where this would have occurred. but i have a pretty clear memory of him being quite angry about our, the decision we had taken. you know, and i would, i explained to him why i thought it was the right decision and why, in any case, you know, we'd always made it clear that we were not setting out to dismantle the bbc or radically cut the license fee or to view the license fee in a different way. but he was clear he was disappointed with that decision. >> i think you've interpreted the question as covering only period in government from may 2010, because you told us a quarter an hour ago about discussions you had with mr. james murdoch about the bbc

license fee before happened, is that right? >> well, this is the only conversation i remember where it was specifically about the license fee and rather than the concept of a state-funded license fee-funded, what he would describe as a state broadcast. >> can i go back a year to august 2009 and the james murdoch lecture? did you have any conversations with him about the subject matter of the lecture before he gave it? >> no. >> did you have any conversations with him about the lecture after he gave it? >> um, to be honest, i'm not sure i've read the lecture. i've read the news reports of the lecture. i don't remember a conversation with him about it. >> you've read the news reports? i mean, this question may be not that easy to answer, but what was your reaction to the lecture? >> well, i thought it was -- i don't mean this in a pejorative sense, it was typical.

[laughter] it was what he thought and what he was telling anyone who wanted to listen to him at the time. >> well, typical in the sense of what he thought, but what was your reaction to it? >> well, i disagreed with him, basically, and certainly david cameron also disagreed with him. and i think, you know, he had been agitating for some dramatic change in the funding of the bbc or the structure of the bbc, and he was not going to get that from the conservatives. >> he was also agitating for the the -- [inaudible] be not the dishasn'ting. did that chime with your policy? >> i don't remember personally being involved in the any great interim discussion within the conservative party about the future of ofcom. there was a general concern that ofcom had become like many --

[inaudible] rather bloated. but that was not a complaint about the function of ofcom, just like many of the government that there had not been a proper regard for cost. >> do you know whether any analysis was done within the conservative party of the mctaggert lecture and what your response to it should be? >> i'm not aware of any. >> okay. paragraph 3.1 of your -- 4.1 of your statement, we're in the middle of december, 2010, now. we're at lunch in, i'm sorry, dinner in new york, 17th december, 2010. and you're sure on that occasion there was no discussion of the bskyb, the bbc, ofcom or media

relation, is that right? >> yes, i'm very clear. obviously, i would have remembered if bskyb bid had come up. it didn't. and i remember remarking to my life as we left, noting the fact it hadn't come up. and be i was, to be very clear, i would make very clear this was not my decision. it was a quasijudicial decision. mr. murdoch spent most of the time talking about his new online newspaper he was launch anything the united states. and we had a broader conversation. the a social conversation. my wife was there, and it was a social conversation about american politics, the internet, how newspapers were changing. it was not, not specific about british politics and, as i say, neither ofcom nor bbc nor the bskyb bid came up in

conversation. >> you do remember a conversation or at least it was part of the conversation about that bid with mr. james murdoch the previous month, on the 29th of november, 2010, do you remember whether that was a meeting or a phone call? >> that was a meeting. >> do you know what other matters were discussed on that occasion? >> well, i seem to remember it was, again, a broader conversation about the political situation, the government had been in office for some months then. we just had the spending review the month earlier, we are arguing about tuition fees. so there were a whole range of things going on in the politics. at this point, at some point in the conversation he raised his frustration with how long the, as he saw it, the process was taking. i made it very clear that that was not a process that i was involved in in any way. >> was mr. my chel there on that occasion or not?

>> no. >> have you had meetings with him either one to one or in a wider group? >> the only time i think i've come across him is when the party conference, news international hosts dinners, one dinner at each conference for a number of shadow cabinet or cabinet members and a number of their editors. and i think mr. michelle was at at least one of those dinners. >> okay. we know that there was some discussion about the one aspect to have the bskyb here mrs. brooks which you were a party to. it was reflected in an e-mail we have. under tab 9, mr. osborne, it's the e-mail the 14th of december, 2010, which is page in the prop file 01679. so you'll see that at the bottom

right-hand side of the page. this relates to the ofcom issues letter. and mrs. brooks e-mails mr. michel and says same from g.o., that's obviously you, total response. and be her evidence was that this was conveyed as -- at a dinner the previous evening, the 13th of december. do you remember anything about that occasion? >> well, i certainly remember the dinner. it was a dinner with my wife and i, the brooks and the lewises. in a restaurant. i don't have any recollection of the conversations, but i don't question that it took place. i'm not doubting what mrs. brooks says. i noticed in her evidence to this inquiry she said it was perhaps a three minute conversation and that i looked

slightly perplexed. i have read the ofcom issues letter in preparation for appearing before you today, and i think that is the first time i've ever read that letter. certainly it jogs no memory, and i've done a search in my private office of whether the ofcom issues letter was brought to my attention, and there's no -- we can find no evidence that it was. so i'm perfectly prepared to accept that there was a conversation, i just have no memory of it, and perhaps the reason i was perplexed or baffled was because i hadn't actually read the ofcom issues letter. >> you might have been given an old gist of what the issues letter apparently said, and you might have react today that gist, is that possible? >> well, of course, i knew from the previous conversation we were talking about with james murdoch that they were frustrated at the process. but i was always very clear that this was not a process i was involved in. it was a quasijudicial process and was being handled by vince

cable. so, as i say, although i don't recollect this particular conversation, i'm sure i would have said that. i have to say at this time all sorts of people were raising the bskyb bid with me, usually people who were hostile with the exception of a few occasions, people were hostile. it was just the topic of conversation at drinks, parties, when you went to have coffee with a journalist. people would raise the -- because it was one of the main political issues of the day, and it was leading news. people would often raise it. and i would always politely say it was something i wasn't involved in. >> it was one of the main political issues of the day aside from the fact it didn't fall within your jurisdiction, as it were, presumably you had a general opinion about it, didn't you? >> well, i didn't have a strong view about its merits. because as far as i could see it was just going to cause us trouble one way or the other. sort of proved to be.

[laughter] and i just thought that it was either going to offend a group of newspapers and broadcasters who we wanted to have good relations with if it was rejected -- sorry, if it was accepted. and if it was rejected, it was going to offend another bunch of people who we wanted to have good relations with. so i regarded the whole thing as a political inconvenience and something we just, you know, had to deal with, and the best way to deal with it was to stick by the process. >> well, aside from the inconvenience of all of it, surely your own political viewpoint might have informed in general terms your attitude to the bid, namely either you were going to be favorable to it or hostile towards it, wouldn't you agree? >> well, the straight politics of it, as you put it, you had a couple of important conservative-supporting newspapers who were vehemently against it and a couple of

conservative supporting newspapers who were vehemently for it. and as far as i could see, it was difficult to find a common ground between them. so it was, as i say, a political inconvenience. >> yes. but it's a rather narrow way of looking at it -- >> since i was not involved in ais accessing the commercial merits of it or the plurality merits of it, i was not involved in that process. i was merely in that sense within the government an external observer of the process, and my own perm view was -- my own personal view was this is all politically inconvenient for us. and, um, i think that judgment has been borne out by events. >> that, no doubt, is correct, mr. osborne. people either seem to be strongly in favor of the bid or strongly against it. that conclusion may have been drawn or based on purely political considerations or commercial considerations, but there's also an ideological aspect here. and surely your own view of the world would have caused you to be in favor of the bid, if i can

put it that straightforwardly. would you agree? >> that's -- i'm not sure you can infer that because as far as i can see, it was about increasing the share holding in a company that most people would think they ran anyway. so i, you know, wasn't -- obviously, if you were commercially involved in that world either as a rival or, indeed, at news corp. you had strong views about it. but as a practicing politician at the time, it was not clear to me that there was, you know, it was anything other than an inconvenience. >> if it was simply a question of increasing shareholding in a company which they had control anyway, that would lead one to think you were in favor of the bid going through because that was exactly the position news corp. were taking publicly and privately with the decision maker. do you see that, will osborne? >> as i said, i didn't have a view. i mean, the european commission had made a ruling on the competition aspects, ofcom and

the secretary of state were going to make judgments on the plurality aspects. but now i didn't have a strong view on, as i say, the merits of the merger. it was what it was, and it was causing trouble with various newspaper groups. >> just, it's just rather unusual for someone to have such a lack of interest, if i can put it in such terms, in an issue which was everybody was talking about. is that really where you stood? >> well, i didn't have a -- i could see the political challenge it was posing us because you had, as i say, supporters in newspapers very agitated about it, and you had some of our supporters in newspapers promoting it, others writing to their own newspapers complaining about it.

i mean, as i say, it was a political inconvenience. but i, since i thought there was nothing i could do about it because i was not involved in the process, there was a process, just let the process run. that was my, the way i approached it. >> did you -- we know you didn't have conversations with dr. cable about it. did you have conversations with mr. hunt about it? >> i had no specific conversations with either dr. cable or mr. hunt and, indeed, for the purposes of this inquiry, searched both any communication between the two departments. there was no communication. and also the minutes kept by the civil servants of my bilateral meetings with dr. cable and mr. hunt. and on no occasion have we, have the civil servants recorded any substantive conversation. i do remember about a general conversation, both of them, both dr. cable and mr. hunt saying,

well, this is, these are just explain what the process was of what had already happened. but as i say, there was no substantive discussion, or else it would have been recorded. >> but before hunt acquired responsibility for the bid which we know was on the 21st of december, he, by definition, was occupying a quasijudicial role, it would not have been inappropriate for you to have conversations with him privately and informally. are you saying you believe you had no such conversations? >> i don't remember any such conversations. i mean, i think it was just the view -- certainly the view i took and certainly in my considerations with others, it was viewed as a process. it was a process underway with dr. cable, and we've got other things that we need to be getting on with. and, obviously, at this point in the autumn of 2010 there was of a huge spending review, we had the controversial issue of tuition fees occupying a lot of

time. so there was no point, no point sitting around chewing the cud on the bskyb bid because it was being dealt with by biz. >> do you know what his view was about the bid? >> i was not aware. >> did you know what mr. cameron's view was about the merits of the bid? >> no. >> did you suspect what his views might have been? >> no. [laughter] >> so you assumed that, what, that they didn't have a view or that you simply with oblivious to what it might be? >> no, i assumed speaks -- speaking about mr. cameron, that like me, he thought the whole thing was, as i say, a political inconvenience. it was very clear to us that some important newspaper groups from our point of view like "the telegraph" and "the mail" were hostile and, i think rather extraordinarily, the direct every of the bbc. it was pretty clear that there were a lot of people out there

who were not going to be happy if the bid went through, and equally news international would have been happy if bid did go through. but there was nothing we could do or should do to influence that process. it was being handle inside a quasijudicial fashion by the department. >> apart from the one conversation you had with mr. james murdoch which you referred to in your first witness statement, is it your evidence that there were no other communications with him by whatever means about the bid? >> not that i'm aware of. >> can i ask you, please, to look at your supplementary witness statement now, please, which in the file we've got it under tab 3. now, paragraph 5.3 there's

evidence of an e-mail mr. michel sends to mr. james murdoch on the 9th of november, 2010, relate ld to a meeting he and mr. michel had with one of your two special advisers, is that correct? >> yes. >> and in terms of division of responsibilities between your special advisers, what, if anything, is he responsible for? >> he's, um, principally responsible for economic policy, he has a ph.d. in economics, and and he provides me with policy advice. >> and the relevant e-mail is under tab 9, it's page in the prop file 01665. do you have it in hand, mr. osborne? >> i will in a minute. yeah. >> it's stated -- it's dated, as i said, the 9th of november.

