of enlightenment over the course of the last several years. things have changed a lot since i first came to washington. it is important, obviously, if you feel strongly about an issue that you jump in with both feet and it actively and aggressively involved in it. that is a different proposition then if you want to the public about it while you're working for somebody else. you have got to reach some kind of a accommodation or understanding on their point. one of the things you learn as a staff person, you get to express your point of view to your boss, whoever that may be. occasionally, you may fundamentally differ. the differences are big enough, you have got to leave. he is the boss, and you can go find some place else to work. on the issue of gay rights, when i worked for president bush, he used -- he felt strongly about and supported the effort to amend the constitution to define marriage.

i did not agree with that. he and i talked about it on more than one occasion, and he expressed his views, i expressed mine. so it depends in part upon that relationship. you know, there are various ways to participate in the process. if you are going to be a staff member for president, he is the boss and got elected. you did not. you have to remember that in terms of how you participate and whether or not you support his policies. as i say, of the differences are big enough, then you should probably move on and find another line of work. but you may also want to participate with the boss as an advocate. you might want to spend full time worried about your particular issue, whether it is gave rights or environmental

issues or the deep party organization. i mean, there are a great many ways to be a part of the process. you do not have to run for office. you do not have to only serve as senior staff person for the president of united states. some of you will probably have that chance eventually. there is also the basic fundamental fact that when you're working for an elected official, he or she is the one that will put their name on the ballot and went out and worked hard and got themselves elected. and your first obligation is to them, unless it is an issue you feel so strongly about that you cannot accept that, and then you need to go fines of appeals to work for. >> thank you for the question. -- then you need to find

somebody else to work for. >> thank you for the question. for mitt romney, what advice would you give him and his team as they go through the process of running for president and finding a vice president? >> i have been involved in a couple of vice-presidential searches. some or more successful than others. the things that i think is important to remember is that the decision you make s presidential candidate on who you are running mate is going to beat is the first presidential- level decision the public sees you make. the first time you're making a decision that you're going to have to live with. it gives the public a chance to watch you operate and see what you think is important, what kind of individual you choose to

serve as your running mate, what the criteria are. the single most important criteria has to be the capacity to be president. that is why you picked them. a lot of times in the past that has not been the foremost criteria. it really varies administration to administration. you watch the talking heads out there now, and they say you better get a woman or a hispanic or you better pick somebody from a big state. those are all interesting things to speculate about, but it is pretty rare that an election ever returns on those kinds of issues. it is much more likely to turn on the kind of situation where they will judge the quality of your decision making process is based on whether or not this individual is up to the task of taking over and is serving as president of the united states should something happen to the president. that is why you are there. aside from serving as president of the senate, that is your only constitutional responsibility. >> do you have another book in you? >> not yet. i am thinking about it. we could have written five or

six of these, but we tried to keep it at a reasonable links. about 600 pages, which is what the publisher wanted. it is a good book. i recommend you read it. [laughter] >> on behalf of the washington center, thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> enjoy your time here in washington. it really is a remarkable opportunity. you'll have a great time and learn a lot. jump in with both feet, and some of you might even find honest work as a result. good luck. [applause]

>> talking about as a deduction and his life in the lord's resistance army. >> my brother had always thought about escaping and coming back home, but it is so hard to do with. if they know your likely to escape, and unfortunately, the group captured him a few minutes after he tried to escape. the brush and got to where he tried to escape from. they said that whoever tried to escape their would serve as an example for trying to escape. when they're brought him back,

they knew very well that he was my brother. they killed him in front of us where we were sitting. >> president obama reaffirmed that u.s. military advisers will continue to fight groups. find both events on line in deceased and video library. -- in the cspan video library, c-span.org. >> welcome to brick town, at downtown oklahoma city. i live in yukon. >> we will explore the history of literary culture of oklahoma city including the works of galileo at the oklahoma university history of science collection. >> this was on motion. it was published in 1632 and the pope was angry galileo had

broken his promise. his enemies gather together in the result was his trial. this is also a copy that contains his own handwriting so this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial. >> the local content vehicle in "bookma city on c-span2's tv." >> news corp. chairman and ceo rupert murdoch's appeared to answer questions about his company's commercial interests and his relationship politicians over the years. he talked about his dealings with margaret thatcher, tony blair, gordon brown, and current leader david cameron insisting he never asked a prime minister for anything. this is two hours.

>> on monday afternoon, i said this, "i understand the very real public interest in the issues that will be ventilated by the evidence. i also recognize the freedom that permits what is said to be discussed and the subject of comment in whatever way is thought fit, and i shall be interested to see how it is covered. for my part, i shall approach the relationship between the press and politicians from an entirely non-partisan judicial perspective, which i have no doubt is the reason that i was given this remit. i would hope that this approach will be made clear." when i said those words, i had in mind some of the evidence that i anticipated we would hear, including that which we did in fact hear yesterday. in the light of the reaction and considerable commentary

last night and this morning, it's appropriate for me to say a little more. this necessarily involves explaining something of the judicial process. i understand entirely the reason for some of the reaction to the evidence yesterday, and in particular, to the emails about which mr. murdoch was asked, but i am acutely aware, from considerable experience, that documents such as these cannot always be taken at face value and can frequently bear more than one interpretation. i am absolutely not taking sides or expressing any opinion, but i am prepared to say that it is very important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions. in due course we will hear all

the relevant evidence from all the relevant witnesses, and when i report, i will then make the findings that are necessary for me to fulfill the terms of reference that the prime minister set for me. in the meantime, although i have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed. when it is concluded, there will doubtless be opportunities for consideration to be given to any further investigation that is then considered necessary. >> sir, the witness today is mr. rupert murdoch, please. >> thank you. i am very conscious that the material which mr. murdoch has provided has come in different

tranches, and having regard to the experience that we've seen with some witnesses, i think it would be very helpful, if you're moving from bundle to bundle, if somebody could help him do that. >> yes. >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the walters, and nothing but the truth. -- the truth, the whole truth. murdoch? >> keith rupert murdoch. >> in front of you, i believe you'll see a witness statement you signed and dated 12 april of this year, with 44 exhibits. there's a declaration of truth on it. are you content that the inquiry receives your statement as your formal testimony? >> i am. >> mr. murdoch, as i've said to a number of other witnesses,

indeed to many other witnesses, i am very grateful for the obvious care that you have taken in the preparation of your evidence, and the material that you've placed before the inquiry, and i wanted to record that. >> thank you, sir. >> you are the chairman and chief executive officer of news corporation, a company incorporated in the united states. >> yes. >> with total assets of $60 billion and a total annual revenue of $34 billion. is that right? >> yes, approximately, yes. >> for our purposes, if we can be more parochial, approximately 8% of news corp's revenues are generated in the united kingdom, 60% by news international. is that right? >> it is right. >> anyone who wants greater detail may look at your witness statement when it's published in due course. would it be fair to say that you have been following british politics for at least 60 years, mr. murdoch?

