enough, the rules don't count. >> anything to get a story. but a lot of the phone hacking stuff wasn't about big stories at all. >> i agree with that and i'm not actually talking about what might be criminal. i'm talking about a slightly different idea and possibly by borrowing mr. morgan's phrase, i take it out of context. let me say this. we the press are not necessarily bound by the same rules that govern other behavior. >> mm-hmm. and the extension of that going back to what we were talking about a moment earlier, the sense that they don't think anything will happen to them as a result of going beyond those boundaries because the political

class, the places we've seen and other parts of our national life don't treat them in the same way as they treat other organizations and people. i think that's the bit when you talk about fixing that has to be fixed. >> let me add one other element to it because i am going to ask you about fixing it, buts other element is that whereas the press will look to hold politics to account, health boards, education authorities, judiciary to account, with rare exception, nobody is holding what they are doing to account. >> correct. correct. correct. and i've addressed that in part when we get on to the -- >> yes, yes -- >> -- future.

but i think that is the point. they sit in judgment on and expect openness and transparency from every other part of our national life apart from themselves. and that's why i think they're in the mess that they're in. >> we have moved on a bit but before you left proprietors, i wanted to elicit your view and i've got it right. i mean, i know you dealt with this first in your statement, the concept of newspapers and power but i was seeking to bring the strands together at the end of this section of your evidence, paragraph 26, 008 and 9, paragraph 26 contains a general statement of your view. what about the thesis that we've had advanced by mrs. brooks, various others, newspapers simply derive their power from their readers. do you agree with that or not? >> no. >> why not?

>> um, partly they do. but for example some of the smaller circulation papers are amongst the most influential. i think within any newspaper can at a certain point pick up a campaign and provided they do it in a professional and sophisticated way, they can make that campaign work so i don't think it's just a question of circulation. and also i think that -- i think the newspaper editors make huge assumptions about their readers and describe them almost as a homogenous block. so when rebecca, for example, talked about, well, they were following their readers in shifting from supporting labors to supporting the conservatives or back then the other way, the idea that their readers are all

moving in the same direction is nonsense. they've made that decision. and then through their coverage, they try to lead their readers in the same direction. >> i think that's in response to a question i asked. mrs. brooks accepted there was an element of leadership there. >> yes. and they're very good at marketing itself. the daily mail promotes itself as the voice of england, the guardian, the leb rahal intelligentsia, but i don't think that's in a sense where what you call their power necessarily comes from. i think it's a useful thing for them to say. i'm not sure it's necessarily right. >> i'm going to read -- if you have a view on a particular

issues, particularly if it's -- at which point the viewpoint is already in a direction by the direction the paper has taken. you say your own assessment, this is three lines down that, they have more influence on the terms of the debate than actual power to dictate policy. >> yup. >> so the terms of the debate went into areas such as the culture of negativity and matters you've outlined elsewhere. >> it's also what's important, i mean, a news bulletin running order is a set of decisions that are made by executives. if a at the moment pornography on the internet, for example,

involved in a campaign, perfectly legitimate, serious issue, is that more likely to make the politicians think that they might look at it, try to address it? yes. is there anything wrong with that? no. but that's what i mean about the terms of the debate. i don't think they will necessary determine the policy but i think in terms of where the debate is, what's deemed important, issues like industrial action are almost always covered from a very narrow, single perspective, disruption. the welfare debate is always been stroungers, rather than those who need benefits. that's what i mean by setting the terms of the debate. >> the political response may flow from that, may not it? >> i'm sorry, what do you mean by that?