you've had a conversation with mr. harrison s that correct, about what we see in this e-mail? and can you tell us, please, which part he agrees and he does not agree? >> well, the first i saw of this e-mail or, indeed, he saw of this e-mail is when it was brought to the attention of this inquiry because it's an internal e-mail. he says, and i believe him, that there was a general discussion that was not focused on the bskyb bid. of there was a reference in the e-mail to making the case to biz, he's checked. there was no contact that he's been able to see between the treasury, between the mr. harrison and the business department. so that certainly was not -- if it was raised, was not followed up. he makes the point to me that he

won't have known -- he wouldn't have known whether dr. cable had read the legal advice or not because he wouldn't have had a conversation with dr. cable. and as i say, indeed, if you look at, also, the text exchanges between mr. harrison and mr. michel, i would say it's obvious that he's trying generally and in a polite way to, um, brush mr. michel off with his various requests for interventions of various kinds. so he, for example, mr. michel asks that i send a letter to dr. cable. that was never done, never raised with me. and so if you look at the general tone of the text exchanges, they tend to be, well, you know, i'll bring that up or sorry i'm on paternity leave or whatever. it's, there's nowhere where he says, good idea, i will action that point. and mr. harrison, i think, was

doing his job of meeting people and representing important businesses, but he was very careful not to promise things that we wouldn't have wanted to deliver. >> there referenced an ongoing dialogue in weeks to come. is that something which aside from a few text messages didn't occur, is that right? >> well, as i say, we've done a search of the e-mail system and of correspondence between the treasury and biz, and there are no -- and, indeed, between those advisers, and there is no evidence of such an ongoing dialogue, and mr. harrison's told me so much ongoing dialogue happened. >> are you able to help us at all with the reference to the commitment, that's of news corp. to scotland and alex hammond's testimony to reporters? >> no i couldn't. >> could mr. harrison? >> mr. harrison didn't

recognize -- when he looked at this e-mail, he said it didn't reflect what he felt was a pretty general conversation. and when the bid came up, mr. harrison made clear that it was subject to the quasijudicial process, that we weren't involved. and, indeed, i think in mr. michel's evidence to you, he talks about these e-mails as a general conversation. >> you referred, mr. osborne, to some text messages which, indeed, there are. they're under tab 15 in this bundle. the first one's page 13517. on the 9th of november. and he says, rupert -- that's mr. harrison again -- just spoke with james. it would be helpful if george

were to send a letter to vince on our sky merger and its economic importance. do you think it's a possibility? i can, of course, help with the context. best, fred. [laughter] and then the reply back, next page, will have to discuss with g -- that's you, of course -- when he's back from china. do you remember whether there was any discussion and more importantly whether there was any letter -- >> well, there was certainly no letter, and i have no memory of any discussion. i don't think a discussion took place. as i say, this is mr. harrison exercising his diplomatic skills. >> well, might we ask mr. harrison why on earth he didn't say, this is a judicial process, we're not interfering, be off with you? many. [laughter] >> well, he was being diplomatic, lord justice leveson. >> all right. [laughter] >> i think if you take the tone of all these things, all these exchanges, he's always, you

know, mr. harrison is saying, you know, okay, i hear what you say, but, you know -- he was not acting on any of these things. and truly the proof would be if there was any exhume case between -- communication between him and the business department, which there wasn't. and, indeed, the only, the only thing we've been able to come across as a department, and after all if you think of the correspondence between the biz and the treasury is pretty volatile, so the only thing we've been able to come up with a is letter from all the people who were against the bid to the chief secretary, danny the alexander. and i think what's instructive here is that the internal treasury regulation team which would handle media regulation says this is a nil response, the issue is solely for the pcm secretary of state. in other words, the only interim evidence we have -- internal evidence we have in the treasury is when it's very clearly said that this is not an issue for the treasury. >> my question was only to

express my surprise that everybody didn't understand what was going on here. and that, actually, by doing this either way, for or against, actually created problems. >> this i think we were, as i say, there were lots of people at the time saying either the bid should go ahead or the bid shouldn't go ahead, and people were transmitting that to us at drinks parties and councils of various kinds. we would just politely absorb that and not do anything about it or in the case of myself with mr. murdoch, making it very clear it was a quasijudicial process. in the case of mr. harrison in his actual meeting with mr. michel, making clear it was not a process we were involved in. >> is in the accepted technique for dealing with pushy lobbyists? in other words or -- >> not a bad technique. >> lob them off rather than -- >> when you're doing a job like

mine or you're working as a special adviser for someone like myself, you get asked about a whole range of things the whole time. people are off trying to make the -- off trying to make the case for their company or their particular campaign. it happens on a daily basis. and, obviously, you could go round being rather abrupt with everyone, but in this case i think what mr. harrison was doing is simply absorbing mr. michel's text in this case. but the key thing is he doesn't raise it with me, he doesn't can me to send a letter to dr. cable, and i don't want send a letter to dr. cable. so, certainly, i would argue that's the material point. >> is there any sense here at all of not wishing to antagonize mr. michel given who he represents? >> i don't think it's a question of antagonizing or not antagonizing. i think it's just he's sending these texts -- >> the question for me is mr. hair soften's my special adviser -- harrison's my special

adviser. diss he act improperly, did he in any way try to interfere with the bid process, did he improperly make requests of me? the answer is no to all those things. he behaved, as far as i'm concerned, completely properly. >> may we move forward in time to the 21st of december, 2010. in particular the various females -- e-mails or text messages we have relating to that. i think they're under tab 20 of the bundle. our page 08159. and we see here three text messages within a 50-minute period between you and mr. hunt. you with me, mr. osborne? >> yes.

>> can we try and establish the the chronology? first of all, when, approximately when were you first aware of dr. cable's comments which had been, as we know, tape recorded? >> i think about 3:00. i mean, i discovered like the rest of westminster from robert pesten's blog, i think it was, where he had put up that he had information that had not been published by "the telegraph" that morning about what dr. cable had says about the murdochs. >> did you have any discussion with anyone from news international or news corp. about it on that day? >> no. >> did you have discussions with downing street about this issue on that day? >> by downing street i take it to mean the prime minister. the answer is, yes.

there was -- every day at 4:00 there is a prime ministerial meeting to remove what's going on that day and look ahead, and i attend that meeting when i'm in london and my diary allows me to do so. so i was going over to downing street anyway. the meeting had, in effect, been canceled, and the meeting had become a discussion about what to do about dr. cable's remarks, and i was part of that discussion with the prime minister, his most senior civil servants and his political advisers. my, if you like -- would you like me to give an account of that meeting? is. >> yes. but first of all, who else was there? have you covered -- >>ell, i can't remember the exact list, and i don't have the 10 downing street records of the meeting. but my recollection is it was the prime minister, it was his, the permanent secretary at number 10, jeremy hayward, and

the prime minister's close political team and, indeed, the prime minister's private secretary as well. >> and could you tell us, please, the gist of what was discussed? >> well, the principle concern in the meeting, and certainly my principle concern and what i was seeking to say in the meeting, was that this was not something that should lead to the resignation of dr. cable. although what dr. cable had said was wrong, i didn't think it merited his resignation. and, frankly, i also had concerns about the impact of such a resignation on the coalition and the unity of the government. so, um, i was looking for a solution as, indeed, were other people in the room, a solution that did not involve someone else becoming the secretary of state for business and dr. cable leaving the government or, indeed, dr. cable moving to another portfolio because that

would trigger a wider cabinet reshuffle which is not something we felt just before christmas with, as i say, the coalition in its first year something we wanted to see. and, indeed, we thought dr. cable was doing a good job as business secretary other than on this particular issue of what he'd said about the murdochs. so we were looking for solutions that did not involve dr. cable resigning or moving from business secretary. and jeremy hayward suggested the solution of moving the responsibility for media principlety to the department -- plurality for the department of media culture and sports. it was, in a way, a structural solution to the problem. and my recollection is once mr. hayward had proposed that, we thought that was a good solution and would help keep dr. cable in the government whilst removing from him the responsibility for media

plurality. and it, i think, also struck us all as rather common sense call that it would be move today the department that already had responsibility for media regulation. >> so was it jeremy hayward's idea that it should go to dcms? >> my recollection is it was jeremy hay ward's idea. >> it was certainly his idea when you evidenced that the responsibilities were being moved elsewhere. and i think the question is more focused on exactly where. can you be sure about that? >> i'm pretty sure. my recollection of the event was that he thought it was sensible to just remove responsibility for media plurality from biz to dcms. i've noted, also, what i think gus o'donnell has said in evidence who was, of course, the cabinet secretary at the time. surprise, surprise, i think as

he puts it, the the media department was the obvious place to look when it came to a reallocation for responsibilities of media policy within government. >> how long did it take to agree on that solution in principle? >> well, i -- less than an hour, i would have thought. it was -- >> so when you text mr. hunt back at 16:58, i hope you like the solution, that's obviously the solution we've just been discussing over the last five minutes or so, is that correct? >> re. >> so the decision in principle has been reached by then. >> there korea. i think he had already been contacted at that point. certainly not by me, but by the prime minister's private office, that they were looking at this as a potential solution to the problems that dr. cable's comments had caused. >> with during the two earlier texts arrive during the course of the meeting you were having with the prime minister? >> well, according to the evidence submitted to your inquiry, but i am, i'm not certain that i saw them before i sent the reply.