>> yes, i suppose so. with a varying intensity. >> you say that you welcome this inquiry. it follows then that rumors that you have not forgiven mr. cameron for setting it up are untrue. is that right? >> did i say that? in my witness statement? >> you have said in your witness statement you welcome this inquiry. >> yes. >> i'm putting to you rumors, which you would say are presumably untrue -- >> i know -- >> -- that you haven't forgiven him for setting up this inquiry. are those rumors untrue? >> untrue. >> why do you say there's a need for this inquiry, mr. murdoch? >> well, i think the need is really obvious. there have been some abuses shown. i would say there are many other abuses, but we can all go into that in time. and, you know, the state of

media in this country is of absolutely vital interest to all its citizens. >> do you -- >> so i think -- frankly i welcomed the opportunity because i wanted to put certain myths to bed. >> yes. you used the term "abuses." is it your perception or understanding that abuses go further than the issue of phone hacking or are they limited to the issue of phone hacking? >> oh, they go further. >> okay. we'll come back to that in due course. may i ask you about your business philosophy, which you cover in your statement, and can i see if we can crystallize out of what you say three main points. first, you have an intuitive instinct for acquiring businesses which you believe will be successful. secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you have a long- term perspective; and thirdly,

you have a deep flair for and understanding of the possibilities of technology. mr. murdoch, do i have that right? >> can i make very slight amendments? >> certainly. >> i would say that my -- all my interests, whether intuitive or otherwise, have been confined to the media, not just any business. long-term, i think you're absolutely right. i have -- i think just about everything i've done in terms of major moves by the company, particularly one we're doing at the moment, is very long-term in view. and, you know, sometimes i've been right and sometimes i've been wrong, at great cost. >> may i ask you briefly about your political philosophy? would it be fair to say that you always have been a great admirer of baroness thatcher and

what she stands for? >> yes, i was -- i became that after she was elected. and i remain a great admirer. >> "the sun" supported her in the 1979 election, so presumably your support for mrs. thatcher crystallized in your mind before that election. would that be right? >> well, i think all newspapers were much the same. mostjust come through the terrible winter of discontent, the strikes, disruptions to the whole society. and i think we all wanted a change. >> can i put one quote to you. it's indeed from you.

an interview by mr. william shawcross in "time" magazine, 25 october 1999. we needn't turn it up. this is you speaking: "what does libertarian mean? as much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. but i'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit." so is the gist of that -- few rules, but not no rules? >> oh, clearly there are necessary rules in a working society, but they can be overdone. >> some recent tweets of yours betray a hostile approach to right wingers and toffs. who were you referring to? >> that was rather a load -- don't take my tweets too seriously. [laughter] i think i was really saying that the extremists on both sides were piling in on me.

>> you referred to myths about you, mr. murdoch. is it your feeling that there is a lot of mythology around and about you, which really needs to be debunked? >> yes. >> okay. we'll see how we get on over the course of today. can i say what the plan is? we're going to focus on the political issues first, and the approach will be broadly speaking chronological, otherwise we'll lose track of where we are. then i will go to the issue of phone hacking, and then we'll look at some broader questions. are you content with that? >> yes indeed. >> thank you. the acquisition of the "times" and "sunday times," which is a separate vignette in the case but which i do need to cover and your witness statement addresses, you bid for those papers and five lesser titles at the end of 1980, didn't you, mr. murdoch? >> yes.

i thought there were three lesser titles, but perhaps i've forgotten. >> we won't argue about how many. at that stage, you having acquired the "news of the world" in 1968 and the "sun" in 1969, you had slightly over 30% of the uk newspaper market. is that correct? >> well, the sun must have been a more sudden success than i thought, from memory, to have reached 30% within ten years, but i'll take your figure. >> okay. the deadline for the purchase, if it was going to take place, was march 1981, and by way of background, the secretary of state for trade and industry,

mr. john biffen, was obliged by statute to refer the case to the monopolies and mergers commission unless in his opinion each title was not economic as a going concern and the case was one of urgency. that's the background position on the law. can i invite you, please, now to look at the first -- >> i think we put in exhibits to prove that he said that. >> yes. that's what -- >> and indeed that thomsons made that very strong. >> the fair trading act says that. it's whether the "times" and the "sunday times" were not economic as going concerns which may be an issue, but can we look, please, at a document evidencing a lunch at chequers with baroness thatcher on 5 january 1981. it's your exhibit krm14, which may well be tab 15 in that bundle. you'll see that mr. ingham, who is mrs. thatcher's press secretary, noted this, it's our

number 01626, addressed to the prime minister -- "attached is a record of the salient points of your lunch yesterday with rupert murdoch. in line with your wishes, the attached has not gone outside number 10 and is, of course, to be treated commercial -- in confidence." this is a document which didn't enter the public domain until march of this year, mr. murdoch. do you understand that? >> yes. >> according to "the history of the times, the murdoch years," published by harper collins in 2005, page 28, you previously had had no recollection whatsoever of this

lunch. is that right? >> that's correct. i still don't, to be honest. but i totally accept mr. ingham's minutes, detailed minutes, which sound to me to be correct. >> well, it was quite a -- >> i think i'd asked mrs. thatcher could i see her and she said, "well, why don't you come to lunch on sunday?" >> yes. according to mr. ingham's note, this is our page 01627, it was quite an intimate occasion. if one looks at the few numbers of people there, there was obviously the prime minister, mr. thatcher, mr. ingham and you, and the meeting was at your request. do you see that? >> yes. >> i hope you don't mind if i tease you about this, that when you told a select committee on 19 july last year that you wished politicians would leave you alone, you weren't, of course, referring to this meeting, were you? [laughter] >> no. >> what we see -- >> i think this meeting was to

inform the chief executive of a company of the likelihood of a change of ownership of a great iconic asset. i thought it was quite appropriate. >> of course, mrs. thatcher knew that was probable, or i suppose one outcome was that lord thomson might have closed these two great titles if she couldn't sell them, but there seemed to be two purposes behind the lunch. one was to brief mrs. thatcher or give her your thoughts about the -- what is described here as the "embryonic and developing reagan administration." do you see that in paragraph 2? >> yes, i think it shows that at least the conversation for some time was taken up by me gossiping about australian and american politics, yes.

