when segregating fact from comments and fact, of course, is fully within -- it can be scrutinized now. but there are certain types of comment which you feel ought to be scrutinized either because they may be a key to the motivations or political agendas of the proprietors or editors. is that right? the comments themselves are so distorted they are close to being perverse and then some might say the you almost factually untrue. is that it? >> yeah, and this is a difficult area. i talked in my first witness statement about the whole business of anonymous quotes and a lot of them ever going to be invented. how is a regulator going to get to the bottom of that. you can't disprove it, that is true. most people who have had a very high profile particularly in a political environment know because we've all been on the

receiving end of stories which we know to be untrue. we just talked about one of them in many treels black rod where a civil servant is accused of doing something tng she never did and i was an kusds of having put her up to it. and tony blair was having put me up to it to put her up to it based on anonymous quotes. maybe somebody did say something. but it's very difficult when you know what they said is untrue. i don't know what a regulator does about that. i think that the having a respected outside body that is able to investigate and look at things thematically i think would be a useful addition to this area. now, the other area because you've got a problem is the you are looking at the print industry which is really challenged at the moment for reasons that are obvious, technological change and advance. that's accelerating. why i think it's still important

to keep the focus on the print industry is because these are the same people who, to be fair to them, are having to and in some cases are successfully adapting to this technological revolution. actually, if i do get the regulatory framework right for print journal yixt, i think that will have a profound effect on the way the internet develops. >> it's not so much as weatherspoon mrs. lev dev made the button, whether your news comes on dead trees or through the tablet. >> the tablet or whatever. the fact is it's about or may it be about the thing that journalists do that nobody else does, which is to go out to get stories to put the facts together and then to write about them in a way that is accessible. >> you had you. >> to a wider population which

is perhaps different from those that are simply tweeting to one another or otherwise communicating on facebook. >> yeah, but the -- when we had the legal break and i was just sort of having a look at my phone and having -- the guys from the bbc and itv and sky who are covering this, they're not here. they're outside watching it. why don't they want to be in here? because they want to tweet because that is now part of journalism, as well. they tweet, they write, they blog, go on television. they are journalists. what i think is happening is that we're going to end up in a position where there has to be a redefinition essentially what a journalist is. i think it would be absurd to expect you to regulate have

regulation for every single person who's on facebook and twitter because you're not far off from saying we have to regulate the content of text messaging and so for the. that's absurd. there has to be definition of what a journalist is, what a media organization is and there is not just about the print industry. >> i'm sure that's right. the problem is as lord o'donnell made clear that you've not merely got to capture where we are at the moment. >> where you're going to bible. >> disguise it in such a way that it is relevant to where you'll be in five years time. >> yeah. and i think that is difficult because if you think the that will ten years ago facebook, google, twitter, youtube didn't even exist. now they are dominant within this space and the newspapers are struggling to catch up. and as rupert murdoch himself said in their mind being ripped off the whole time for content.

that's a difficult -- you've been given the specific area, but i think in terms of this debate, it's developing so quickly that -- but i've heard you many times and read you in the transcripts talking about the elephant in the room. maybe for a while, the elephant kind of has to be parked a bit because i still do think if you get the press -- the new pcc whatever that becomes, and however it's constituted, if that works better than its predecessors i think that will have a big impact on the way the rest of it, the blogosphere develops. people aren't stupid. they can work out who knows what flea all about. which p when you seep which web sites get traffic and don't and hopefully the best get to the top. >> well, the great problem is

that you so define the issue that it is incapable of any sensible resolution. and that's a problem. >> but i sort of sense that the press who have -- who i sense fear most what you may conclude are hoping that first you and then the politicians sort of say this is now so complicate the we can't and changing so fast we can't do the anything about it. i think if nothing is done, given how we've got to where we are now and the broader cultural issues that we've talked about, i think then we will be missing probably the only opportunity that we'll have for a generation to get this right. and it's -- i totally understand what gus o'donnell is saying. but it's really not the role i