>> if the newspapers have set the -- >> oh, yeah. >> then the political response, which is the setting of policy, may have been determined by the terms of the debate, would you agree? >> it might have been but not if the policy making process are working properly. in other words, you can get -- i think it's always important to differentiatate between a media-driven campaign on something which they say is important, which they say needs addressing and then actually whether it in reality it does when all the other issues are there but i think it's important to accept and i think this goes for david cameron, gordon brown, tony blair. the amount of time and that they have to deal and delegate with the media management issue, it grown because of the way the

media has developed. >> and you continue they only have power if politics let them have power, by which of course you mean it is within the gift of politicians to prevent the pressing is power. >> it presupposes they are not going to yield to the obvious influentials and powers that might intrude on their decision making. would you agree with that in. >> i think a lot of this is under margaret thatcher because i think that newspapers were given a sense of power, the numbers that received the knight hoods and the sense that they were almost part of her team. i think it changed under john major and i think when we were in power, i think we maybe did give the media too much of a

sense of their own place within the political fervor and we should have changed it more. >> when you're talking about conferment of power, one of the virtues identified is the freedom of press. and the bad reasons, and you lift three of those, you refer to the patronage system. now the evidence on that you set out. then the second and the third allowed, which is the reason why the politicians have let the the press have power, is that right? >> yup. >> and the efforts made to win media support, which is again another aspect of the same phenomenon, isn't it? >> yeah. i think we might disagree on the word power because, as i said, i think ultimately the politician does have the power but i think all three there are factors

within this that have led to a chang that have probably unhealthy. >> and of course the terms influence and power are not sin anymores. one is weaker than the other and you prefer influence rather than power, though some would say they're just different points on the same spectrum. would you agree with that? >> no. i think power is a different thing. i don't think newspapers have power. i think politicians have real power but i think that hopefully what comes out of this is a resetting of that balance as it becomes much clearer where power does lie. >> one prefers to use the word power on elected officials

because that's what we confer on them. really it's just a play on word, isn't it? >> no, i don't think so. if you look at decisions that david cameron is making now, whether it was military action in libya or troops in or out of afghanistan, there's tax levels, newspapers can't do those things. and that is real power, which he has invested in them because he's the prime minister. newspapers can influence all of those debates. i don't think it is power. >> i move to a different topic now. it may be slightly different, but i wonder whether it is not rather more than mere influence. i don't limit the meaning of the word influence because what

newspapers have is what is longevity. and politicians tend not to have longevity. so mr. murdoch has been there or thereabouts for 40 years. >> mm-hmm. >> which is a very, very long time. you make the point that he is the most powerful media owner. and then you describe mr. taker as probably the most powerful newspaper editor. but doesn't that longevity give them rather more than influence? it's -- i agree it is not the power to change the law or the way in which this country is run but it is a very real form, a strong -- at the very strongest

end of influence. would that be fair? >> yeah. i think as rupert murdoch goes it would be because of the point you make. i think if you sort of analyze power and influence year by year after the last four decades and he's been a big player throughout that time. but for example, i can remember being struck once in a discussion with george bush. george bush asked me what rupert murdoch was like because he'd never met him. which i found quite surprising. whether he's met him since, i don't know. i this i rupert murdoch went to the committee and said i wish these guys would leave me alone. i think this was a little disingenuous because he is interested in people who make the news. i see it as a different power

and needs to get it back. >> another aspect of the relationship between the media and politicians and obviously vice versa comes in the phyllis report, context and evidence section in section 4, mr. campbell. and background to the breakdown, this is page 7. >> yup. >> we were told that three major factors have contributed to the breakdown in the relationship between the government, the media and the public. the communication strategy adopted by the labor administration in 1997, the reaction of the media and press in particular to that. the labor's past experiencing and willing -- they're a little

more selective in their approach. while no doubt cause and effect there may be dispute ashs, it's inevitably mixed up. you would say you certainly can't take this to 1997 and you go much earlier in time and the evidence says that. the basic thesis is not far wide of the mark, is it? >> no, though the specific of the same page says the specific trigger for this inquiry i think i'm right in saying was the very difficult relationship between civil servants in one department of transport and also the difficulties we had in relation

to what became known as -- because everything has to have a gate, cherri gate and as the report says, we then got into the difficulties with the bbc over iraq. so i think that the relationship had gone into a very, very bad place. there's no doubt about that. and as i say in my statement, i think a lot of the media put the blame on us, i think we put most of the blame on them and that probably exacerbated the problem. but i do emphasize as i said earlier that this will not be fixed unless the media do accept responsibility in relation to how this developed. i set out in both statements why i think it's happened, i think some of it is perfectly understandable. but if we just see this as a problem of government communications, then we're not going to get anywhere.