>> the three of you, if i can put it in this way, president elect reagan, baroness thatcher and you were all of course on the same page politically, weren't you? >> i guess that's fair. yes, this was just before his inauguration. >> indeed it was. was it part of the purpose of this meeting, if one can talk almost psychologically, to demonstrate to mrs. thatcher how very much you were "one of us?" "one of us" is baroness thatcher's term, but was that part of your purpose? >> no. >> of course you appreciated the importance of a face-to-

face meeting. that's why you requested it. is that right? >> yes. >> and as mr. ingham says, if you -- >> the purpose was not to tell her about mr. reagan. >> pardon me? >> the purpose was not to tell her about president reagan. >> she knew all of this anyway. >> yes. >> paragraph 4 -- "the main purpose of mr. murdoch's visit was to brief the prime minister on his bid [that's your bid] for times newspapers." and then you explained to her what your bid amounted to in financial terms, and then you treated her to some speculations about who else had bid, is that fair? >> yes, that was pure speculation. i don't think thomson told me of anyone -- some had announced bids, like captain maxwell who was always bidding for things. >> why was it important to you that mrs. thatcher understand

the nature and quality of your bid? >> well, as i said, this was the movement of a great institution which was under threat of closure, and i thought it was perfectly right that she should know what was at stake. >> she knew that anyway, mr. murdoch. what you were seeking to demonstrate -- >> no, i don't think she did know that there would be great problems with the unions or there would be great -- or there could be -- the sort of extent of the costs and the risks. i'm not sure she was interested. >>were you seeking to demonstrate to her that you were the right man to acquire these great papers because you had the qualities and charisma to take the papers forward and, equally importantly, you had the

will to crush the unions? >> no, i didn't have the will to crush the unions. i might have had the desire, but that took several years. [laughter] >> right. if we substitute "desire" for "will", are we in agreement? >> yes, i don't think it was apposite at this meeting particularly, but yes. we could get into the whole question of wapping later. >> if you look at paragraph 10, mr. murdoch, 01629, you explained to mr thatcher that some 50 million of news group's resources could be at risk and that such an amount "could finish us." do you remember saying that? >> i don't remember saying that, but i probably did.

it was a gross underestimate. >> and you talked about the financial position of the times, but you didn't mention, did you, the financial position of the sunday times? >> i said times newspapers. >> so you meant both? pardon me. was it your view that the sunday times was not economic as a going concern? >> i didn't know. i thought that it certainly had a great position on sunday, but its economics and its staff and everything were all intertwined together with the times, which resulted in a big net loss. >> if you look at the sunday times separately, sg warburg had advised, as you knew, that in 1982 and onwards, the paper would make a profit. you knew that, didn't you?

>> i didn't see that warburg -- i don't remember seeing it. but did it contribute a profit to the pool of times newspapers? yes. >> okay. and finally on this note, paragraph 12, page 01630 -- "the prime minister thanked mr murdoch for keeping her posted on his operations. she did no more than wish him well in his bid, noting the need for much improved arrangements in fleet street affecting manning and the introduction of new technology." so you would wish to point out that no express favours were offered to you by mrs thatcher. is that right?

>> and none asked. >> you would not have done that directly? >> i hope not. i have never asked the prime minister for anything. >> you seek to demonstrate to her they were precisely on the same page, but it -- politically as her that you were "one of us." the understanding was, to the extent that she might help, she would. is that not fair? >> i did not expect any help from her. nor did i ask for any. >> were you concerned at this stage that you may not acquire the company? >> yes. it was quite easy that i could have been outbid. >> or there could have been a referral to the monopolies and

mergers commission which would have created uncertainty? >> that did not worry me in the least. i hope the material will be put up on the web along with this. >> yes it will. you thanked mrs. thatcher for her lunch on the 15th of january. >> i was a little slow in writing to thank her, yes. >> another document shows that thomson's analysis of you was that you were the favorite in the internal analysis of your respective bids because of your qualities as a manager of, because of your youth and vigor. the recall of this? >> i have seen that letter, yes. >> the next stage, undertakings were offered by you. can i ask you, please, to look at those? they are under tabs' 7 in the bundle in front of you, krm 6.

>> excuse me. yes. >> do you have those? in particular, page 01467, the fourth undertaking headed "maintenance of editorial independence." do you have that? you undertook to bind yourself to preserve the separate identities of the times and the sunday times and to maintain the independence and authority of their editors in the appointment and control of their staff over the political policy of the separate newspapers, and then in all respects to maintain the titles as editorially independent newspapers of high- quality. do you accept that the very fact -- >> if i may interrupt you? it to continue the arrangement, which exactly he made, when he put the two together?

i did undertake to expand the number of independent directors from four to six. >> yes, you did. the very fact that undertakings are offered itself is an indication of the power proprietors are capable of possessing over their editors? >> yes, i think sometimes it is overestimated, but certainly they have power. let's face it. if an editor is sending an newspaper broke, it is the responsibility of the proprietor to step in, for the sake of the journalists, for the sake of everybody. particularly, his response ability to his many thousands of shareholders. >> the next stage is on january

26th. thomson's route to the secretary of state pointing this out. i will just read this out loud. "we cannot, however, emphasize too strongly that if there is a reference to the commission, the monopolies and mergers commission, the proposal automatically lapses because its conditions cannot be met." was that your understanding? >> there wrote that, yes. >> it so if there was a reference, you would then have to renegotiate the price? was that the position? >> i saw mr. biffen, a the record will show, and i told my did not mind any reference. it went on a long time, then i would reserve the right.

i could then renegotiate the price, yes. >> that's a fair summary. it is right that the relevant -- >> the cabinet ministers minutes show that. which we have submitted. course we are taking this in stages. the minutes of the meeting with the secretary of state is under tab 66 of this bundle. it is being placed in front of you. it is in a separate file. this as an important document. i do not think it is yet on the eve lextranet system so it cannot be displayed. you were accompanied by someone from the australian queen's counsel? >> he was chairman of the company at this time, my

lifelong friend. >> you told mr. biffen, in paragraph two, "mr. murdoch said that his report that his bid would be lapse. he climbed when he said that that he was merely responding to the thomson deadline. he assumed it would be difficult to negotiate extended deadline with the unions. if they manage to do this, he was prepared to cooperate with the mmc negotiation. he did point out that a reference would create problems as the uncertainty it would cause a loss of advertising revenue which would make their overall losses even greater." the fare interpretation of that is that you're not placing any obstacles in the reference to the mmc but your point the at the commercial disadvantages of such a reference.