don't think of legislators let alone an inquiry to say let's predict how the world is going to be in ten years and legislate for that. kind of they have to take a decision based upon what's happening now. >>. >> and lord hans's proposals paragraphs 41 to 43, you make a number of points there. paragraph 41, i paraphrase, without obvious karats it's difficult to see what other than good will and good faith will bring everybody into the cheap pen as it were. that standpoint is noted and understood. paragraph 43, third line, perfectly possible to have a system of regulation accountability which carry the authority of the government and parliament confer but in their operations are independent of

government, parliament, and commercial vested interests and then you analogies with other regulatory spheres. what do you say about the word structure? >> what do you mean by that? >> in other words, the system of regulation which carry structure the government in part can confer. >> yeah, my point is if it is some of these bodies that i mention, let's take the legal services act leading to the legal wases board. i think the fact that it's flown from an act of parliament gives it greater authority. >> yeah. >> i think the fact that parliament then can having recall uponity effectiveness is a good thing. i think the fundamental weakness of the pcc has always been the fact than it's a self-regulatory body drummed by the people who

regulate it. who so the regulator is regulating those who are being regulated without any real parliamentary oversight of any kind. >> yes, of course, what lord hans said was that if you even go down that route, there are enough parliamentarians who will really want to screw the press down. >> i know that's his view, and i say in my statement, i saw lord hampton. he asked me for a chat about it. i know that's his view. it's not my view. i think people are seized enough of how serious the issue is and i think if -- i'm worried the other way to be frank. i'm worried that too many of the parliamentarians just want to turn away from this. the ones who -- there's plenty who get a high profile with saying what they say on the kind of let's regulate side of the fence. but i think my worry as i said

in relation to some of the political leaders is they sort of want this to go away. >> yep. . >> campbell, will you identify what you describe as potential flaws in lord hans's proposals? first of those you've already identified, paragraph 41, the extent to which the papers is under no meaningful obligation to adhere to the system to which they sign up. lack of real detail how the proposed contacts will work in practice, about shangss for accountability, the fear that the industry would the manage to water the contracts down once general agreement was reach after detailed negotiations, failure to deal with the des mondesmond problem. you refer to aspects of the new system familiar with the old. are there any of these points you wish tore amplify?

>> i think the funding one is difficult because is the point about it's their system and they pay for it, but so how you would fund this i think perhaps it does have to be a claim upon the public purse. i think the editors' code has always been a major flaw. the fact that serving editors are the people who are deciding what the editors code is is just so the obviously flawed in all of the system. i think that lord hunt he's doing a very good job trying to make sense of this, but he's an absolute passionate believer in self-regulation. so he's trying to get the last chance. i think they've had so many last chances, the public would think it's bizarre. we've had the mccanns and ought the rest of it. let's just have another pcc but call it something different. >> i've asked to put to you this

final question. it's on a slightly earlier point. do you think that the existing editors code adequately separates fact from opinion in clause 1? >> you'd have to remind me what clause one says other than its commitment to the accuracy. is it fact, common and conjecture? does anybody. >> comment and conjectureing are outside clause one. one can actually say what you like but fact is part of accuracy and within clause one and within, therefore, the jurisdiction of the pcc. >> right. >> i think that fairly summarizes the position. >> hmm. well, i can't claim to -- >> okay. >> carry the pcc code around in my head. >> maybe it's too precise a point which -- >> i think your colleagues got it on the screen.

>> yes, the press while free to be partisan must distinguishes clearly between comment, con veck tour and fact. >> i think that's a very, very good principle. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. campbell. >> mr. campbell, thank you very much. i'm very grateful for your help. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. >> 10:00. >> all rise. >>. >> this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling it the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media site sites. >> as part of the ongoing investigation into the news international phone hacking scandal, former british affairs and home secretary to tony blair, jack straw, testified

before the leveson inquiry and talked about his relationship with then editor-in-chief rebekah brooks and also remarked on the role the press played during the blair administration. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> today's witness is mr. straw. thank you. >> would you stand please to take the oath. >> i swear my mighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you, mr. straw. your full name. >> john whitaker straw but i'm commonly known as jack. >> your statement is dated the 30th of april of this year. you've signed and dated.

