>> this is bbc world news. funding for this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu. newman's own foundation. shell. and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers use their expertise in global finance to guide you through the business strategies and opportunities of international commerce. we put our extended global network to work for a wide range of companies, from small businesses to major corporations. what can we do for you?

>> at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies. thats why were supplying cleaner burning natural gas to generate electricity. and its also why, with our partner in brazil, shell is producing ethanol, a biofuel made from renewable sugar cane. >> a minute, mom! >> lets broaden the worlds energy mix. lets go. >> and now, bbc world news. >> the british prime minister to face searching questions from the media ethics inquiry he initiated. egypt's constitutional court to consider disqualifying one of the two remaining candidates in this weekend's presidential runoff vote. acquittals and reduced jail terms for 18 doctors and nurses convicted in bahrain of trying to overthrow the government.

welcome to "bbc world news." i'm david eades. also coming up in the program -- it's been a long wait, but aung san suu kyi is back in europe and with something special to collect. also, you may be just 14 years old, but this chinese teenager is about to take part in the u.s. open. >> hello. thanks very much for being with us. david cameron's relations with some of the most powerful figures in the british -- perhaps also the international press -- are to be laid bare shortly as he appears before the leveson inquiry into media standards. the inquiry itself was mr. cameron's initiative, all following on from the phone hacking scandal at the now-defunct "news of the world"

newspaper, a newspaper owned by rupert murdoch's news corporation. well, here is david cameron arriving for the leveson inquiry. he is the latest in a long line of very distinguished politicians in particular, not least three former prime ministers and numerous members of the british cabinet as well, and the bbc's political correspondent, naomi grimley, is with me now. naomi, you've been following it from the start. we've had some cracking days in terms of revelations, but this is as big as it gets. >> that's right. for that very reason, david cameron has spent the last few days being prepped by his lawyers. he faces six hours of intensive questioning, and remember, this inquiry is going to have access to his emails, his text messages, and his diaries from the last seven years. so he's got to be across the detail, and he's got to have answers to a lot of the

questions that are still outstanding from this inquiry. >> these are pictures of him on his way. we know he's already there, and he is going to -- you mentioned emails and texts and things, and we heard from rebekah brooks, of course, who was once editor of "news of the world" before moving further up the ladder in news international's empire, talking about the familiarity of the texts that she used to get from david cameron. >> that's right. one of the most embarrassing things from his pointed of view to come out of this inquiry so far was the fact that she told him that his text messages were signed lots of love. that just shows the degree to which they were so friendly, and he was clearly on good enough terms with her to go to her birthday parties, to have very cozy dinner parties belonging to the famed social set in oxfordshire. the reason why that is embarrassing is because rebekah brooks yesterday appeared in court for the first time,

charged with perverting the courts of justice. she's also under investigation by police for the original allegations into phone hacking. now, she's denied she's done anything wrong, but, of course, the we've seen the scale of phone hacking at "news of the world," and the fact that david cameron was so close to many of these key figures is embarrassing for him. >> there must be a sense where he feels like he's going to be put in the stocks almost and rotten fruit thrown at him the course of the next few hours, and perhaps that explains also why, as we wait for it all to start, he's hinted that he wants to make a clear message about the ministerial code of conduct, now that needs to be beefed up. >> that's right. another big area for david cameron is the handling of the bskyb bid by the murdoches. i think he'll promise that, in the future, those kind of decisions will be taken much more by the rule book. >> ok, naomi, thanks very much. this is the swearing-in at the leveson inquiry.

>> the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> mr. cameron, your full name, please. >> david william donald cameron. >> thank you. you've kindly provided us with a statement dated the fourth of may of this year. it extends to 84 pages and possesses two exhibits, subject to one very minor matter to which we'll come in due course. is this the formal evidence you're tendering to our inquiry? >> it is. prime minister, as i've said to many other witnesses, i'm extremely grateful for the obvious work that you no doubt have put into your evidence and the material that you provided the inquiry at a time when there are obvious medical other calls on your time. >> thank you. >> mr. cameron, main may i start with two questions about your career before 2001, which, as we know, the day you entered parliament. you were a special advisor at