would you agree? >> if that note is right, then you are correct. >> the secretary of state's position at this meeting was that he was minded to refer to themmc for political reasons, if i can be forgiven for putting it in those terms, and he felt that such an act would diffuse any criticism. did he communicate that to you? >> i do not remember. >> you assured mr.biffen that he would not withdraw the bid if they agree to extend the deadline. that was on the hypothesis of a referral to themmc? >> that is correct. position at that stage of the 26th of january was that he was minded to refer. we cannot know what conversation, if any, he had with mrs. thatcher between that

point in time and a cabinet meeting which took place later that afternoon. we are now back to krm16. i think that is to have 17 of the first file. >> 17? >> yes. some of the handwriting is quite small. i'm going to do my best to paraphrase this fairly. the first page in 01637. the advice from the attorney general was that the general rule under the fair trading act was that there must be a reference unless both exception applied, namely each paper would not be going concern and the matter was urgent. if you look at page 01638, with

the typeface is smaller, the discussion at the cabinet was on the basis that the times was not economic as a going concern, but in relation to the sunday times the position was less clear-cut. and then there's the summary of the meeting we have seen which took place earlier that day. >> was it with me? >> with you? >> his discussion? >> yes, has accurately summarized here under tab 66, the discussion he had with you. the real reason they decided not to refer, apart from, i am sure, assessing in good faith that of conditions were met.

it is unlikely that they would refuse to extend the deadline. the circumstances seem that there'd be little to be gained from a reference. the thomson organization had taken the view that no suitable alternative purchaser had made a bid. the could entrench these undertakings with his consent. one of you may be that the cabinet decision was predicated on the basis that there was no

commercial the vantage in referring to the mmc. there is every commercial disadvantage in making a reference since it would increase uncertainty and it may cause thompson to review the bid altogether, or refuse to accept your offer altogether. was that a part of your assessment? >> it certainly is now that you have shown me all of this, yes. >> would it be fair to say that what you were doing here, first of all, with mrs. thatcher coming your impressing on her your qualities the civvy the acquisition of these papers. -- vis-a-vis the acquisition. you did not put a gun to his

head, but you suggested to him than there were real commercial disadvantages in you got that message across. unsurprisingly, that line was taken in cabinet. would you agree? >> not really. that seems to be a fair reading from that, but come back tonkly, it was it thomson's put a gun to the head of mr. biffen and it is very clear from the correspondence we have seen. everyone must look at the damage to thompsons, that had a 12- month strike from the unions during which time they had paid the journalists fully, and as soon as the printers came back,

the journalists went out for three months and they become very, very embittered. >> there was a debate in the house of commons on the 27th of january, the following day. unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of concern expressed eloquently in particular by mr. john smith, the late mr. smith who was the shadow dti minister. they were making the point, quite strongly, that you look to to the sunday times by itself that it was a growing concern and it was quite artificial, as mr. biffen was doing, it just to look at the 11 months of 1980 and refused to look at likely

future performance in 1982 and '83. do you understand that? >> i understand what you're saying, yes. >> presumably you, mr. murdoch, who would be interested in the long term perspective, were doing that very calculations. in other words, you with looking carefully at what the predictions were for future years, and you were not looking just at the 11 months in 1980. is that right? >> i thought i did not know the paternal -- internal accounting. >> when he said to parliament i do not believe that that i was entitled to take a view on future prospects -- that was in a letter sent. if you had heard that, you would

have laughed in were we? because that is exactly how you operated the other way around. you do take a view of future prospects because that is what a true businessman does. we do not agree? >> i was looking at newspapers. >> legally, one has to look at them separately. >> no, it was one company. >> he made it clear to parliament that he was looking at each of them separately. i mean, that is clear from the left-hand column on page 01602, although it is not necessary to turn it up, but i can see your position, that whatever legal analysis, you would look at them as one unit. is that right? caxias. >> -- >> yes.

mr. aitken said something about you. on the right-hand side of the page. are you with me, mr. murdoch? >> 1606? yes. >> on the right-hand side. >> i have it. >> he said, that is not isolated example. one could give numerous examples of resignations by reporters, of the us jillion press council of kolding allegations of bias by murdoch papers and their political reporting and of mr. murdoch openly pushing its commercial interests by using his paper powers. i read the assistant killion papers every day for the best part of three years when i was

writing a book on australia. >> i am sorry. >> you are not with me? >> 01606. >> he said he was unhappy. >> certainly not. >> so there were not resignations of reporters? >> note. we had people who had some of people because in 1975, the clean, through the governor general, dismissed the australian government, and we took the attitude in the australian newspaper very strongly and legally that he was within his rights. and that caused a lot of upset there. the more radical journalist thought it was outrageous that the queen or the governor general should do that, where is in fact -- i will not go into all the rights and wrongs, the

government had lost its majority in the senate and could not get supplies to rousseau had no money to operate. >> what about the australian press council of kolding allegations of bias by murdoch papers in their political reporting? was that right? >> no. >> and a few openly pushing your commercial interests by using your paper powers, is that right? >> i take pride in the fact that we have never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers. >> something arising out of a book.

to the extent to which you need to look at the page, we can provide you with the relevant extracts. in the bundle, we have to it is a tale of a -- it is tab 5. this is analysis of you, this is the preface to the july 2011 edition which was written shortly after the select committee attendance on july 19. the last paragraph -- how much rupert murdoch knew. >> i am sorry. can you set me the context of that again? this is from a book? >> yes. >> did you switch to the select committee. >> i am saying he wrote this

preface very shortly after the 19th of july last year which she gave evidence to the select committee. do you follow me? >> no. i wrote what -- this is sir harold evans writing an updated preface, if you like, to his book. >> i had not read that before. >> it is his contemporary reflectance, if you like, on what happened before the select committee, but he is speaking about the phone hacking and he is saying how much rupert murdoch knew and when he knew it may not be pinned down because the exercises what the sociologists and defined as charismatic authority where policy derives from how the leader is perceived by others rather than instructions or traditions. do you feel he has a point? >> no, i was going to say when you laid out my three principles of government, i meant to add that we have a very large company and i do not run that

company with a great deal of decentralization. >> but this issue of charisma and, it is the view -- >> that's two. >> we will find some more. it is a common theme. do you think it has any validity -- it may not be a bad thing at all. it may be part of your success that this is how you operate, but do you feel it is right or wrong? >> i tried very hard to set an example of ethical behavior and make it quite clear that i expect it. one can describe that in a number of ways. but i do -- but do i do it via charisma? i do not think so.