i suspect, i mean, i didn't sit in the meeting looking at my mobile phone. i have memory of the meeting lasting about an hour, but i would have looked at my mobile coming out of the meeting and looked at those texts and sent my reply. >> did anybody have concerns about the impartiality of mr. hunt? >> there was an issue about whether -- because mr. hunt had publicly expressed his support for or sympathy with the bid. although he had said also in public that, i think, the a nonissue for him, he wasn't involved in the process. i think the prime minister's view and the view of the civil servants was that they should seek legal advice about whether that was an impediment. but i was not involved in this that seeking of legal advice, and you would have to direct your questions to either the cabinet secretary or, i guess, the prime minister later this week. >> the legal advice we know was

obtained after 16:58 which is the time of your text, i hope you like the solution. does that match with your recollection? didn't have legal advice in your hand, as it were, before the decision in principle was taken? >> i mean, my recollection was that the decision had been taken in principle subject to any problems the legal advice might throw up, but there was no expectation that it would throw up those problems. it was thought best to check. >> what did you mean by i hope you like the solution? >> well, first of all, i thought he would like the fact that he was taking on additional responsibilities. and second, that the solution refers to the fact that he was, the solution refers to the problem we had with dr. cable's remarks and that that had, obviously, caused a political storm that day. and, again, my recollection is that there was breathless coverage on the 24-hour news. this was a crisis for the

government, and i think the opposition at the time were calling for dr. cable to resign. so my reference here is to the solution of that political problem, dr. cable's remarks. >> when reference is made to mr. hunt's public expression of views which were lightly touched on at this meeting with the prime minister, were you surprised to hear those views? >> i don't recollect being particularly surprised. >> well, it wouldn't really have been a matter of surprise to you, mr. osborne, would it? that mr. hunt was generally well dispose today the bid? >> i think they had been reported in the press, had they not? >> but to be frank, weren't those views shared by all the politicians present, all three of you? the same community of opinion which was generally favorable to the bid? >> as i say, our focus and, indeed, the exclusive conversation was how to solve

this problem that a very senior liberal democrat who was important to the unity of the government had said remarks which some people, including the labor opposition, said merited his resignation. and we wanted to find a solution to that political problem, and that's what took up the time in the discussion, as i say quite appropriately, the senior civil service provided a neat, white horse solution. >> why were you present at this meeting at all? i mean, was it simply that you are one of mr. cameron's leading advisers in government? >> well, i'm a regular attender at the 4:00 meeting as it's held, and i'm a senior member of the government and senior conservative. >> these 4:00 meetings, i mean, we don't have to know who's present on every occasion, but are you present on every occasion? >> well, when i'm in london and

there's not some other pressing event. >> why was there such a rush to get this sorted in principle at least in less than one hour? >> well, i think the -- on the day i remember the pressure was enormous to do something about the political crisis that had been unleashed on the government out of the blue at 3:00 in the afternoon. when, obviously, we had no idea that dr. cable had said these things. they weren't in "the telegraph "'s reports of the story that morning which had itself caused some problems, and we had to deal with the -- i mean, the pressure in government n modern government is to, is you have to make sure you have answers to some of the tough questions that the media are throwing at you, even if it comes in the middle of the amp just as you're doing other things. we're going to come on to, i

suspect, the appointment of andy coulson. for a modern political party and the government, you have to be on the news management cycle. now, that doesn't mean you have to try and control every headline. you can be more relaxed about the ebb and flow of the news than some of my predecessors have been. but it's quite difficult when you've got a situation where a cabinet minister's said something which makes it pretty clear to all concerned that he can't continue with those responsibilities, and you've got to provide the public and parliament with an answer to what your solution to that problem is. >> was there any sense in the meeting that you were moving from one difficulty potentially to another? you have an expression of appearance of bias from dr. cable, but you have the equal and opposite problem possibly with mr. hunt. was that ever considered? >> not to my recollection, no. >> do you feel that you should have been? >> well, we received, i thought

later good legal advice that wasn't an impediment. and i would say there is a difference between someone who is acting in a quasijudicial fashion saying in very colorful terms i'm going to go to war with the murdochs or whatever exactly he said, but the gist was that. and then the way mr. hunt then sought to conduct himself which was to take independent advice and follow that independent advice. i mean, if i can make a broader point, mr. jay. the claim is by principally our political opponents but also others that there was some vast conspiracy where the conservative party knows before the general election that news international wants to bid for be more of sky, that we sign up to some deal in return for their support as expressed true the endorsement of "the sun," and when we get into office, we

happened over bskyb. that is what the previous person at this inquiry has alleged this morning. it is complete nonsense. and the facts simply don't bear it out. we had no idea that they wanted to bid for sky before the general election. when the election happened, dr. vincent cable, a democrat, is put in charge. and you have to be a real pant cyst to believe that these events, we knowingly allowed vince cable to be secretly recorded, we knowingly allowed "the telegraph" not to publish information. that information emerges in the middle of the afternoon, and we then all as part of this coming plan put mr. hunt in charge. you know, it doesn't stack up. and we were following proper process, and i think mr. hunt followed the proper process as secretary of state. >> i've been asked to put these two questions to you, mr. osborne. are you aware of any communications in relation to the bskyb bid between your special adviser, mr. harrison,

and mr. graham williams who's the head of corporate affairs at bskyb? >> i'm not aware of any such communication. >> any communications between mr. harrison and matthew anderson who is mr. murdoch's adviser? >> i'm not aware of any communication. >> i'm going to move on now to another topic, is that okay? >> we have a break, mr. osborne, just for a short time. just a few minutes, thank you. >> all rise. >> the leveson inquiry into the connection between the british press and politicians is taking a break. they've been questioning chancellor of the exchequer george osborne. earlier this morning former labour prime minister gordon brown answered questions. he said a conversation about the rupert murdoch newspapers

switching support never took place as the murdochs said in earlier testimony. you can see today's entire inquiry online at c-span.org's video library: these leveson inquiries are meeting four days this week. tomorrow, former british prime minister conservative john major testify along with labour party leader ed milliband. wednesday deputy prime minister and liberal democrat leader nick clegg answers questions. then thursday british prime minister david cameron. live coverage starts each day at 5 a.m. eastern time.

>> during this break a portion of the testimony by chancellor of the exchequer george osborne, he's asked about his position on press relations and his relationship with the murdochs. the inquiry should resume live coverage in many about ten minutes. >> thank you, mr. osborne. your full name, please? >> george gideon oliver osborne. >> thank you. now, you kindly provided us with two witness statements, the first is dated the 4th of may, the second the 11th of may this year. each with a at the same time of truth. is this your formal evidence of our inquiry? >> yes, it is. >> you, of course, are the>> y chancellor of the exchequer anda were shadow chancellor betweenho 2005 and 2010s that right?e >> can indeed. >> mr. osborne, first of all, thank you very much indeed for the obvious effort you put into these statements. i do want to clarify one fact or

correct the misapprehension sent to the public domain.rr for some people i have made it clear that they will have to give evidence.opl to others i've wanted to wait and see what they say before deciding whether they have to give evidence. it's quite wrong to suggest, as i know has been suggested, thats you've been required to give evidence after the evidence of mr. hunt. the fact is as you know, but i'h very keen the public shouldt understand some considerableblic time ago having seen your statement the view was taken that you ought to give evidence, you were perfectly content to de so and arranged for it accordingly. so i want to correct that. accordingly. so i wanted to correct that. >> thank you. >> may we start off, mr. osborne, with the topics. 2.5-2.7 understatement, our page 04089, you speak at our request

of the value of these interactions. particularly interested in 2.7 where you say sometimes these, that's the views of your interlocutors, will be presented in a person -- on a vacation it would be presented as the views of their readers. you will presumably know which, and when they claim to present the views of their readers, do they speak with great authority? >> well, and all my interactions with proprietors, editors, it's a conversation partner with an individual that either editing a newspaper or own a newspaper, or someone speaking on behalf of, or at least claims on behalf of the registered sometimes they're very clear, so quite often when even with a provider they'll have large commercial interest, large business interests. not necessary just in

newspapers, and they will speak as you might speak to the chairman of a company or anyone with broader business interests, and a general interest in the economy and things related to the. other times there's a very specific readers campaign or a campaign mounted by the newspaper, and sometimes in private conversation they will say our readers are very concerned about this. i sometimes for my own judgment about whether they audibly speaking to the readers or not. but quite often they purport to be spent do you think that disproportionate weight is given to the constituency they claim to represent, namely their readers and? >> well, i don't think so but i think that such a. i think throughout -- mr. murdoch will come on and talk about regulations of the press. i would say there's a very important check in the system which these are commercial products that need to be extolled to the public. if they're not affecting any of these soft views held by some part of the public than they may not sell the newspaper.

so it is up to them to judge whether their correctly reflecting the views of the newspaper, but they certainly think they are. >> you feel about politicians get disproportionate weight of views -- may be claiming to represent? >> well, i think it's up to the individual politician, frankly. i think politicians are also held to account through the ballot box in this country. and if politicians are seen to be craving to newspapers, i think the public senses that and i think the public are much smarter than sometimes they're given credit for. and i would say there are moments when newspapers have full campaigns which are not obviously of the highest interest of the readers, but which they nevertheless think is very important. i could give you a couple examples that come to mind if i think about. at times and campaign on adoption. that is probably not at the top

of the list of those times readers concerned. "the daily mail" campaign into the injustice around stephen lawrence. i doubt any survey of male readers would have revealed that as one of the leading concerns. but in both cases the newspapers chose to make those campaigns. i guess they were and and editorial judgments of those people. >> you referred to the public being able to sniff out, do you think until the events revealed by the inquiry, the public has had enough information to make the sort of judgment that you implied? >> well, my personal view about this is they were always aware that the private lives of politicians and celebrities were being investigated by newspapers. where this issue, why this issue suddenly became such importance was that they saw an ordinary

family, if i can put like that, the dollar family, suddenly exposed to what appears to be anyway, see what the legal proceedings review, but totally outrageous interest. and that's when this whole issue became much more significant than a guess as one of the reasons why we're all here today. and i think the politicians at the time, myself included, goes to the decision to suggest this inquiry were reflecting public concerned about what they had learned. whereas i think the public had probably suspected for a long time that those practices were going on with celebrities and politicians, as i said. >> two separate issues here, mr. osborne. they may be public concern in press in conclusion, but there may be some -- in getting too close to the press, and they are separate issues. and my question was until this inquiry, the public might not

have had enough information to be able to assess that second concern, let alone, would you agree with that? >> again, i think the public probably is not given credit for. public i think certainly over my lifetime have become much more aware of the interaction between politics and the media. there's been all sorts of television drama, film space around the interaction, spin doctor. so i think the public have become quite smart about the interaction. and i think as i say, the public judge when they think a politician is great into a particular interest or a song to represent a national interest, i think they're not doing very well representing the national interest, they kick them out of. >> do you feel that some witnesses have felt that the fusion of news and confidence is an issue of particular concern?