both the treasury and the home office between 1992 and 1994, is that right? >> that's right. >> in your dealings with third parties, to what extent, if ever, did you express an opinion which was not the opinion of your minister without making it clear that he wasn't? >> well, it's quite a long time ago, so it's hard to remember all the interactions i had. obviously as a special advisor, i would have had contacts with businesses, as you say, third parties. the job of a special advisor generally was to often be a mouthpiece, sometimes to be a bit of a sponge in terms of soaking up a lot of people that wanted to see the minister, but the minister didn't have time. but on occasions, i'm sure i would have made clear my feelings about something, but i can't think of a particular instance. >> on such occasions, do you think you would have made it clear to the third parties that you were expressing your own opinion and not your minister's

opinion? >> i would hope so. >> and from your experience, to what extent was your approach, orthodox or unorthodox? >> i suppose fairly orthodox. when i became a special advisor, i had been working at 9 conservative research department for a number of years, and my job as a special advisor was very much as a political special advisor. i was a speech writer. i was advising on party policy, doing the party political side. minister's job, rather than being an expert special advisor in the treasury, for instance, we had some experts who were tax specialists or economists, whereas i was more the general political advisor. >> thank you. >> between 1994 and 2001, you're claiming the realm of communications and not printed media specifically.

can you tell us about those experiences between 61 and 66 of your statement. but am i right in deducing that it was your media background with at least in part brought you into contact with journalists, and it's that contact which has led to the development of friendships. >> well, there were various parts. one part was to deal with the regulatory environment that television companies face, which was quite a controlled, quite a strict regulatory environment. that was one part of the job. another part of the job was dealing with vevers, shareholders, the whole investor relations, which means dealing with them. and another part was a press relations. also, probably in terms of journalists, that was more a time when i was a special advisor because i was dealing

with political journalists then, and some of them are still around today. >> thank you. to what extent is your background in these friendships provided with you knowledge and insight into how newspaper's news desks function? >> well, some knowledge, but not -- i've never worked in a newsroom, so some knowledge and understanding. i would say my time at carlton probably taught me more about the television industry, how it was regulated, and maybe we'll come on to this, a lot of the views i formed about media, media policy, media regulation, the bbc. carlton was quite a formative period because i was working for a big part of the british broadcasting industry, itv, effectively, and i formed a lot of views and opinions then, which i still hold today. >> thank you. i'm going to divide your

evidence of five general settings. may we look now at paragraphs 13 and 14 of your statement, page 04099. >> and is this integral to the democratic process, we're all agreed the contact between politicians and media is inevitable, necessary, not inherently unhealthy, is that right? >> absolutely. it's not the only way we communicate with people, because obviously you have some direct forms of communication, particularly at election time, leaflets and the like, but it is a very big part of the way we communicate, so relationships are important. >> in paragraph 14, is this intended to include off the record discussions? >> yes, off the record

discussions. but also discussions to try and thought for journalists, understand more about you, because you want people to understand your motivations, to understand your character, your judgment, your views, and why you hold them. so these conversations are important. that's why the relationship is important. >> in paragraph 5, you make it clear a lot depends on the track of journalists. how difficult or easy has that been for you? >> well, it's with the person concerned. sometimes you strike up a good and strong relationship, sometimes you struggle. >> in paragraph 15, you also say the media plays a vital part in interpreting and explaining government announcements, policies, and events to the public. in your view, putting broadcasters to one side, has the press discharged those

obligations accurately and fairly over the last 11 years, being the time of your political career? >> well, i think it's changed a lot. asking politicians whether they're happy with the way the media report -- the news as we see it, it's a bit like asking farmers about the weather. we're always going to complain. i think a lot of the evidence has been put forward in the sessions you've had where people have talked about the growth of the 24-hour news culture, the fact that things move so fast means that newspapers have been put in a difficult position, because the news has been made and reported long before they reach their deadlines and publish their papers the next day. so i think newspapers have moved more towards trying to find impact, trying to find an angle on a story rather than, as would have been the case before 24-hour news and all the rest of it, of just reporting what happened the day before. so i think there has been a

change, but i think that's quite a lot to do with technology and the development of media rather than anything else. >> change for the better, for the worse, or in the end, useful? >> well, i think from the politician's point of view, particularly perhaps from the government's point of view, it's sometimes a change for the worse, because if there's a big announcement, something we think is very important, that gets announced on the television. it gets picked over by the 24-hour news, and it's quite understandable that newspapers, by the time they come out the next day, have got to find something different. i completely understand why they want to do that. but from the perspective of trying to explain to the country why you're making difficult decisions, why you're reforming the health service in this way, why you're trying to cut the deficit in that way, sometimes you'd love it if you can just try to get across more what it is you actually decided to do rather than endless