>> ok. >> can we try it this way, mr. murdoch? >> yes, sir. >> that you have been on the stage, on the world stage of the press for many, many years. you had seen many editors, and go. your press interests have extended. it would not be all surprising, what it, if those who work for you recognized the you had an appreciation of defense that it would be important for them to in -- to understand and that they should therefore take a different line only with caution, because of their respect for your views?

>> duewell, i would hope so. i think that we have not had that many -- i invite you to have all the living editors of here. >> i was not seeking to suggest you had had a big turnover. i would suggest that in 40 years, over many papers that you have been responsible for and that you have owned, you have seen many, many editors. >> yes. >> on page 144 of sir harold evans book, where he is quoting from the thomas-warburg assessment of your bid, the pros and cons of the seven finalists, as they were described, are set

out, but your qualities are set out -- page 17? >> page 144. -- i am sorry, on both sides, yours are not. >> thank you. >> mr. murdoch's arrival in england have had some deterioration of sex on the standards of the daily tabloid press. do you feel that is a fair observation? >> no, absolutely not. >> well, without attributing cause and effect, the you think that between 1968 and 1981, the standards of the tabloid press had deteriorated? >> no.

>> said this is completely wrong? >> it is a matter of opinion, but i think it is rahm. >> do you think the standards have improved? >> yes. i think we expanded to a new young public. i thought the opportunity for the sun was to go against the mirror, whose leader had said he wanted to get rid of the elves, which is sort of putting down his working-class leadership, and we thought there was a real opportunity there. >> we are looking at standards. is it your view, mr. murdoch, that the standards of the tabloid press, if one were to take 1968 until today, have steadily improved? >> i think that sun has never been a better paper then it is today. i could not say the same for my competitors, but we will not go into that. hist -- >> the other reservation

expressed here -- he undoubtedly has been deeply and often involved in the editorial function. of course, we are looking at 1968 to 1981. we are not looking at recent history. would that be fair? >> when i came here, i did not really have enough to do with the news of the world. that was my fault. the sun, the starting on the sun, again, but gradually, yes. and then in 1974, or i think it was the end of 1973, we were also, all of us, carried away by the success of the sun and we

said let us try in america. we did, very badly. we certainly took our eye off. it was not a continuous thing throughout that. -- drought that time. >> your main objective was to -- >> i have forgotten. i think it was siri -- sir henry lamb who was the editor through that time. he was a good journalist. >> was it not your main objective to improve the commercial appeal of these papers, the sun and the news of the world, and you were not really concerned with the ethical side of its product? is that a fair observation? >> no, it was always to tell the truth. certainly to interest the public, to get their attention, but always to tell the truth. >> so the touchstones are

truthfulness and right that which is interesting to the public? >> yes. i have respect for the british public and i tried to carry that through it. >> so the public are the best arbiters of what should be in and outside newspapers. is that fair? >> yes, i think so, absolutely. >> ok. sure mr. harold evans would want me to put many points arising out of the books, but there is not time. i should -- just bear with me,

mr. murdoch. >> i am afraid -- >> 534. >> i have never read the book. i am sorry. >> he says -- in my year as editor of the times, murdoch broke all these guarantees. he put his point of view very simply to the home editor of the times when he summoned him from holiday on march 4 to his office shortly before asking for my resignation. you apparently said, i give instructions to all my editors all around the world. why should i not in london? do you remember saying that? >> no, i do not. i do remember meeting him and i do not know what he told mr. evans, but i know what he told me which was, you are facing an insurrection in the staff

against mr. evans. >> said the anonymous editor, in terms of the witness' statement, because you do not identify him when you say you had to remove him -- >> it was mr. evans. he was saying they were facing an insurrection on the times. >> in your witness statement, you do not identify the editor, but you referred to an anonymous editor who had to be let go because there was in effect, a staff resùme -- interaction. were you intending to refer to searle harold evans? >> i was. i am sorry for the omission. >> it is not an omission, is that he did not give his name in the witness' statement for here -- for fear. >> he was the only amateur of the times that we asked to leave. >> was that really the reason for getting rid of him?

he had been a brilliantly success for editor of the sunday times for over a decade and had shown his worth. >> yes, i would say so. he had great assistance who he did not get along with. there was mr. pager who ran the inside team and did all the great work on -- but never got the credit for it. the sunday times was fine and between sir denis hamilton and sir harry evans, they turned out a great paper. >> according to mr. emery, you also said this in relation to the undertakings you gave his secretary of state -- they are not worth the paper they are written on. did you say that? >> no. >> did you think that? >> no. certainly not. it was an act of parliament. >> well, sir harold evans was replaced by mr. charles douglas

home, who is the nephew of the prime minister. and the paper was safely return to to the tory fold, was it not? >> i think you are putting that as though that was the motive, which it was not. i only remember ever talking to mr. evans about policy once when he came to me, shut the door behind him and said, look, tell me what you want to say -- what do you want me to say ended in we take it need not leave this room, but i will do it. i said to him, this is not my job. all walk -- all i would say to you is please be consistent. do not changed sides day-by-day. i'm not taking political sides, but on issues.

>> according to another book called "press gang," mr. douglas home told mr. clean slate that you were one of the main powers behind the factor throne. do you feel that is right? >> it does not sound like mr. douglas-home to me. he was a pretty modest individual. i do not know though. >> were you one of the main powers -- no. if you want to judge my thinking, look at the sun. >> i think it was you, not the sun, the sunday times, or the times. you personally were on one of the main powers behind the thatcher throne.

is that right? >> no. >> did you -- did you consult with her on every matter of policy? >> and certainly not. >> on the issue of editorial control, you have given us some insight of a meeting you had with mr. evans when he was editor. you were interviewed in the context of the house of lords first report on communications, where they set out at appendix four a summary of an interview which took place in september 2011. i just a 1.2 you which is -- paragraph 49 of the appendix. >> where is that?