>> well, my feeling is i think this is a bit of a blind anti-inquiry personally. i think there are lots of things to concern us, lots of things i want to get right, personal government, talk about how the press can better self regular it so. but i think you were trying to distinguish between fact and co >> back to more live coverage of the leveson inquiry on phone hacking and testimony of george osborne, chancellor of the exchequer. >> and we're dealing now with the recruitment of mr. kohl soften. are you with me? be -- coulson, are you with me? first of all, you tell us in paragraph 7.1 that you discussed with david cameron who the potential candidates might be and then a bit later one name you suggested worth considering was andy coulson. is that right? is. >> can that's right. >> now, it's going to be in videos to identify the other potential candidates for obvious

reasons. can you give us an idea, please, however, of how many there were? >> there were probably, from memory, three or four that we had identified? one of whom, i think, has been identified or identified himself subsequently worked for the mayor of london. there were a couple of other people we considered, one of who we talked to. this other person did not work for news international, to my knowledge never has worked for news international, and they're still working in the press, and i don't think it would be fair to identify them. but we were, we were considering a number of candidates. and i thought andy coulson is recently resigned editor of "news of the world" would be a very strong candidate. >> what in particular were the qualities he possessed which attracted him to you?

>> i thought it was a couple of things. first of all, he had been the editor of a major national newspaper, so he had an e enorms amount of professional experience. and what we needed was someone who was going to be able to handle the communications of a large organization, the conservative party, and develop a media strategy. but also be able to handle on an hour-by-hour basis the problems that were thrown at us. and as i was saying earlier, in politics -- i'd like to say modern politics although i suspect there have been features of this which have been common to political systems for thousands of years, but things can be troupe at you very quickly, and you need to be able to react very quickly. a story can break late at night, it can involve an individual, a policy. i would suggest that if, suggest the way, actually, sometimes evidence from this inquiry has suddenly been picked up and

within 20 minutes the government has to have an answer or at least a holding answer. you know, shows, i think, everyone involved in this inquiry how quickly things can move, how quickly the government has to be able to react and, indeed, opposition needs to be able to react. and i thought that andy coulson had that experience as someone who had run a large newsroom, was used to the pressure of dealing with fast-changing story. i thought, secondly, it wasn't just that he was experienced, i had met him a few times although not a one-on-one, and he had struck me as someone who had conservative views, had shared my conservative values, and i thought would bring that as well to the party. so i thought there were a number of reasons why he was potentially a very good person to do the job. >> are you saying, mr. osborne, that his associations with or contacts with news international were not relevant factors at all?

>> they were not relevant as far as i was concerned or certainly as far as david cameron was concerned. the fact that he had edited a big newspaper was the relevant fact, and as i say, the other candidates we considered were not people who were working for news international. i think if mr. coulson had, for example, been editing "the mail" on sunday, then we would have also hired him. so i think it wasn't relevant that he was a news international ec-employee. >> -- ex-employee. >> relevant that he was very experienced in the ways of the press? >> that was the relevance, sir. i mean, i have seen people suggest that the reason we hired him was because of his connections with the murdochs or rebecca brooks or his knowledge of the internal workings at news international. i can tell you, that was not a consideration. what we were interested in hiring is someone who was going to do the job going forward. i think if you had just hired

someone or only hired someone or this was a key consideration because of the connection they had, i think we would have been making a mistake. we were hiring an individual to do a very important job for us, and we hired him because we thought he had the experience and the persian mallty to do that job -- personality to do that job. and i would suggest to you that everything that's happened since no one has ever mounted a serious complaint about the way he was the direct communications for the conservative party or subsequently for the government. there have been lots of arguments about his time as editor of "the news of the world," but no complaints about the way he handled himself in the job of exhume cases director which is -- communications director which is, frankly, one of the most controversial jobs in britain. >> is it more that, actually, he brought skills which you'd seen evidenced by new labour in mr. campbell? >> el, i think -- well, i think it's undoubtedly the case that tony blair had seen that hiring someone from the media would

bring an added dimension to the communications effort, and the conservative party had in opposition acquired a number of people subsequently who had been journalists, indeed, one person who had been an editor of a paper. so that was true. but i don't think that mr. coulson and mr. campbell are cut from the same cloth, i would suggest x as campbell was a political editor, i thought andy coulson brought a broader experience as an editor of a paper, managing a large newsroom. and as i say, i think subsequently the way he did the job shows that he was very well qualified to do that job. >> and i suppose he might have been attuned to a particular brand of conservative thinking which you or mr. cameron did not hold exemplified,. [inaudible]

>> well, i think he brought a whole range of experiences and values to the job. and if you're referring to the fact that i think he started his career on the basilton newspaper, that beats close to the heart of the conservative party. >> was he of any use to you subsequently in terms of his contacts with news international and mrs. brooks? >> i don't think they were particularly of value. we already had some of these contacts. we had to establish contact for the first time with these people. so i don't think he, you know, as i say, there was a particular thing he brought to the party. it was he, you know, he was and remains a very experienced individual understanding different aspects of the media. and actually one of the things he transformed for us was our interaction with broadcast media which had been, i think, quite weak until that point. so he hasn't, to my knowledge, been working for a broadcaster previously. >> were you aware that he was

close friends with mrs. brooks? >> well, i certainly was aware that he was friendly with mrs. brooks and, obviously, knew the owners of "the news of the world." >> you must have assessed that this was not likely to be a hint answer in the future d hindrance in the future, is that fair? >> well, if anything, of course, we knew it was going to be controversial, hiring someone who had resigned from being editor of "the news of the world." we certainly had to consider that issue as i've set out in my written evidence. but as i say, if he'd been the editor of "the mail" on sunday or some other newspaper, then we would have hired him. i use "the mail" on sunday just because it's a sunday market paper with a conservative leaning. so, you know, as i say, it was not a consideration, let's hire the ex-news international man. it was let's hire this very experienced ex-newspaper editor. you know, not like there weren't

other ex-newspaper editors ready to be employed, and i thought he had a particular talent and ability that i had detected in my dealings with him and my conversations with him as shadow chancellor. so what, i mean, of course, that -- you know, it was not my decision to hire him. i suggested that -- and mr. cameron had met him as editor of "news of the world," and mr. cameron spoke to him along with a number of other conservatives before he was hired. >> okay. you met him, as you tell us in paragraph 7.4, for a drink on the 15th of march, 2007, and mr. coulson's evidence was to like effect. at paragraph 7.6 youal told us whether -- you also told us you asked him whether he was a conservative supporter, and he confirmed that he was. is that right? >> yes, that's right. i mean, obviously, i am -- i

suspected he was, and one of the things that you develop in my job is you have a reasonable sense -- not always accurate -- about how people might vote. but, you know, of course his paper actually supported the labour department in the previous election. so it was not, you know, it was worth asking him the question because, as i say, he had as the editor supported the labour party in the previous election. >> can you remember the precise terms of the question you is asked him about phone hacking? you deal with it towards the end of paragraph 7.6. >> well, this is the way i put it here is to the best of my recollection. i mean, this was, you know, this was not an interrogation, this was a drink. where i was sounding him out, see if he was interested. i wasn't offering him the job. i was just finding out whether he was interested. until that point we had no idea whether he was interested, what

other things he had on offer and whether he'd already accepted some other job. so i asked him in a general sense as you might do in a social encounter whether there was more in the phone hacking story that was going to come out that was not already public that we needed to know about, and he said, no. and, of course, the phone hacking story had been the mull care/goodman case and subsequent convictions. >> why do you think you asked that question? >> well, because, obviously, it was an issue that he had resigned because of what had happened at "the news of the world." certainly, i was aware and we'd discussed it beforehand internally before approaching him that hiring him would attract some controversy because of the circumstances of his resignation. on the other hand, if he hadn't resigned, he wouldn't have been available for the job, i suspect. and as i say, i asked it in the way that i have put down here to

the best of my recollection. and, um, you know, i think it's also worth noting that the press complaints commission subsequently before we formally appointed him said there was no evidence of anyone else at "the news of the world" involved. the former prime minister in his evidence to this inquiry has said that he believed mr. coulson when he was the first politician as i understand it to phone mr. coulson after his resignation. and i guess i also had assumed that because there had been a criminal court case and in a court and all these things had been investigated by the police that there was nothing else. but i asked him. >> you asked him to exclude the possibility that there might be something else, is that it? >> i asked him because i wanted to find out from him whether there was some as yet

undisclosed part of his involvement in the goodman/mulcaire case that we were not aware of, and he said, no. >> okay. and then in paragraph 8.1 after mr. coulson a few days later confirmed that he was interested in the job, you had a conversation with mr. cameron about it, is that correct? >> yes. i think i am, i spoke to him pretty soon, actually, david cameron. my recollection is that i probably spoke to him on the way back from the drink. i'd had with mr. coulson on the telephone. >> so by that point you presumably were quite impressed with your -- or maybe more than quite impressed with him. he, from your perspective, was the man for the job subject to his expressing interest? >> i was very impressed by him, and it confirmed my instinct

that i thought he would be a very good candidate for the job, but at i had discovered that he was at least prepared to consider the job although i stressed at that occasion he simply said he'd think about it, he was somewhat surprised, by the way, that i'd turned up and asked him. so i knew we had a good person for our short list. i wouldn't say that we had made a decision there and then to hire him, but we had someone who we could put on our short list. >> i think you told us that you knew that this would be a controversial appointment, particularly if he was going to be here, is that right? >> yes. >> why did you run that risk? >> well, because i thought in the end the balance was that it was worth hiring someone with real talent and ability and weathering the adverse must puby of appointing someone who'd had to resign from "the news of the world" would bring. i guess what i had thought was, and i've been involved from a

very junior level in conservative politics since 2004, i'm sorry, 1994, you know, over a long period i'd seen oppositions try and hire people just because of who they were and maybe the connections they brought and so on. and that has sometimes gone wrong. not always, but sometimes gone wrong. and it was better to hire someone we just thought was going to be good for the job in hand rather than because of where they came from. so if you were going on a, you know, if you were going on simply a hiring someone that was not going to attract any publicity, you wouldn't have hired mr. coulson. but we hired mr. coulson because -- and certainly my assessment was he was the best candidate for the job. >> can you remember when you spoke to mrs. brooks to give her professional opinion about him, as you put it? >> well, i spoke to her after the, after i'd seen mr. coulson and after we'd been considering it for a couple of weeks.