>> usually when one's trying to diagnose a problem, it's sometimes not particularly helpful to dwell on fault and rarely helpful to deal on personal fault, but are we able to agree that there is responsibility on both sides of the equation as can were? >> yeah. >> the side of the press and on the side of politicians, in particular those who advise politicians or speak for them such as you? >> yeah, i will but what i won't do -- what the media like to do is say until you say it's all your fault, we're not going to engage in this debate. now this inquiry has finally led it to a slightly different place. i don't make any apology for the changes we made in opposition because think helped us to win. i don't make apology for the changes you made in government because they helped us to

communicate more effectively and i think that helped the prime minister to govern more effectively. what i do accept is a that at times we probably were too controlling, we did hij on to the techniques when we should have dumped them at the door. but i'd also ask you to bare in mind just the sheer volume of issues that we're are expected to deal with, be on top of. you're dealing with this 24 hours a day and also, as in my case, trying to in control of overall strategy as well. i think the media has to face up to that. >> mr. mahr, page 161 in his

book "the dirty art of journalism," gives a graphic account of a certain modis operandi and talked about how the backlash was slof but it came. by the end of blair's first two years it was a badge of honor to be bol aked by campbell or mendelson and shout back as slowly. >> i don't really by that. i think that was i robust? yes. if a newspaper wrote something i wanted to butt and refute would i acknowledge it, yes. >> then he carries on the attempts to particular date andin tearating. >> almost before the 1997

election, it was clear the they had may haves and was teaming to am ridicule the correspondents of hostile newspaper. george james editor of the telegraph was a favor target. did that happen? >> we should ask george, but i don't think so, no. i suspect from the smile on his face, nor does he. >> maybe a different sort of smile. i can't see it. favorite reporters were given special treatment just as though editors were made much of in downey street and invited to weekends at checkers. did that happen? >> there may have been some invited to checkers, not many. i'm afraid i don't buy this thesis, no, i really don't. as i said to you earlier, most of my contact with journalists

who defended what i call the institutionized dishonest of the old system, most of my contact was on the record brieferings where they could quote whatever i say. were there some journalists that i liked more than others? you wouldn't be human if you didn't. i think that's just the way of the world. there's some i trusted more than others, certainly. were there some for whom i had complete and total contempt, yes, i were. but i did ever quick them out of briefings? >> no. >> then he concludes indeed but the political correspondents have a certain spree decorps. >> that's what i call the herd mentality in my statement. >> the cynical way in which some were favor eed disgusted many. >> the person, the sun would

whom i would have had most contact was trevor. it's fair to say trevor and i disagreed about most things. he was -- i go back to the point i made earlier. everybody thought that i was favoring somebody else. anybody thought anything that appeared in the press somehow came from me. the whole thing was absurd. i said in the statement, one of the best example of sin done by journalists is the issue to which spin became an issue of the debate. my job was to advise the prime minister and other ministers. i did that job in an incredibly exposed place. there are a half a dozen, and i know you've got a couple of journalists coming later this week who no doubt will go into them in huge detail. there are a half a dozen issues that get thrown back again and again. i dealt with thousands offer

toings and beefings. i would defend the accuracy of those against any journalist any day of the week. >> a rather different -- without exception? >> no, there are some terrific journalists. no, no, we made mistakes for sure. for sure we made mistakes, but i do think given the pressures we were under, there were extraordinary few in number. >> a different perspective from mr. powell, page 194. just to show that there was a need for balance. >> i did actually read marr's book over the weekend because it was on your reading list. there were some bits where he's very, very nice about me. i was rather shocked to read that. >> that's why we referred you to them. this is mr. powell speaking. alastair was unfairly criticized for politicizing the government press service. actually, what he did was to pro