>> bear with me. tavis 18. >> thank you. >> 49? >> yes. >> yes. >> mr. murdoch did not disguise the fact that he is hands on both economically and editorially. he says that the law prevents him from instructing the editors of the sunday times. the independent board is there to make sure he cannot interfere in he never says do this or that, although he often ask, what are you doing? he explains that he nominates the editors of these papers but that the nominations are subject to approval of the board. his first appointment of an amateur is but the board, but was not rejected. he distinguishes between the times and the sunday times and the sun and the news of the world and makes the same distinction between the new york post and the wall street journal. before the sun and the news of the world, he is a traditional

proprietor. now, i have your interlocutors faithfully recorded what you told them? >> i had never given instructions to the editor of the times or the sunday times. i did not say what are you doing? what are you saying? sometimes when i was available on a saturday, i would call and say, what is the news today? it was idle curiosity, perhaps. other times i would bring on a tuesday from new york when the sunday times would come in and i would say, that was a fine paper you had this week. i probably would not have read the editorial. >> and the the big thing is the last sentence of 51. in relation to the sun and the news of the world. he exercises editorial control

on major issues like which party to back in a general election or policy on europe. do they have that right? >> yes, i never much interfere with the news of the world. yes. >> these are political issues, they are not sort of managerial issues, but you would agree with this sentence, would you? >> yes, i am interested. i am curious person. i am not good at holding my time. >> but you did say you are sorry to say they did not intervene in relation to the news of the

world. why did you say that? >> i am not designing and/or saying it was not my responsibility to, but i was always closer to the sun. it was a daily newspaper. there was something more urgent about it. >> did you have any role in relation to the publication of the hitler diaries in 1983? >> yes. >> is it fair to say that the historian -- lord dacre was beginning to express doubts about the off the integrity of

the diaries and you overruled him? i see that it is a very small part of the story. well the editor told me that they had bought these rights from a reputable german publisher, he got lord dacre to go to switzerland to examine those diaries and lord dacre declared he thought there were genuine. when it got closer to the time of publication, very close, i think people were debating it. i think a majority of us felt we should go ahead and i take full responsibility for it. it was a major mistake i made, one i will have to live with for the rest of my life. >> ok.

>> this is a bit of a marathon rather than a sprint, but i think we will take a break for a few minutes just to give the shorthand writer a break and give you a break. >> thank you. >> i am grateful. this is one of the things mr. murdoch was going to start with. we were talking about these headlines when the sun switched its support to the conservative party. honda was 2009. i understand you were in new

york, and that day and therefore, there could not be a weekend. >> thank you. >> the exhibits have been revised to bring those facts into line. may i be clear on one thing you said yesterday in relation to a conversation you had with mr. gordon brown? either on the 13th of september 2009 or shortly after it. you remember the conversation. mr. brown denies there was any such conversation. he has said that the only conversation he had with you to place in relation to a letter he read to another soldier killed in afghanistan. can i take it into consideration -- do you remember conversing with mr. brown over that matter?

>> -- >> namely, the letter he wrote to the mother of a soldier killed in afghanistan? >> i do not remember a conversation about that whole although, i spoke to the editor and i thought he was too hard on mr. brown. he had taken the trouble to write mother in a hurry. the handwriting was not good. it seemed to be very cruel because he had taken the trouble. i do not think i a blame him personally to talk about it. i may have. as to the other conversation, which is -- i said that under oath and i am standing by every word of it.

i would just like to mention that you did not find something yester day in the materials you put to me. lord mendelson charged news international with having done a deal with camera. i think i pointed out that lord matos in said he did this under order from mr. brown knowing to be false. that is in his autobiography. >> did what he was told. i think that is respectful. >> in the garden on 012 -- the

12th of november on 2009, did the conversation between you and mr. brown, relating to the story about the mother of a soldier killed in afghanistan -- it is not a huge thing. i am sure that that conversation did not take place. >> i am not sure. i certainly did not attended. >> -- in 10 did. >> am i to apologize. i did not intended. i met my thoughts at the time. later, i spoke to mr. brown. >> yesterday, mr. murdoch, i spoke to you about various you

pay this -- viewpoints. the charismatic society reported in the house of lords communication this is mr. david yelling. you remember him, he was editor of the sun in the 90's. he gave -- there is a very small paragraph. did murdoch -- all murdoch editors, they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything rupert said. he did admit to yourself you are being influenced. most murdock editors with up in the morning, switch on the

radio, you're something has happened then think, what would ferber think about this. it is like a mantra inside your head. a prison. you look at the world through rupert's eyes. do you see the point? >> i understand what you are saying. but, i think it is nonsense and i think you should take in the context of mr. yellen's autobiography. he said he was drunk all the time. we did not notice. when you said if you want to judge my thinking, look at the sun caught the sun knows you're thinking because you told them or because the editors ran on the thought process we see .oming from mr. yellen's peace

>> i do not flinch from my responsibilities. and, i certainly do take part in the policy decisions. that is my job. >> i am not saying is not. is that if you want to judge my thinking, look at the sun. are there any two way is the editors could logically know you're thinking? >> i was not talking about the editors. i was talking about the politicians. >> you were talking about -- on page 36 of the transcript, line 1516. look at the sun. if you want to judge my own

thinking. look at the sun. >> yes. generally speaking, the issues that we get interested in and we fight for, you will find them in the sun and you will find that i agree with most of them. if not all. >> -- >> there are details i do not agree with. >> how will they work out what you are thinking? >> the should not talk to me. i say this and do that. we have conversations pretty constantly. >> your editors will get to know you very well.

because you are not shy. >> yes. >> or, like the "in new york post." >> if you look at what happens with your advisers, the position is is is there in your id they can assess tourists -- the position is the same. they can exist -- access your information. >> -- >> they can imagine my thinking. we can have very vigorous discussions. i have to agree that they are right and i was wrong.

>> i am sure your discussions were vigorous. [laughter] thank you. >> not really. i expect -- i accept your approach. >> your relations with politicians -- has it occurred to you that they might note that you -- what you are thinking by exactly the same processes because you have discussions with them about your views or because they get to know you and work it out? >> i am only in this country less than 10% of my time. except over the last immediate time frame. i think they know my philosophy.

fair enough. >> is he a politician close to you? >> i wish he was. for any to say that he worked with me and had distinguished career at the time, for a long time i met him occasionally. he and his wife have come to dinner. there was another occasion when mr. joe klein met with me and he came over because he wanted to do a conference on education.

he joined when he was chancellor of the new york city school system. i would like to get a few people around me interested in different fields. not just politicians. on education, i want to say very clearly that i and we are passionate about it. we believe that it is an absolute disgrace, the standard of education here and in america. 30% of children drop out of high school. they are committed to the underclass forever. a.m., -- and, there are different states to tackle this. it is siri difficult. not for lack of money, but lack of teacher cooperation.

there are a lot of issues here. with society and the way it is going. out of the few best recognized education systems, great britain and america have dropped. this is a crime against the younger generation. we want to do something about that. we keep hammering at it. i am sorry to divert from the topic of business inquiry but is just an example of -- it is not for us to fill papers of, but to try to get people involved in this issue.