analysis of what the motives were or what the splits were or whatever. but politicians will always complain about this sort of thing. so i wouldn't put too much weight on it. >> do you think the -- >> what this leans toward is spending a lot of focus on broadcasting, and this partly goes back to my life at carlton, when i formed a view that, you know, if you really want to get through to people, television is incredibly powerful medium. and as the media markets have broken down and newspapers are selling fewer copies, more people are looking at the internet, yes, the audience what are big news programs has fallen, but their power, in many ways, has almost gotten greater much the one thing lots of people do do is watch the main news in the evening, and so if you want to explain why you're doing what you're doing, up to the get things across, television, as i tried to explain, is extraordinarily important and powerful, so it mutcht be left out of the mix.

>> yes, and broadcasters, of course, are subject to different obligations. >> absolutely. >> you give examples of the benefits, and this relates to campaigns and also you give an example of a journalist from the "sunday telegraph" accompanying new august of last year, the context, but presumably you would agree that this work is easier in the realm of less politically charged issues, is that right? >> what is easier, doing interviews or campaigns? >> well, the benefits which accrue from campaigns, and it's easier, i suppose, in areas which are left physically charged. >> i suppose that's the case, yes. >> would you say the same about some of the shriller campaigns, which we've seen in certain

sections of the press over the years? >> well, i would -- i mean, i would say that these campaigns these newspapers run, and it's not always just newspapers, television stations can run campaigns too, but some of them are extraordinarily important and powerful. a lot of people have mentioned "the daily mail." that was extremely important. some of them are very reflective of the readers of that paper, and some of them are more about perhaps what the editor cares about. and i think each person has to see what people really think. is this something that needs to be answered? or is it something i'm prepared to have a disagreement about? so, a recent example of that disagreement would be the hands off our land campaign by the

"telegraph" objecting to planning reforms, and i felt we need to reform the planning system, let's listen to their points, but it's an argument we need to have. some of them -- and you might be referring to the sarah's law campaign, some of them are very controversial, but i think it's good that these campaigns are put forward, because it's part of the challenge in a democratic system to say to the politicians, you know, a lot of people care about this, what are you doing about this, what's your answer to this question? and i think it's good and right we have that sort of vigorous debate. >> although the volume on the mega phone is turned up very loud, it's difficult to separate the noise from the message, would you agree? >> i'm not sure i would. i think generally, because, as i've said, i think the 24-hour news cycle has meant that newspapers have had to turn up the volume -- >> david cameron in the opening moments of the evidence he's giving to the leveson inquiry into media standards in the united kingdom. this is going to run for some

time. we're very much in the early stages, and his own background, history, if you like, with regard to communications, industries, and in particular to broadcasting, always he did work for carlton communications for about seven years in all, and naomi grimley is with me as well, really laying out the landscape. >> absolutely, so that probing things like his view of the 24-hour news cycle, the importance of newspapers, and how important it is to have face-to-face contact with journalists. but, of course, we haven't yet got to the difficult questions, which relate to his personal relations with key figures at news corporation. >> i get a sense that he is trying to work out, to some extent, what the question is trying to elicit and see where that might fit perhaps a little bit further down the line in terms of the inquiry. >> that's right. i mean, that's why david cameron has been prepping with his lawyers for the last few days, because it is a big

undertaking to be grilled like this by a very experienced lawyer, and as you say, the prime minister doesn't really know where a lot of these questions are going to lead him. and they have had access to his emails, his text messages, his diaries, so he's got to be on his guard and got to be across all the detail, really, the history of who he met and which meetings he attended, so that he can field those questions. >> naomi, thanks very much indeed for the moment. we're going to break away for a few minutes from david cameron, but, of course, we'll be back in not so very long as we trying to keep a thread through that, but there are other stories we really need to bring to your attention as well. first of those being a group of bahraini medics who were sentenced for up to 15 years in prison for helping anti-government protesters during last year's uprising. they've now had their sentences either reduced or they've been acquitted by an appeals court. nine doctors were given terms between one month and five