are you content to confirm its contents as true for the purposes of this inquiry? >> i am. >> mr. straw, thank you very much for your witness statement to the obvious effort you put into it and also for some of the of -- which were extremely prescient. of all the witness who have appeared or who are to appear at this inquiry, as i made clear in the declaration i made at the very beginning, i know mr. straw the best. not merely because we knew each other many, many years ago but because i worked quietly closely with him in my capacity as presiding judge when he was the lords chancellor and secretary of state for justice. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. straw, in terms of your career, the dates may be relevant for certain parts of your evidence.r. you were home secretary 1997 to 2001. foreign secretary 2001 to 2006. leader of the commons 2006 to

2007. and then lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice 2007 to 2010. is that right? >> yes. >> general questions, mr. straw about engagement with the media, paragraph 9 of your statement and following, page 02547, there you speak of the general public interest and engagement between politicians and the media. may i ask you please to explain in general terms of the risks as you seats it in particular little paragraph 11? >> are if the risks are really of getting too close to the press. we live in a democracy a free press plays a critical role in our system of democracy. about you, and it's every politician wants to have the best relationship they can with the press because the press is the prism through which the work of politicians and other people in the public life is perceived

or the main prism. but if you get too close, your own position becomes compromised. more likely than the compromising the position of the press. and can undermine your integrity. >> thank you. we'll deal with that will in some more detail in due course. but the steps you took to ameliorate those risks paragraph 14 to 17 of your statement, these are cautiousry words of advice. >> yes. >> you would give to others. >> yes. >> which you sought to follow during your political career. is that right? >> i did. and i suppose -- i learned my trade in the school of hard knocks. but quite early on. and in that respect, i was

fortunate because the period i spent in the late '60s early '70s as president of the national union of students when what will students were doing was high profile, front page stuff taught me a lot about what to do in release to the press and what not to do. and then having spent 17 years in opposition and having thought about this a lot i sort of came to these views over that period. and i also saw the effectses of on those colleagues and people on the other side who had got too close to the press. what it means is your share price goes up well above the normal share price for politicians of that party. but then like nel share prices that are overvalued, they're going to crash. and those who are as it were a share and they're sort of puffing the share don't see

that, but i think any sensible observer can see it. and i just took the view, i mean i may not always have been perfect in following it, that you had to take the rough with the smooth certainly as they will tell you, my view was go on, face the music even if it was going to be really difficult. i certainly was always clear that if i was asked to go to parliament, i should do. and indeed plenty were the times when i was arguing with the whip's office to let me go to parliament rather than to sort of hide. and that ultimately, if you just were as straight as you could be, that would come through even though you get an uncomfortable ride on the way. >>. >> ask you please, the point you made about a rising share price in opposition that it's

inevitable in opposition. the politician have got to cultivate journalists to get their message across. the share price rises. the position changes. how or what is the best way to manage that sides in your view? >> yes. the relationship between media and politicians is not symmetrical as between government and opposition. i mean, in opposition what matters is what you are saying. it is -- and what you're saying you're going to do. you can't be tested in terms of your actions. much press and media reporting of politics is a copy which is framed by reference to the government. and these days it's part of our culture. most of those stories are knocking stories in one way or another.

so what you get is a very close sometimes cozy relationships being built up tween a particular journalist and particular opposition spokespeople. and sometimes very, very close sometimes incestuous. we all have to try to do that. when i was education spokesman between '87 and '92 there were education correspondents who wanted to work with when i became home affairs correspondent between '94 and and '97. again there were correspondents that you would work with and build up stories and enjoy the results. but that has to change when you go into government. i think -- there was a bigger reason, but one of the reasons why collectively the blair government was too close to some people in the press was because of our experience in opposition. and we had not stopped and

thought, hang on, we can't continue to operate that way in government. >> i will pick that point up a little bit later, mr. straw. the points you make in the paragraphs, points which we've heard from other witnesses, in particular the need to sensationalize really, the truth may be prosaic and boring. but if you add the spice of a clash or conflict it becomes more interesting. this is paragraph 20. >> yes. >> and the problems of print media decline. mr. campbell spoke to those matters. are there any points you'd wish to elaborate? >> two sets of points. there wasn't ever a golden age of journalism.