philadelphiaize and modernize it. when we arrived it was in a parlor state. by the time we left it, it had regained its confidence and become far better at what it did. >> the seamyer side is the domain of special ministers special advisers and, of course, of ministers themselves. would you agree with that? >> that's the point i made earlier, whenever anything appeared in the press from the government, people assumed it was me, but often it wasn't. i would certainly agree that will the government communication system that we inherited was not fit for purpose. a lot of change had to be made. robin butler, the cabinet secretary, was very reclear with me that i had the authority to make change. he then set up the manfield review which led to substantial changes, changes for the better. most of them kept by gordon brown and david cameron. and other people got up to all sorts of stuff. no doubt about that. that is part of politics, it's

part of life. i tried to control at the center. i tried to keep a grip of things, but the reality is there are hundreds of people out there the whole time, anybody who works in downey veet in the eyes i've journalist is the a seam earlier downey street source. anyone who works in the home office is a senior home office source. i think we did a pretty good job in having proper coordination at the center. but it's very difficult to maintain that. >> mr. powell points the finger of blame in a particular place. he says the special advisers like the charlie whelans not department spokesmen who specialize in character assassination. what always surprised me was they managed to persuade the press to keep quiet about their activities. however, many incriminating e-mails or texts they sent. >> that is a very good point. in other words --

>> is all of that correct? >> well, no, not all of it but if you ask me to single out, then i would single out charlie whelan and i've always been clear about that and i was always clear with gordon brown that i thought it danieled to have him there. likewise damon mcbride. but the point i'm making is that -- i mean i can remember for example one briefing where at the end of yet another frenzy and journalist accusing me of lying and the politicians getting roped into saying i should resign and blah, blah, blah, i can remember saying right, come on. just say the what the lie is and then provide any evidence whatsoever. they never could. so -- and that in itself is a form of spin. you sent meet peter oborn's essay he did for the british journalism review. most lob aby journalists he sai

have been deliberately lied to. new labor's culture of manipulation of sticks, secretive smear campaigns, david clark, the drug czar, no evidence whatsoever. and mo came to believe that we were briefing against her because it kept being written. there's not a single journalist that's ever produced a shred of evidence, and that's what i mean by then being the spin doctors. >> finally, mr. powell, they succeeded which is the special advisers again, in building up a dependence among ot political correspondents by feeding them a constant supply of stories so the journalists were reluctant to identify that supply by revealing their methods. >> correct. and that's why, there's david cameron now, he's the prime minister. he has his own media team. i don't think george osborn

is -- someone like boris johnson, i'm not saying this is going on, but if boris johnson and the people around him want to be briefing the press in a way to undermine cameron, they can do that and they know the journalists aren't going to drop them in it because it's too good a story to them. we had that in relation to some of the people that will work for gordon brown, no doubt. sneests by the end of your time in downing street, mr. campbell, prurp somewhat jaded it may be fair to say mr. blair points out, page 3z 01-302 of his book. alastair was getting exhausted and ratty and getting set upon by the media whom he was coming to loath. he was therefore not handling quite right. well, i understood the bit about the handling quite right but you were coming to loath them? >> not all of them. i was coming to loath -- well i

had come to loath the culture that i've set out in my statements. there were some individuals that i had come to loath. i had come to loath their self-obsession, their obsession with me, the negative activity, the trivialization, i had come to loath all that, yeah. let me just say on the other hand as i said in my first statement, some of them were and are fantastic first rate journalists who i think was as worried about the culture as i was but didn't feel in power to do anything about it, but i was certainly ready to reach the exit door. >> lord mandelson, one of his concluding observations, it's an interview mr. wamsley carried out of lord mandelson rre