and i don't want -- i don't recollect the precise day or anything like that, but i remember a conversation where i asked her, you know, tell me about andy coulson. not is he -- tell me is he a good person, is he a good person to work with, is he, you know, what do you think of him. it was never a question about, you know, is he going to bring his news international connections or tell me more about the circumstances around his resignation. i was just simply asking her opinion of him as a professional. >> did she express any surprise that you were interested in hiring him? >> not particularly, because i think she knew. i think mr. coulson had himself told her that we were interested. i mean, i don't want to overstate the importance of this. i mean, i just put it in here for completeness, it was a pretty brief conversation, as i

remember. there was no formal meeting with her or anything like that. >> it would be difficult to take references in this sort of situation, and this is the best you could do -- >> well, one -- yes. i mean, one of the problems we had and, indeed, we had appointing his successor is that it's such a high-profile appointment, and there's such a lot of interest in who you're going to appoint that it's quite difficult to do this without attracting a lot of media anticipation. attention. so we had to tread carefully and your right that we couldn't formally request references or anything like that. >> and i think subsequently you passed out of the picture as it were since we know that mr. cameron then had a conversation with mr. coulson, and the job was offered. but in terms of his subsequent work for the conservative party, um, to what extent was he

helpful in the overall process of bringing "the sun" newspaper on the side? >> well, he was helpful because he was the director of communications. but i think the endorsement of "the sun" has been elevated to almost mythical status. it was just one of a whole range of things we felt we had to get right in the runup to a general election. and, ultimately, if we had not had the enment of "the sun," i think we still would have done well in the general election. i mean, i remember, also, that it was senate we had the endorsement of the financial times and the economist, both publications having previously various points supported the labour party. now, they don't have mass readerships, but they bring a different kind of cache. i think it stems back to the 1992 election and some of the mythology around that. there is this feeling that "the sun" endorsement is all you need

to win a general election, and it is far from that. i certainly think you could win an election without the endorsement of "the sun." >> but wasn't mr. coulson able to get advice as to how best to obtain "the sun's" support? >> well, i think his advice was how to handle our communications effort. yes, how to talk to proprietors and editors and so on. but i -- you would have to ask, indeed you have, the editor of "the sun" and rebekah brooks and the murdochs. in the end, they supported the conservative party, i think, for the same reasons as many other previously-labour-supporting people and organizations and newspapers switched their support which is they felt the labour government had, you know, had run out of steam, and we wanted a new government. so i didn't, i don't, you know, as i say, as i was saying before the break, the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy that fused the enforcement of "the

sun" with and commercial interests of news international and that this was ever discussed or even hinted at is just complete nonsense. we were trying to make the merits of the conservative case clear to all including those who edited "the sun," but above all, those who read "the sun." >> if we could put the term "conspiracy" to one side for a moment and understand why you do that and instead use the term "strategy," a far more mutual term. surely you had a strategy. mr. cameron, mr. coulson, yourself may well have been involved in it as to how to win over "the sun." it'd be unthinkable that you didn't a approach this important issue without having a strategy. are we agreed? >> i don't think it was a particular strategy for "the sun" newspaper, it was a strategy for the newspapers. we wanted the full throttle support of conservative-leaning papers like "the telegraph" and "the mail."

we wanted to win over some of those more neutral bureau chiefs like "the times". we didn't have much hope with "the guardian." but it was a general media strategy. and it mainly consisted of setting out our argument about why the labour government had forfeited the right to remain in office and why we thought a conservative government would be better for britain. so it was, we were making in private exactly the same arguments that we were making in public. >> for the papers in the news international stable, did you not have some sort of strategy as to how specifically to win them over aside from the overall strategy to do the best you can to win support from everywhere you might choose to look? >> i don't remember. and i don't think -- i'm certain there was not some specific "sun" strategy. and as i say, look, we were certainly aware that the endorsement of "the sun" was important because of the role

it's played in british politics or the way it's perceived and the role people think it plays in many british politics. but our own personal view was it was not going to be anything like a deciding factor or even a hugely significant factor. it was important, but it was just one of a whole range of things we had to do to try and win a general election. >> and you also say in your statement that over time you became a personal friend of mr. coulson, is that right? >> yes. and remain a friend of his, although sadly i've not been able to speak to him for a year. >> okay. may i ask you now, please, about something else? are you also a friend of mr. daniel finkel stein of "the times"? >> yes. >> does he act for you as a sort of unpaid adviser and/or speech

writer? >> no. he's just a very good friend. i've known him for many years. we worked together when he was the director of research at the conservative party. we stood for parliament in the same general election, but he was unsuccessful. and he's a very good, he and his wife, nicky, are very good friends of my wife and i. >> has he ever assisted you in the drafting of your statements and speeches? >> well, he -- i talk to him about pom tigs -- politics like i do my other friends, and he occasionally provides good one lines and jokes. it is a function those who know him know he's been performing this function for about 20 year for a whole succession of conservative politicians. >> has there, as a form of quid pro quo, do you assist him in any way with providing material information for his stories in "the times"? >> no. i mean, if you're suggesting there's something improper in that. of we have political

conversations. i have other very good personal friends who are journalists and involved in the media, and obviously o, we talk about politics. but, you know, part of the job of a columnist -- and i don't think, by the way, anyone who reads mr. finkel sign's excellent columns would be under illusions he's a conservative because he references the fact that he worked in the conservative office and was a parliamentary candidate. you know, he is seeking to explain the thinking of the conservative party, and no doubt he's informed by the conversations he has with me and many other senior conservatives. i'd also point out he is friends with, i think, many, many senior conservatives, not just myself. i've also been asked -- >> there's a point that, actually, you make the very point that i was making to you before. people have got to be able to have social relationships with whomsoever they want. the question is, is there a line, and if there is, how you define it. and you may be right that you

can set it out, but ultimately, you depend upon the people who are exercising responses in power to use sensible judgment. >> well, i would agree with that, sir. in the end, the judgment of the editor of the newspaper, the judgment of the public about whether they buy that newspaper, and there's the judgment of the electorate about whether they elect someone to office. >> is -- there's one further meeting i've been asked to raise with you. it's on the 5th of april, 2011. it's referenced in your annex which remains, of course, under tab 2, page 04085. a dinner with rebekah brooks, will lewis and james murdoch. which i think was the night of the press awards. do you remember that one, mr. osborne? >> i do remember it, but not in great detail.

>> there are two issues i've been asked to raise with you. first, were mr. michel and matthew anderson present on that occasion? >> i don't think so, no. well, no. >> so the names listed here represent the only relevant individuals from news international, news corp. who were there, is that correct? >> to the best of my recollection. i mean, if i've got that wrong, i will certainly write to correct it, but i don't remember anyone else being there. >> and the second question is, was the bskyb bid raised on that occasion? >> i don't think it was, no. >> can you remember what was discussed in general terms on that occasion? >> i think, again, it was a general discussion about the political situation and what the government was up to at the time. >> okay. i'll move on then to issues of media regulation, mr. osborne. >> yes.

>> there's a number of issues. the balance between freedom of the press, free speech and responsibility, the rights of others. um, how important do you see the issue of individual harm and collective harm, and how heavily do they weigh in the balance against the important rights of freedom of speech? >> my instinct is to err on the side of freedom of speech just because i think when you try and construct some test of some other public interest, you are at risk of muzzling free comment in a democratic societiment and there are plenty -- society. and there are plenty of occasions in our history when newspapers stood out against the general consensus would have been accused of damaging or harming the general public good.

and yet were proved right by events afterwards. and i think if you try and construct some public interest tests that you sit alongside freedom of the speech, you are in quite difficult territory. now, that doesn't mean that there aren't rights of individuals, and i would certainly -- and maybe we're going to come onto this -- i would certainly agree that the press complaints commission needs complete overhaul and changing, and i think there needs to be a better right of redress for individuals who are mired by the press in an unfair way. but i think if you try to construct some test of general harm, then you are in difficult territory because a powerful politician will always invoke the national security or economic national interest, some defense wire can be published. >> we focused on individual harm

rather than general harm, i'm not sure anybody's going so far as to suggest general harm. why does this concern arise in the context of the correct desire to continue to foster free speech in a democratic society? >> well, i think -- this is more the territory of yourself and lord justice leveson, but i think the courts don't really provide and the defamation laws don't really provide much of a remedy for most citizens in this country if they are in some way libeled. it's too expensive to take a libel action. and whilst the press complaints commission has done some good and i've used it on occasion myself, it has lacked independence, it has lacked teeth, and i think i've only reflected on this because of this inquiry. i think it also is too reactive to individual complaints rather than trying to foster a broader

set of standards in an ethos which, i think, would benefit the whole press. .. if there's an individual who has a gross intrusion of their privacy by the press, that, how you make that determination, then i don't think at the moment they have a number of very many options available to them. they can go to the complaints

commission. sometimes that works. sometimes the complaint, when the remedies are right, they tend to be much, the apology for the correction is high in the compared to the size of the original story. and so ordinary citizens whose lives can be harmed in this way, there is not an obvious route to go down. though i would hope coming out of this there will be some recommendations how you can help those ordinary citizens which, after all, in the origin of this entire inquiry was -- on ordinary citizens, not politicians or celebrities. if you can find a cheaper, more effective, more straightforward remedy to the people, i think that would be fantastic. but i think in doing so you've got to be careful not to stray into, my personal view, issues like the blurring between comment in fact, which is

featured in these inquiries but because i think that is a broader issue where i think you'll find it impossible to find a remedy if you do empower some independent body with some investigative rights in this area, you could be crossing over a line which ends up with a restriction which would be damaging. >> well, you've got to break that down a bit. if one takes the first bit, the pcc does require a separation of fact and comment, and if you have an appropriate mechanism, at least to be able to review that where it's gone horribly wrong, and i'm not now talking about political issues, which i see the difference. i understand the points are making there. that may help. the second bit is investigative

rights. and again, depends what sort of investigation you commit and who is doing it. the trouble is there is a risk, seems to me, i would be interested in your comment, in default into the position well, the police are there, they should do this. because the police have the own priorities and their own problems and one would hope that the press in some way should be able to cope with issues that are so out with a reasonable response for somebody on to say something about it. and that's really what we are going on. is that fair? >> well, i think from what i've heard you say about trying to get a more independent body, also independent of the government that provides an easy means of redress for x. -- for ordinary citizens, that is all very well and good.

i just would question, when i hear the discussions stray into a complaint about sometimes the virulent, the press or the anger of the press, i mean that is part of the color of a free press in our society. and internationally makes our press i think more effective to hold politicians accountable media and some other countries. i've heard, for example, suggest lead tables for accuracy and there's been some type of kite marks. i would be quite skeptical of getting into that territory. and one person fact is another persons opinion, in the political world. so, maybe there are other worlds where there needs to be a clear eyed, but i think in politics you find it difficult to find that. i think you yourself acknowledge that. >> i understand the point entirely.

but let me just share with you another group be interested in your comment, and these are now voluntary, these questions. you are certainly find to say thank you very much, i will pass. i've heard evidence from groups that feel very, very disadvantaged by the way they are continued portrayed in the press. and, of course, the pcc requires an individual complaint. but if the material is about a group of people, and there have been submissions from disabled groups, groups from transgender groups, women's groups. they fall into slight different category from the politicians who, of course, have different dynamics within which they have to operate. would you agree? >> well, up to a point.