and indeed before radio got going, newspapers were even more powerful than they are today. and part of the focus of the labor party it's still there. certainly it's about the role "the daily mail" played in the defeating of the second election 1924 when they published a letter suggesting that labor party received moscow gold, subsequently a long time afterwards turned out to be a complete forgery. no question it assisted our defeat. so that's -- >> that's a long memory, mr. straw. >> not even i was there at the time. but my grandfather was and remembered it. so i remember him telling me this with great bitterness. about how labor had been deprived of the government for eight months in 1924.

but they were more powerfulfully nonsensed with the bullwink complaint. but all the papers and papers like "the daily mail" and "daily mirror" used to report what was going on in parliament as a public service. and that started to disappear i think co-incidentally with the televising of parliament. as i submitted to the inquiry, i got a young researcher who was working with me as an intern in 1993 to do a lot of work in the newspaper library charting the decline of reporting being pretty stable and then it shot down and the effect of that. it has led to contributed to ignorance by the public about what happens. it's just giving you an example and it's subject to correction,

but the online editor of "the times," mr. phillip webster, who's been a great man been there forever, he started life working in the gallery, the whose sole job was produce t the,000 words a day what happened in parliament. if you wanted the background story, where the fights were, that would be there. that was also true when i went into the house in the late '70s. and that's gone. it's been replaced by this sort of personality conflict based journalism. if you have -- if you're pursuing a policy which is consensual, which ought to be a good thing, the papers in the editorial columns will say why aren't you going for agreed policies with the opposition. well, often you are. probably half the legislation is agreed. but nobody notices.

the second point i'd make, mr. jay, is this. that although the television and radio have become and in and out the internet much more powerful, balance the print media, it is still the print media that sets the news values. i was very struck in mr. bolton's written evidence this is paragraph 17 of his evidence he brings that point out that they set the news values and they set the news values for the broadcasters as much as they do for their own colleagues in the print media. >> thank you. special advisors now. mr. straw. paragraph 27 and 28. when you were in high office over 13-year period presumably you had special advisors. can you assist on us -- >> yes. you're allowed two special advisers, and i had one who was on the policy side and the other who dealt on the media side.

and on the media side, i had two fill that slot. one man had been with me in opposition from 1993 and stayed until the general election of 2005. and then the second was mark davis, who was with me from '05 to 2010. both were journalists that came to the job as journalists. and their job was to have direct relations with the media and cooperate and work closely with the civil service press offices. both were completely straight. i wouldn't employ them for a second if they'd not been. they had a good reputation with journalists for being straight and for i think not being manipulative. that's how i wanted it. i'm afraid my observation, i was

a special advisor in the '70s is that they're a very mixed bunch. special advisors. to some extent they reflectively become personality and quirks of their bosses. and some people in politics are obsessively conspiratorial and think any way you can make your way is being involved in all kinds of conspiracies and stuff. and so you -- they employ special advisors who are similarly up to fancy tactics. which led to that share price rising for a period more than the generality. then invariably the share price crashes and quite often the ministers themselves ended up having to resign. but this was a long learning process. >> the extent to which your media special advisors acted under your general direction, can you help us with that? >> they acted around my complete direction. it wasn't general direction.

i knew what they were doing. and i knew in realtime what they were doing. first of all, when they were in and out of the office, they were effectively part of the private office. and in each case they weren't on exactly the same floor. for example in the foreign office -- i mean, there's one below -- there's an old building, one area, so just out and the same is true in the ministry of justice. and i was thinking about this, when -- if there'd ever been a moment where they acted inappropriately, then somebody else in this very open environment close ring of confidentiality, but very open environment itself, would have told me, the private secretary, the permanent secretary, a press officer. he just would have found out immediately. >> okay. aspects now, mr. straw, of your own individual practice is paragraph 30 of your stant