years, but the cases of nine others, doctors and nurses, the cases of the nine others were quashed. the spokesperson for bahrain's information affairs authority joins me now. thanks for talking to us. can you explain why it is that nine are still going to serve prison terms? >> well, it's important to say before that no medic or any staff are charged for anything related to protests. that is not the case. but to get back to your question, those who have had their sentences reduced to six months or less will be released for time served. so we are only talking about three persons now, two of them did not appeal and did not follow their procedure, which, you know, it's a right

guaranteed to them, and it is not the end. road. those people can still appeal, appeal to the high court of appeals, and eventually, as well, if they still dispute the decision, they can go to the courts. >> ok, so the appeals process is far from concluded. nonetheless, there's significant overturns here, aren't there, from what were the initial verdicts. >> well, in implementing the recommendations of the bahraini independent commission of authority, it said all sentences handed down during this period should be reviewed. they were reviewed. all charges of freedom of expression were dropped, and any evidence that has been suspected to have been obtained improperly was not admissible in court. so these things were taken into consideration in this ruling. >> do you feel it's been a fairly regrettable incident

from start to finish in terms of the way in which people perceive bahrain? >> well, we've always maintained that mistakes were made last year. the report was an act of acknowledgment and taking into accountability. but the best way is to move forward with this, with the acknowledgment that practical measures are being taken and we are, you know, proper procedure is being followed. >> thank you very much indeed for joining us. >> the burmese pro-democracy leader, aung san suu kyi, is in switzerland at the start of her first trip to europe in more than 20 years. her first engagement is a speech ated head of the labor organization in geneva. this body has long campaigned for an end to child and slave labor in burma. she's delivering the speech, as you can see now, just dip in for a moment or two. >> ranging from the kind of foreign direct investment they

considered desirable, to the role that government should play to ensure the right kind of business practices. i list some of these below that this conference might see that despite many years of isolation and repression, our people can still boast a social, political, and economic awareness that, given sufficient latitude, would bring our country in line with positive developments in the rest of the world. >> aung san suu kyi there delivering her first speech in europe for some 24 years. now, she's going to be over here for a little while. she'll be visiting the u.k. as well. significantly, worth pointing out, she will be going to oslo. the reason being, she will be able to pick up the nobel peace prize she was awarded way back now in 1991. should also tell you, we're keeping across the leveson

inquiry with particular interest today, and that is the reason why. the british prime minister, david cameron, before the inquiry today. he comes after a line of former prime ministers, and many of the members of the british government's cabinet have also appeared before the inquiry. we're going to dip in again to hear what he has to say. >> we need to improve it, and so, if we just said transparency, everyone can see who's meeting whom, that's enough, but i think that would be a mistake. >> we'll come to your ideas in due course, mr. cameron. >> are you there talking about the relationship between the press and politicians, or a wider level, because in relation to how politicians engage with the press, i would struggle a bit to see how regulation could assist. it's a cultural thing, it seems

to me. >> what i would say, sir, is the transparency can help address some of the problems of deception, because people can see who you're meeting and when, but one of my arguments is that because the relationship hasn't been right, because it has been too close, as i put it, the politicians and the press haven't spent enough time discussing and sorting out the regulatory system under which the press exists. and we need to fix that, and i thought -- >> david cameron continuing his point. naomi, he's beginning to build the theme, which is certainly familiar, but it's going to drive ever more narrowly, i suspect, towards the role of media and politicians and eventually on a personal level. >> that's right. and david cameron there was being contrite. he was saying, well, we did get too close to these media organizations. he's said that before, incidentally.

he's also said that perhaps in hindsight he shouldn't have hired andy coulson, a former editor of "news of the world," to be his spin doctor. so there will be these moments where david cameron admits he got things wrong, but i think it also points out that other prime ministers were also very friendly with the murdochs, tony blair for one. >> naomi, thank you very much. as i say, we're going to keep across the leveson inquiry through the course of the time, in which david cameron appears before it. thanks for being with us on "bbc world news." don't forget the website, bbc.com/news. >> funding was made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu. newmans own foundation. union bank. and shell. >> at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies. thats why were supplying

cleaner burning natural gas to generate electricity. and its also why, with our partner in brazil, shell is producing ethanol, a biofuel made from renewable sugar cane. >> a minute, mom! >> lets broaden the worlds energy mix. lets go. >> bbc world news was presented by kcet los angeles.