i think yes, of course you have to respect the dignity of people, and particularly, you know, there are laws to prevent racial discrimination or sexual discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination. but you mention immigrant groups, and they are obviously sometimes the most -- equally there is a huge concern out there amongst the public about immigration controls and about particular immigrants. and if that is not allowed, then i think you stifle public debate. and actually, since you've got on the subject, i think it's one of issues for our national broadcasters as well. i think that the issue which is very hostile, i remember a decade ago it was regarded as eccentric to be against britain's -- and the campaign laws by "the daily mail" and

"the sun," "the daily telegraph, to keep britain out of the euro was regarded as faintly marginal by the establishment and the government at the time the cbi and everyone goes to actually they found that that skeptic movement found its voice through those newspaper campaigns. and they didn't get much help may i add from the bbc at the time although i think the bbc has acknowledge it made a mistake. and get we can now see, particularly today of all this, that i was one of the most important economic and political decisions this country has ever faced. so i would just come yes, by all means respect the rights and dignity of individual groups, but if that rethinks you airing issues large number of those people, people in this country is quite strong views about finishing joint difficult territory. >> i don't find it difficult. i don't find it personally difficult to draw the line between what you just said is,

justifies protection, in which you equally said, absolutely must be open in a free democratic society with free speech. >> but if you, for example, cut the budget, government funding to perhaps one of the groups that you mentioned, that can be represented as an attack on that group, and you never hear on the day program that person sent by the way, i may taxpayer. it's just this group is spending too much. i'm guessing if you elevate certain groups as having particular status and protection will usher particular protection are starting to make -- what in the public interest, and i think that is quite a slippery slope. we have very good loss, which would know better than me, to protect the abuse against individuals and discrimination against individuals. but once you start going beyond those laws with some kind of -- and i think you are straying

into the territory of determining what's in the national interest, and i would personally stay away from that. >> certainly stay way from determining what's in the public interest that ultimately will be decision for the press. >> and the public. >> and to the public. the question is where, in relation to any specific example -- >> no, i would say, if i followed your proceedings, the work that you're asking people's opinion on to great and more independent, replacement to the pcc, more independent the newspapers, that we should have teeth, that it should look more, there should be more than just reacting to complaints, to set broader stance. i think those are all very good things. one final point i'd make is, and i haven't had a chance to make it come is of course all of this has to be future proof.

what we don't want to come up with is a set of regulations of manuscripts. we've got to come up with something that is relevant to the internet age. ii have a 10 euros and an eight year old child. i doubt they will ever buy a paper, newspaper in their lives. they will consume, they do consume news but they consume news in different ways, and what i've done in my lifetime. if we come up with something that just targets on one particular part of the media, then i'm afraid we will all have been wasting our time. >> and you could equal that any concern about economics of print journalism as well. i understand the point. that's not to say i know the answer. >> yes, well, thank you very much. mr. osborne, thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> if there's nothing else, tomorrow morning, 10:00. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the leveson inquiry continues tomorrow and will have live coverage starting at 5 a.m. eastern time. former british prime ministers john major will testify, followed by labour party leader ed miliband. on wednesday, deputy prime minister and liberal democrat leader nick clegg. and thursday, british prime minister david cameron. live coverage starts each day at 5 a.m. eastern. and the u.s. senate is in today at two eastern continue work on what's called the farm bill, setting farm and food programs for the next several years. senators are working on agreement over amendments, and

once that is in place they will move ahead with a bill. at 4:30 p.m. senators will turn to a judicial nomination. and jpmorgan chase president and ceo jamie diamond goes to capitol hill wednesday to testify before the senate banking committee. senators will ask them about the companies $2 billion trading loss impact on the overall economy. he will appear before a house committee the following week. watch this week's hearing live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. booktv will give you a preview with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya with the author in january 2010. join us sunday at 6 p.m. eastern and later at 730 that same night. your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for david nairn is on c-span2's tv.

>> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> and you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. this is our weekly look at telecommunications issues and policy. we are on location in boston for the 2012 cable show. this weekend we want to show some more of the interviews that we conducted here. >> now joining us on "the communicators" is the president of espn co-chairman of disney entertainment, john skipper. how do people watch espn? >> well, our point of view is they watch it anyway they want. most people prefer to watch in their living room on a great big

hdtv set. we are -- a mobile device, and ipad, an iphone, an android device. they can watch anywhere they want. we hope they watch it relentlessly. one thing we do know how to watch, they watch it live. 99.4% of our viewership is live, which i think as among the things that really makes sports stands out in today's market. it's a unique product. we have to watch it live. there is passion iran and we're trying to facilitate watching it anywhere. >> so how do you facilitate that? what kind of technology to use to get that everywhere? >> among our most important priority for us to watch bpm application, which is our version of authenticated television. so assuming you have a pay television subscription, you can authenticate your application of watch espn networks on whatever device you want to watch it on. and the quality is spectacular.

it's hd quality. you can set out in your backyard, you can wander off in the woods, you can be at a dinner party. you can be at a wedding. you know, looked down at your device and watch your game spent is that all done by at? >> it is an application based process. >> is there a revenue stream and called for you guys? >> well, look, the most important revenue stream for us are the fees we get paid by distributors for the value we create for them. this programs -- prolongs that. that's the most important revenue application. we did run a separate stream of commercials into each different device or platform so that we can isolate, and on the computers, we can put an isolationist in a commercial on mobile devices but those are very upwardly mobile, mostly young male audience. they are very attractive.

so we do think that the financial proposition is very attractive as well. >> john skipper, we're here at the cable show in boston. one of the issues is dish networks new hopper. and does that come is that something your word about, something you can skip the commercial? >> look, from a walt disney company perspective where on abc network, you can't produce the shows without the revenue from the advertising, yes, it concerns us. a facilitating technology that allows you to easily skip commercials. from an espn point of view, you heard me say before, 99.4% of our viewing is like. so the hopper is very passionate fairly inconsequential to espn but again, i've got different levels of concern for different networks, but for the espn point of view, it makes live only more valuable. >> most of the folks that we talk to her on the committee getters on c-span our

policymakers or politicians, people worried about regulation, et cetera. how much time in your business do you spend worrying about washington are thinking about regulations? >> well, i've been in this job just about five months. we are very well served by the disney washington office. headed by richard bates. but i have become engaged in the process but i'm going to actually next tuesday to make the two new commissioners for the fcc. they serve us well. we have good relationship with them, and my expectation is to be involved with them, and key members of the house, senate, where issues of communication are managed. >> what's your back on? >> my background is book and magazine publishing, professional. i grew up in north carolina. i'm a literature major from the university of north carolina and columbia university. i got into the magazine

publishing business, moved to walt disney to work -- to work in books and magazine. moved to asp and to start and then espn magazine. that was sort of a transition over to espn, managed their internet digital businesses, ran the sales group and the last five years ran the content division of espn. and then had the great good fortune to be in what is cleared one of the better jobs of our time, managing espn. >> mr. skipper, i read a statistic here at the cable show that 98% of viewing is still done, and you mentioned it as well, living room, big hdtv. >> right. >> why are we spending so much time and attention looking at other devices, other ways to watch television? >> well, in our case, we have always been very well served by the mantra of serving the man, so while the audience may now be somewhat cutting-edge, it's

probably indicative of a future trend. it's going to happen. i mean, you're not always going to be in your living room. it's particularly acute when it's sports and you want to watch what you in your living room or not. so my guess is it's a little more than 2% for sports. we did the world cup in 2010. we made the network available across computers, mobile devices, and one out of three people viewing viewed on a device other than a hd set. so sports is a leading edge of this, and so for us it's pretty clear why we would be interested in doing this. i think other forms of entertainment will not be a bleeding edge but it will matter to them eventually. it's a way to continue your business, right? you do not want to be blind by more for entertainment, different screens and different environs. we produce the best products in the world on television, in terms of entertainment. we just want to extend the opportunity to view it.

>> what about the growth in spanish language programming for you guys? >> it's a party for us. we launched a series of platforms under the brand -- we either to understand the demography of this country and where it's going with the rapid rise of the hispanic population. we want to be the home for those fans, hispanic fans are very good sports fans, and with increasingly concentrated on sports that matter to them, having hispanic talent on our air, serving in an english-language and spanish. we recently had a signal in new york and the most attention was around, gee, you're moving espn from am to fm. does has we're going to launch on the am signal. so it's a big priority for us. we understand we need to serve those fans. >> social media, how does espn

use social media and are you finding it to be effective, whether it is, facebook, et cetera? >> we generally find social needed to be complemented to what we do. sports is inherently social. people are tweeting about games they are watching. they are liking things on facebook. they are including in the wall, their comments about games. so we try to work with facebook, with twitter. we ran in facebook the first live content where you could watch games on espn three. on facebook. with the second most we tweeted media brand at espn. so we are pretty engage with those guys. i will have a silicon valley to hear the second week of june where we're going around and meeting to make sure we're helping serve their needs and make sure that we're sort of working as partners. >> you said you're going to meet with the two new fcc commissioners. what i going to talk to them about? >> we just want to provide them

with our point of view about where things stand. understand where they're coming from and what their concerns are, and what their issues might be so we can have a good dialogue about what we do. and generally come again, commissioner jenna task he has been engaged with us before. michael powell before them. we have always been engaged because the commission is important to us. we want to make sure we understand their point of you and vice versa. >> and finally if you would, give us a snapshot of espn employees, revenue, et cetera. >> espn is about a 33 euros company based in bristol connecticut about 7000 employees. and over the course of the 32, 33 years, lots of great work by lots of people of established espn, and clearly the preeminent sports media brand in this country. i think we're also distinguished by the variety and breadth of our platforms.

we have seven, 2007 lineal television networks, broadband television network, digital platform, espn.com, mobile platforms with mobile espn. we want to sort of retransfer ever they are. we sort of think of from old media to new media whether it be print with the magazine, espn radio, espn on abc, broadcast television and all the way to new digital applications. we want to serve fans across all those kind of platforms. i think that's a distinguishing characteristic. >> do you consider yourself a cable channel any more? >> we consider cable television to be the core of what we do, and we will always remember that's kind of what got us here. by serving fans there and in making sure when they wanted to consume sports and other platforms, that we were there as well. but there's no doubt that that's the core of our business. >> and this is "the communicators" on c-span and we been talking with the president of espn, john skipper.