>> thank you. man move on to the b sky b bid? your stammen denies -- statement denies the you had any thing to do with this. >> yes. >> did you have discussions with mr. hunt about this? >> i do not believe i have ever met him. maybe he came to dinner. i did not discuss it. >> he was in new york between august and september, 2009. did you meet with him? >> i do not think so. >> why would i -- why would i? >> according to parliament, you met news corporation representatives to discuss local media ventures.

the meet with you? >> i have no memory of it. >> have you had any telephone discussions with him? >> no. >> has your son spoken to him about -- to you about mr. hunt? >> he told me when mr. cameron remove mr. cable. i do not believe he commented. >> we were shocked by both the what mr. cable said and the unethical means in which that was deleted from the story in the telegraph. they wrote a paper for their own commercial interests.

>> when your son told you about the replacement of dr. cable, did he tell you that we have some one better now? >> and do not know if he used those words. >> i'm sure he did not say that. i am to negating the gist of my idea. -- communicating the gist of my idea. it must have passed through your mind that dr. cable has been replaced by mr. hunt. what is he like? did you not ask yourself that? >> i may have. i do not remember. >> you must have. >> i must not have done anything. i explained to you yesterday that i never saw anything wrong

in what we were doing. it was a commonplace transaction. a large one, but commonplace. >> that was not my question. >> why would i be worried about politics? >> you were worried about the politics because dr. cable has demonstrated, on your hypothesis, that there was a political dimension. >> we had seen all of our competitors in the newspaper industry very publicly. i have no doubt -- had people to lobby and see if they could stop it. they felt if we had the cash flows of b sky b, we would be a

more foot biddable competitor. >> -- formidable competitor. >> when mr. hund replaced dr. cable, were you oblivious to whether mr. hund would be on site or off site? >> -- >> did your son explained you that mr. hunt was very much on side? i see what he put up on his website. >> i did not know. >> you did not? >> no. >> as the months went on, the early part of 2011, u.s. if he

was concerned buying for the delay? >> not intentionally. it was a big move by our company. i was more concerned in 2011 about the unfolding hacking scandal. >> we will come to that. we had a multi-billion pound deal. we must of been concerned about the delay in the b sky b shares. >> we did not have to have it.

>> it was something he wanted. >> we did. we thought it was a good investment. >> did your son did you signs of progress as to how the bid was going on? >> not on a daily or weekly basis. but, yes. to have no doubt. >> was along these lines? it is going well for us. it is not going so well for us. that sort of conversation? >> no. i do not remember any conversation, to be honest with you. i am assuming that he kept me up to date. >> i delegated the situation. he had a lot on his plate.

we did talk. >> you mentioned there was a coalition lobbying dr. cable. were you aware that he had his own lobbyists on the other side lobbying government? >> i do not know you are talking about. nope. it was not until recently that i --rned about mr. michelle's lobbying? certainly he was seeking information. >> when the e-mails were

disclosed, that is when you thought it out? >> i knew of mr. michele's existence a few months before that. >> when you became acquainted with these pages, were you surprised by the extent of mr. michele's activity? >> a did not see anything wrong with these activities. >> was your surprise only on this fact that it should have happened sooner? we should've gotten a bit sooner? >> i was just surprised at the success of the competitors

lobbying and of course, they would never succeeded if it had not coincide with the hacking scandal. >> were you not surprised by the success of mr. michele's a lot being? >> i cannot understand the reasons. >> were you not surprised by the degree of closeness between mr. machel and mr. hunt? >> nel. i do not want to say anything

about mr. machel. i think that is a little bit of an exaggeration. >> maybe you were not surprised because you were assuming that mr. hunt's office would be inside in which case there would be nothing that would cause you -- >> i am sorry. >> what about my question? >> did i assume mr. hunt was on the outside? no. i assumed he would be responsible and completely unbiased. i thought that dr. cable was an

exception. >> we understand dr. cable. turning the other way around, mr. hunt -- >> is it true that the longer this went on, the higher the price might have to be? >> no. the greedier the hedge funds got. that was their way of negotiating. it always is. >> is it your feeling, mr.

murdoch, that were it not for backing scandal, he would have bought the remaining shares in the sky b? -- bskyb? >> i do not know whether we can put it down to that. but, the hacking scandal, yes. the hacking scandal was not a great thing and tell the doubt -- until the daughter of the disclosure. -- the delta of disclosure. it was disturbed by the police. not for many weeks afterward. we did not have any information because the police had under lock and key the diary.

we are being limited in our inquiries. >> a meeting between your son and mr. cameron in the global was on the ninth of december 2009. is there a connection between those two events. i should make it clear that it was on the ninth of september that mr. cameron was told -- the fourth of september, mr. hund -- 2009. >> mr. hunt had nothing to do with it at that time.

mr. kamen was not even prime minister. >> -- mr. cameron was not even the prime minister. >> you are turning to a subject beyond -- i think you are. >> man come back to that? >> -- may i come back to that? >> i move on to these phone hackings. you tell us in your statement that 169 and 170 --

pg. 03028 you learned of the zero rest -- the arrest of mr. goodman. >> in my a witness statement, a paragraph 169. yes. >> we are just getting our bearings in chronology. you say that you think you learned about the arrest in a telephone call, which may have been september 2006. >> i have said that i told my family in -- i could be reached

at any time. >> para graaff 170, -- paragraph 170, you say they you could use international work with the police. the evidence to the inquiry might be said to demonstrate the there was no cooperation with the police. >> i do not agree with that. we appointed a special law firm to look into this. and to get cooperation with the police.

i cannot believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our operation. >> the evidence we have demonstrates that you mentioned that there was one document that did not represent the position. the international was being instructed. does that not shocked you? >> it does completely. i was not aware of it. i have not heard of it until you said it. >> news international still has a privilege. >> i am not aware of that detail.