>> and now on "the communicators" we are joined by john king, correspondent for cnn. of course host of john king u.s.a. mr. king, how is your job changed since the last presidential election? >> wow. in one way i could say my job is exactly the same. i report to campaigns, i report -- however, because of technological changes, how we do that is changing. and not only how it changes us but how they do that. if you like what you can't -- obama campaign is doing, if you look at what the romney campaign is doing to some the state races you find innovations out there and then the bigger campaigns copy them. so the technology explosion, i used to be an ap wire guy with my pencil and notebook and my laptop but that was all you needed. now i have this silly thing called the magic while and it is wired to the light election did what comes and. it is wired to every database in the country. so i want the consensus

information. so in some ways i've done the same thing of denver 30 years but boy, oh, boy is a very different. >> talk although bit about that magic wanted to develop that? how long has it been around? army, are we going to see something new on the magic while in 2012? >> we are going to do some new things on the wall in 2012 because of a, access beach. dispute are faster but you can get more information. computers can handle more data. we become smarter about how to segregate and then decide what want her to integrate certain things whether it's demographics with turnouts. past elections with current census data given to a lot more studying. fare objective projections based on facts, not based on opinions. it's an amazing piece of technology a rich and developed, develop by a computer science genius but his first commercial client was the pentagon, the cia. it was developed first military use, and my old boss was at an event like this but a military convention.

where people who do defense industry, things, go looking for new tanks and new bombs and weapons and guess what? new radios and new tv and new ways to communicate. they use at the cia and the military. imagine the rate on the bin laden compound. they had available no to assess on another screen. they have a live feed off the helmet of the special ops guys going in, coming back so if they have to change the plan. if the helicopter crashes and on the other hand they can do it on real-time on this board that they can use to move things around. so my boss saw it and said wait a minute, i could do some business with it. in the political sphere. it's a fascinating -- i was still some people think it is a toy. if you use it as a toy you're making a mistake. technology can be found in toys, that's why we have games, but it is a great tool. our job is to give people information and to make it approachable. and so if you try to talk about the electoral college, trying to talk about the white versus

black fiesta latina, male versus women, populations of the state, if you're a guy in a box talk about that that's one thing. it is a come with me, taken tuesday, bring the men, they see the data or they watch the votes commit. hillary clinton which is winning that county but now barack obama is ahead. if you take them there, it is a way to take them alive through technological which makes them feel closer. part of our job is to interact with consumers. >> when people meet you is that the first thing they bring up any more? >> i always joke that i am toy boy. by people to say i like the wall. i like the met. some of it is funny but a lot of it is actually, the way i was skeptical, number one, that i was to learn the technology. i'm not by nature a great innovative tech guy. i'm old school. i had to learn myself it unfastened her children. i just wasn't sure i was good enough team to get on television. but in 2080 would run into people and they would say thank you for explaining the. that's why the. you said with this was the swing

county in colorado, that's why the. and the questions were smart, database or demographic-based questions. this is working. people are actually, they feel closer to the information. >> how our barack obama and mitt romney using technology today for the campaign come and social media, et cetera? >> in some ways the same. in other ways, one of the great advantages of the obama campaign not having a democratic primary challenge is there quietly, they're spending about $1 million a month on pulling. that helps instead of the american people. that's using technology and to combine all that data, they take the polling data and then they know, they bought, they do everything about you. they know we live. they have your voter registration data. any publicly available data, both campaigns have. so they build this database and they decide how can we move you quick you're an independent voter, you know you sometimes voted republican, sometimes voted democrat.

if you log onto the same website, if that was their laptop, meaning it is identifiable to where they're going, they will get different app. denver post website because the campaigns are that good. if you have an ip address they target you, and they, and they do it based on the demographics. in social media, used to be down to do everything through free medium which was most important thing, come on c-span, come on cnn. is a news event that generate news coverage on the nightly news. now they do some of that but they are less reliant on that which is why sometimes they push us back. they don't want us to ask the question. they want to be able to send a video where mitt romney since its we or the president sends a tweet in a little the link and you get that way. they prefer, they call us the filter. sometimes they call us the area. they prefer to go is -- to go around us if they can. they can communicate with a

large number of people without the traditional news media and the way they couldn't two years ago, five years ago, and especially 20 years ago. >> is mitt romney using technology at the same level as barack obama? >> i would say no. but they're not that far behind. they have the capability. the republicans, they learn from each other every time. it's fascinating in a sense, howard dean when the race all the money on internet, really, you can do politics on the internet? the obama campaign to go to the next level. we will have people in town halls and virtual town halls and they'll reach out and touch people and feel people. then we'll turn them out that way. the republicans have quoted coming and study this. they haven't been as innovative for us to see because the democrats won the last campaign. so you say well, the democrats are doing it better. the republicans have the same technology. they have not proven yet that they can use it as effectively. but the wrong campaign is working on stuff in terms of

election dynamics and turn us can reach of the people and organizing. the republican national committee, they know what they're doing. >> are these lessons being learned down the line, congress, senators, governors, local elections? >> some are better than others obvious he but if you look at, we tend to overgeneralize syngenta candidates are more open to technological advances than all the candidates but if you go back to the last campaign, chuck grassley one of the most memorable ads. and older senator from iowa who had an ad where he opened with two senior citizens sitting on the table said i hear chuck grassley has a twitter. the ladies think of some kind of a these are something. it's funny that then brings you to social media. one of the most fascinating to me when you see the ipod, the ipad, and technology you think younger people are going to love this. this is in a senior center anywhere in america. older voters are the most reliable voters are now much more technologically savvy than they were 10 years ago. why?

that's the only way to talk to the grandchildren. their grandchildren will only text and. they don't take telephone calls but maybe they don't have a land loan cash to a landline at home. what's most important thing in life? they have become technologically savvy so to think of this for any campaign that is just targeting younger voters is wrong because that might have been true fighters ago or 10 years ago. not anymore. if you go around the country to see different campaigns are better at it but they all learn. it's like any competitive business. someone is doing something right, you borrow their idea. >> twitter, facebook, google, old school innocents. they been around for a couple of years. what's new? what are you keeping your eye on? >> all of those. aggregation. you say they are new but people are using them in different ways. i think that even facebook, that campaign through their facebook pages. what i watch for is -- i'm a democratic and organizing tactic what's fascinating most is how to turn people out. how are they committing in spanish language but are they

communicating different in the west than they are in these? how are they communicate to older voters? is mitt romney's message on medicare or the tim ryan budget plan different into social media and communications for them. that's what i look forward to see. it doesn't mean it's inconsistent. it's not say one thing to other people. sometimes you might catch any campaign wait a minute, that's in conflict but sometimes what do you put first. i study that because of the demographics and turn us. people use technology to use that. but it's the same thing. we talk about these new innovations to what i think a? in the old days, your union boss or your pastor or your social club person who called you up, or knocked on your door and as you to get into the van into then interjected vote. now they may tweak your text or e-mail you or call you. it's the same thing. it's just done in anyway and it is faster. and it's more efficient.

you walk into the campaign office 10 years ago, 30 volunteers lined up at tables, dialing the old-fashioned way or punching numbers in talking to you walk into campaign offices now and they're quiet. and you think this campaign has no energy. then you realize no, actually a buddy showed up this morning. they gave each a cell phone and they're doing this at home. they give them a list or a disk or a website to log onto, and they do all that at home. so the campaigns are now all over the place. when i traveled the question is one of the things i do whether it is a congressional candidate or me or candidate, just typing and see how are you using new technology to do what is essentially the oldest, the oldest school tool in elections, grabbing people, voted -- motivated and getting them to vote. >> privacy, piracy, cybersecurity, do people care? >> yes. yes. look at the ron paul campaign. do they care enough to win an election? he hasn't proven that but when you show up at the rallies, some people joke all those young

people sure because he wants to legalize marijuana. maybe some of them do but they care about internet privacy. and ron paul is saying keep the government out of this business. there's no question, and that is a generational divide. i think largely because younger people, i have two teenagers. they been doing this all their lives. they have something in hand whether it is a videogame module or their pda, therefore, however they're communicating. it matters to them because it's been their life. so absolute. had they reached a critical mass where you say for government role and the internet is going to decide an election? haven't seen that one yet, but is it, is technology, the privacy and big brother a concern? you bet it is. >> we been talking to on "the communicators" with chief political correspondent for cnn, john king. thank you, mr. king. >> thank you. >> and now on the "the communicators" we want to introduce you to phil meeks,

senior vice president at cox communications. in fact, he's senior vice president of cox business. mr. meeks, what is a you do at cox communications? >> i have overall responsibility for cox business which is that btb communications arm of cox communications. so our core business of providing tele communications services to small businesses. we've had significant growth over the last several years. we're 1.1.2 but in dollar revenue stream just in terms of a frame of reference we are part of cox communications, cox communications is a $9 billion overall enterprise. over 1.2 billion of that 9 billion, i think an important point is we've had significant growth projectors and a business and we are contributing to submitted about of of the overall revenue growth of cox communications. >> cable is kind a mature industry. how is it that you find new revenue streams, how do you find -- >> that's what cox business is all about. that's the way cox communications determined how we diversify our business and find

new market to grow and. and interestingly enough we are certainly the first one to move into commercial space. we been at this long time. we been in the sight of the business for almost 20 years. we began doing business in a southern virginia office i guess 20 years ago, and really smart person had a great idea then, that's okay, we are building infrastructure to serve residential neighborhoods and homes. and that was about the time that high-speed internet became an important element of the consumer experience. but we are passing businesses along the way to get to those homes and neighbors. a really smart person 20 years ago said why do we sell off some of his infrastructure, repurposes, provide high speed internet to commercial customers and make a little money off the site? so about 12 years ago -- 12 years ago we were less than $100 million in revenue. we have grown from 100 million, to 1.2 million. and if you look into the future by the end of the 2016 were on

the track to be a $2 billion business. >> where did you find across? what was the product that was so exciting? >> the product, or really basic tele communications products, voiceover ip platforms, high speed internet access where we begin our business, still a very important part of our business. video business is a part of our product bundle as well. but the really important thing we're doing and will return to grow market share is we are taking small customers away from our competition. we are very, very focus on small businesses. as a matter affected this week is small business appreciation week which coincides perfectly with the cable show here in chicago, in boston. but we are very focused on the low and small business market place. 85% of our customers or companies have 19 or fewer employees. so we have widened this market. where local people in local markets that do things for these customers that they valued our

competition doesn't. and again, as we talked about the products we build, specific products to read resonate within the small business market place. >> so you are using bundling? >> yes. >> are people responded to that? >> yes. they have been responsive to more choice. and what we provide us with a competitive landscape, and more choice if the commercial products. >> are you finding that when you offer, and in the bundling, does that include wireline telephone service is? >> yes. a traditional bundle would be our high-speed internet platform, which is cox internet, bundled with that voice manager which is our voiceover ip telecom offering, as well as business video. so think when you go to doctor's office, instead of the waiting room, a plant -- a flatscreen tv. in our core business, that's really our product bundle. >> are they all regulated at different levels? >> there are different

regulatory aspects, particularly around video. because a lot of that regulatory policy is driven by the residential original franchise. >> what are some of the new technologies that you are, besides the business view, is there high-tech being offered? >> right. another part of our business that we haven't talked about, that's we provide telecommunication services to other carriers. a big driver of the growth over the last several years has been wireless backhaul. we are exploring alternative and emerging technologies in that space, such as wi-fi afloat with the large carriers. you've heard about our wi-fi announcement. we're looking at wi-fi afloat. were looking at things like cell technology which is smaller microcell technology. when looking at distributed antenna system. on wholesale we're looking at those emerging products and technologies. on the commercial side, to small

businesses can what we we're exploring with earnest is how we move from being a pure telecom provider there to more of manage communications service provider. so what we're looking at is simple services which we're doing now, voice manager or hoisted those -- voice over ip honor portfolio we intend to move down the road to delivering applications to customers desktop, to think that committing software -- those type of technologies. >> is spectrum an issue that you worry about? >> not from the commercial side. but i'm worried about on my site is how we can build, go to market strategies to continue to gain market share. >> and very quickly, give us a snapshot of cox communications, how many employs, how many markets the? >> we are in 18 markets around the country, and cox business overlays right on top of that

residential, the residential footprint. cox communications is in 18 markets around the country. we are a $9 billion business, have local employees in those markets, just like on the commercial side. we have that same local presence in the markets we do business in. we are very involved and engaged in the community, and that's frankly something from a commercial perspective we can draft behind and dovetail be on. we have that name recognition, that credibility, that goodwill in the local markets we do business. so it's very easy, or easier for us to position ourselves as an alternative in the commercial side. >> and cox communications is still privately held? >> yes. privately held, headquartered in atlanta. >> phil meeks, senior vice president of cox business. thanks for being on "the communicators." >> thank you. >> you been watching c-span's "the communicators" program. every week we look at telecommunication issues and policy. this program airs saturday at

6:30 p.m. on c-span, and monday, 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on c-span2 but if you want to watch any of the previous programs, from the cable show, or any communicators, you can go to c-span.org/communicators and watch them online. >> the u.s. senate is in today at 2 p.m. eastern. continuing work on what's called the farm bill setting farm and food programs for the next several years. senators are working on agreement over a maintenance, and once that in place they will move ahead with the. and at 4:30 p.m. today senators will turn to a judicial nomination. and jpmorgan chase president and ceo jamie damon goes to capitol hill wednesday to testify before the senate banking committee. senators will ask you about the companies to billion dollar trading loss and its impact on the overall economy. he will appear before a house committee the following week. you can watch this week's hearing live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> tonight, espn president john skipper on the networks expansion to different media platforms. cnn chief national correspondent john king on the ways technology has changed cnn, and cox business senior vice president phil meeks and the small business focus on "the communicators" tonight at 8 p.m. on c-span2. .. >> it's graduation season, and as colleges and universities across the nation hold

ceremonies, we're showing you a number of commencement addresses. next, treasury secretary tim geithner. he spoke about the economy and the role of government at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. he said, quote, the critical test we face is a political challenge, closed quote. secretary geithner is a 1985sais graduate. he spoke to students for about 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, jessica, that was so gracious and generous. provost miner, members of the faculty, families and friends, graduates of the class of 2012, congratulations to all of you and thank you for asking me here to do this. it's an honor for me to stand here with you 27 years after

receiving my degree from sais. i had great professors, i learned a lot. i miss the pool table. [laughter] i want to offer my compliments to dean einhorn for all that she has done for sais, for leaving a strong institution to her capable successor. now, you are a remarkably diverse class. you come from 39 different countries. you've worked for governments, nonprofits, some of the world's leading private companies. many of you spent your time at sais overseas, in china studying chinese, studying hard or in italy -- [laughter] [cheers and applause]

you stole my line. [laughter] and you graduate from this institution with the world till recovering from the worst -- still recovering from the worst financial crisis since the great depression and into a very tough economy, very tough job market. and you chose to get a degree in advanced international studies. and and your parents and your friends are here saying, what were you thinking? [laughter] i know this is hard to explain. now, your peers, they chose a credential that friends and relatives can wrap their heads around, that would allow them to practice law or medicine or engineering or high finance. but you chose a different, a

more intrepid path. you chose to study international fairs and economics. affairs and economics. you didn't choose to narrow your world, you chose to make it bigger. you were neither fish, nor fowl; neither lawyer, nor banker. postpartisan. the heirs of george kennen. you take yourselves seriously, but not too seriously. the sais ethic, as i remember it, is driven but with a quiet and calm intensity. you care more about what you do than what you earn. and in a world full of people with more conviction than knowledge, you invested in learning the shades of gray in life understanding what we do not know. and learning how to navigate in an uncertain world. and while it may not feel this

way, this is your moment. now, i came to sais in september 1983 right out of college. i was eager, impatient to learn the craft of governing, and there was and there still is no better place to do that. i loved my work here, i managed to graduate but without a job and with student loan to repay. and i was about to get married, and i felt a certain sense of responsibility to earn a living after being supported through graduate school by the wonderful woman who became my wife. and this all made me somewhat uneasy. and i suspect many of you are in a similar place today. a few months after graduateing i got a job working for henry kissinger's firm, and then in 1998 i joined the place of

hamilton and morgan thaw. and there at treasury i had the remarkable and valuable experience -- though i did not know how valuable then -- of working through a diverse mix of financial crises of other countries, of mexico, asia and back to latin america. and i came back to treasury in 2009 at a particularly dark moment in american history. the economy then, as you all remember, was still caught in the most dangerous phase of our financial crisis, and i was very worried. we were all very worried about how we were going to get out of it. and at my first meeting in the oval office after i was sworn in, i walked the president and vice president biden through the remaining large, complicated, very dangerous financial bombs that we still had to defuse. and i explained what i thought it would take to defuse them.

and how damaging those steps would be politically. now, the weight of that conversation was enough to cause many leaders to shrink from action, but that's not what this president did. president obama did not play politics with the crisis, he didn't sit there and commission a series of academic studies, he didn't sit there paralyzed by the terrible perils of the choices we faced. he didn't wait to act in the hope the crisis would burn itself out. he decided to act and to do the hard, the tough things early. and it was a tough few months at the beginning. i remember in those early weeks receiving from a friend a letter with the copy of the teddy roosevelt quote about the man in the arena. you may know this quote.

it starts like this: it's not the critic who counts, it's not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better or where the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by sweat and blood. now, i thought when i got this letter from my friend that that was a thoughtful gesture, and then, well, about ten more people sent me that quote. [laughter] and i thought, well, this can't be good. [laughter] they must really be worried about me. [laughter] but i wasn't -- or at least i tried not to be too concerned by the loud chorus of the critics. i didn't, frankly, have the luxury of time to worry about them. and i had an advantage they did not have. i knew then that we had a good

plan for fighting our financial crisis, and there are many people who understand that now, but there were not many who believed that at the time. now a scene in the movie -- now, there's a scene in the movie, the hurt lockerbie kathryn bigelow that i think is a powerful metaphor for the choices you face in life, and i tell this story not to equate the battles we wage in economic policy with what our soldiers and their families face in war. but i tell it to convey a lesson about life. for those of you who haven't seen the movie, it's about a bomb disposal squad in iraq and its team leader or, sergeant james. and in one scene the team gets called in to defuse a suspected bomb. they evacuate a huge perimeter around a car sagging under the weight of the explosives within. and sergeant james puts on this

formidable protective gear, huge gloves, helmet, full body armor. it's very hot. he opens the trunk, and even he is shocked by the destructive power of the explosives there. and looking at the sides of the bomb -- the size of the bomb, he decides to take off all the protective gear to expose himself so he can defuse it more easily. the other soldiers disperse at some distance behind protective barriers are dumb founded and alarmed, and they ask him, what are you doing? and he says in so many words, if i don't succeed, it's going to blow me up anyway. now, you're going to find lots of people in public life who worry more about how they appear than what they accomplish, who fear the risk in any action, who let preoccupation with perception and politics get in the way of doing the right

thing. and what you should take from this story is that if you're going to make a difference -- especially in public life -- you need to be willing to get close to that flame. you need to be willing to the take risks and to feel the heat, to expose yourself to the heat. and you have to keep your focus on the cause you have been called to serve and the craft of doing that job well. that's what the president did when the fires of our financial crisis were burning. there was no precedent, no playbook available to any of us other than the graveyard of mistakes from other crises. but we knew that we had to act, and we put together a creative plan building on the brave work of henry paulson, ben bernanke, sheila bair, and the president guided a remarkably effective

financial rescue, remarkably effective by any historical comparison because he was willing to weather the political costs of committing to the best economic strategy. now, what we experienced in 2008 and 2009 was a terrible crisis caused by a shock larger than what caused the great depression, and we today are still living through the aftershocks of that crisis, and we will be so for some time. and the damage from this financial crisis was greater because it hit an economy, the american economy, that had already been suffering from a slow-burning mix of other challenges; the erosion in the quality of public education, the decline in public infrastructure, an alarming rise in poverty, a long period of stagnation and living standards for the median worker, the rise in public debt. and these challenges are all

magnified today by the paralysis in our political system. a paralysis that both reflects and amplifies deep divisions across the country about the role of government. now, these economic challenges are tough and daunting, but the critical test we face is a political challenge; how to recapture what for most of our history was our defining strength, a political system that was able to martial the wisdom to do wise and hard things with a long-term view of what determines national economic strength. what has been exceptional about america is that even in a country founded on individual freedom and so deeply skeptical about government, americans were ambitious and smart in creating public goods like universal public education. in building not just a world class army, but a world class

public infrastructure. in designing not just a system for protecting the ideas of private innovators, but also for pioneering public investments in scientific discovery, in creating not just a system that offered very high financial rewards for the entrepreneur, but also a safety net for retirees and for the poor. now, in today's political climate it can seem sometimes that we've forgotten this wisdom about this country. but even with all these challenges don't be too dark about america. we have successfully navigated the most dangerous phase of this american financial crisis. we're still a very dynamic and resilient nation, stronger in economic terms than any of the other major developed economies. our challenges are more manageable, and we are in a much stronger position today to deal effectively with them. we just need to rediscover the

political ability to solve the big problems still ahead of us. now, i hope each of you will have the chance to spend some time working for your country. as a soldier, as an elected official, as a civiller servant. we need more talented people to spend time in public service to help rebuild the confidence of americans in their government. many of you will work outside of government but still trying to shape what governments do. and many of you will choose to work in the private sector, and there, too, you will have the chance to contribute to better public policy outcomes, to bring back the tradition of the statesman ceo. you will have the chance to help businesses focus not just on how to reduce their effective tax rate or to soften a particular regulation, but