>> the detail which emerged when you gave evidence before the select committee on the 19th of july. you knew the position then. one law firm -- >> i spoke about a second law firm. >> one was not wave. do you know why? >> i do not know. >> that was not a question he was asking. you appreciate the communications between a lawyer and his client are privileged. >> yes, sir. >> the only way people can see what is said is if the client, not a lawyer, the client ways privilege. and the spirit of openness, your firm or your company, waive the privilege in relation to the

work that was done. so that firm was able to talk to the select committee and to this inquiry about what they did or news international and how they went about what it is. the other firms involved were very heavily involved with respect to that firm. the company has not waived privilege. they do not have to. >> i was not aware of that. the police said they were satisfied and were closing the file. >> that may be one aspect of

this. news international would have the means of knowing to what extend -- extent to use -- to what extent this relates and has prevalence to the organization. was it more prevalent? >> power to ascertain that? >> i think the senior executives were all informed. we are all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there and i do blame one or two people for that who i should not name. for all i know, they may be arrested yet.

maybe even the editor. we worry victim to a cover-up and i regret, i'm getting ahead of myself or getting ahead of you when i say we did take steps after the conviction and resignation, a new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on. he did put in two or three new steps of regulation, if you like, but never reported back. there was more hacking.

they were appointed and given a file and it is argued they were given a very specific brief. i have nott to say gone through that whole file they were given. i cannot understand the law firm doing that and not bringing in the chief executive of a company and say you have some big problems. it goes back to the question about whether news international would contemplate letting us see what he did in fact say. >> [unintelligible] i regret this greatly, but if we

could just go through the chronology -- >> you used the term cover-up. i suggest throughout the story there is a consistent -- would you please sit down? it would be great if you wouldn't do that again. there is a consistent theme that until -- until april 2011 of cover-up. cover-up on news international's structure -- instructions and cover-up subsequently. where does this culture of cover-up emanate from? i think from within the news of

the world. there are one or two very strong characters there. i think they had been there many, many years, friends of the journalists a friend of the journalist and drinking pal. a clever lawyer and prepared them to go see as evidence for their statements. feet this person forbade people to go report to mrs. brooks or james. that is not to excuse at on our behalf of all.

i take it extremely seriously. >> if i move forward to january, 2007, in your statement, you say after he pleaded guilty and mr. hinton replaced him. do you see that? where you not directly involved? >> he sent me an e-mail saying he proposed this and that i agree? i said yes. >> did you know mr. milo? >> yes, and he would not have been my choice, but he felt he

was someone who did not have contact with the news of the world and he could look at it and rely on him. >> why would he not have been your choice? >> i could think of some stronger people who are on assignment >> is it your assessment than that he was a week individual and the wrong man for the job? >> i would say that is a slight exaggeration. >> how would you put it in your own words? i would hope he would do what he

is commissioned to do and certainly during the remaining seven or eight months, he did not report back. >> maybe he did not find anything out. he certainly did not report back. >> did you make it clear he needed to resign when he was sent to prison? >> know. he came forward and said i knew nothing of this, but it happened on my watch and i think i've got to go. i should go. >> did you have a conversation with him about this issue?

>> know. -- no. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hinton about this? >> i think he called me and talked about this. he thought mr. colson was doing the honorable thing. we all agreed that we saw one person had engaged in hacking and it was a very serious matter. >> were you aware of the details of the settlement package? >> note. -- no. >> mr. milo was appointed to

find out "what the hell is going on" isn't it? >> yes. >> given that was his brief, what steps to take to see whether he was discharging his brief? >> nothing, i realized on [unintelligible] >> you told us this was a very serious matter and was capable of affecting the entire reputation of news international in the united kingdom. that the poison was capable of seeping far further. this is not require your personal attention? >> in hindsight, which rise said

later, i said the buck stops with me, so i have to agree with you. >> we have to be clear that the buck always stops with the chairman of the holding company. it might not tell us a huge amount, but i was talking directly about why you, given it was such an important issue, did not find out whether he was discharging his brief. >> i don't know what else i was doing at the time, but i trusted mr. hinton and delegate that responsibility to him. >> did you have discussions about this? >> no. not at the time. >> some might say all this picture is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather

than the desire to expose -- >> people of mines like yours, yes. >> -- >> i'm sorry. i have to take that back. >> let me put the point slightly differently. it seems very, very clear, mr. murdoch, that among the vast commercial interests you have developed over your life, you have a particular interest in the print media. >> yes. >> if i may say so, you have shown that interest is more than just a commercial interest. it is more than just an intellectual interest. is an interest within your

being, if i could put it like that. >> thank you, sir. >> i'm only trying to summarize what i think you have said to us. the question might be asked in this way -- here was a newspaper that was in your family. you had it built the largest selling newspaper in the u.k., as i think "news of the world" was. >> yes. >> quite apart from the commercial side of it, you would really want to know, as you yourself put it, what the hell was going on because the news media, printing was running

through your brains. >> yes. >> that is the way i might ask the question. this was not just a matter of commercial interest for you. this was at the very core of your being. that is why i think you're being asked, were you not really intensely concerned to know what was going on apart from everything else? >> i have to admit the some people -- some papers are [unintelligible] and i also have to say that i failed.

i'm very sorry about that. >> i recognize that and i understand you have made that clear, not just to the inquiry and on a number of your public appearances discussing this matter. it does not actually quite answer the question whether you really did try to understand what was going on or whether you fell i don't need to understand what's going on, it's over and let's move on. that's the question. >> i think when the police said , they were satisfied this was a rope reporter, we're closing the

trial, if i had been in his place, have to admit [unintelligible] , but with hindsight, hindsight is always very easily -- i can very easy say what i could have dead. >> the question i want to come to is this -- this wasn't just a question of a reporter doing what the reporter did with a private detective. i wonder whether you wouldn't want to know what was the atmosphere or climb at within your newspaper that had

encouraged the reporter to think this was a correct way to proceed, that this was justifiable. that the paper would be prepared to let this happen and go the extra illegal mile to get the story. that is quite apart from whether it is one wrote reporter. as to what is going on in the paper. do you see what i mean? >> in newspapers, reporters do act very much on their own and protect their sources. they don't disclose to their colleagues what they are doing. i think in this instance you have a really wrote reporter.

that did not reflect the newsroom at the times. i said yesterday that i am guilty of not having paid enough attention at the news of the world. i was more interested in the excitement of building a new newspaper. it was an omission by me. all i can do is apologize to a lot people, including all the innocent people at the news of the world lost their jobs.

>> the article in "the guardian" from july of 2009, can you recall whether that was brought to your attention at the time? >> it was, but [unintelligible] and said it was wrong. >> your son told us he had discussions with few after the guardian article was published. about the gordon taylor settlement. do you remember that? >> he probably did explain that, but that was a year after. i did not know anything about it

in 2008. >> in 2009, you get to learn of the settlement. did that not surprise you? >> it did indeed surprise me. >> why? >> of the size of it. >> the size of it? >> yes. i didn't know what it was. >> did you ask your son or why the hell have we paid him so much money? >> yes. >> what was his answer? >> he said i was given a short time many have 2 boxes, which one do i take? one do i take?