mr. murdoch? answer: no, he didn't say that. he told me what mr. murdoch had said to him. question: so there was nothing what mr. brown said to mr. murdoch s that your evidence? answer: yes, it is. i cannot remember being told by mr. brown what he said, and i have no way of knowing. but i know, but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction which was to say, basically, i don't like how it's being dope, and i think it's a bad day to do it, and i wouldn't have done it this way myself, gnaw's life, and we have to get on wit. question: mr. murdoch's reaction to what, lord hand ellison? answer: to switch to the labour party which was james and rebecca's decision, not the editor's, incidentally. >> first of all, there was only one call with mr. murdoch, and it was on november the 10th, and that was a call that was related to afghanistan. and you've got five letters that are a after kates from people who were on that call, four of them on the call, one who had to report to the press what happened afterwards, and they make it absolutely clear that that call was about

mr. murdoch? is that your evidence? answer -- yes, it is. i cannot remember being told by mr. brown what he said and i have no way of knowing. but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction, which was to say basically, i do not like how it is being done and i think it is a bad day to do it, and would not have done this when myself, but that is life, and we have to get on with it. question -- mr. murdoch's reaction to what? answer -- the decision of "the sun" to switch from the labor party to the conservative party. if i remember correctly, it was james and rebecca's response. >> there was only one call with mr. murdoch on november 10. that was a call related to afghanistan. you have cut five letters that are affidavits from people who were on that call, four on the call, one that had to report to the press what happened after. they made it absolutely clear that call was about afghanistan. what ever you are weeding out, whether you are referring to that call or not, i do not know. the november 10 call is the only call i had in the year with mr. murdoch. i do not k

mr. keyton the then australian prime minister told you. on murdoch he told tv he's a big bad bastard and the only way to deal with him is to think you can be a big bad bastard, too. is that what mr. keating said? >> it sound like what paul keating probably would have said. i don't recall the precise language, but i guess this is the -- i'm happy to accept it. >> you can do deals with him without ever saying a deal is done, but the only thing he cares about is his business and the only ladies and gentlemen he respects is strength. with that advice given by mr. keating. >> that was paul keating's view. and you know, he as he does express himself in robust terms. i actually came in time to have a differing view myself, which wasn't as simple as that. but, it's perfectly possible he said that. and as i said, if alice recorded that, at the time, i'm happy to accept it. >> mr. keating's statement i suppose chimes with the implied thesis which are we clear do you expect or do you reject it? >> as far as we are concerned i can't answer to him, obviously. as

mr. murdoch? answer: no, he didn't say that. he told me what mr. murdoch had said to him. question: so there was nothing what mr. brown said to mr. murdoch s that your evidence? answer: yes, it is. i cannot remember being told by mr. brown what he said, and i have no way of knowing. but i know, but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction which was to say, basically, i don't like how it's being dope, and i think it's a bad day to do it, and i wouldn't have done it this way myself, gnaw's life, and we have to get on wit. question: mr. murdoch's reaction to what, lord hand ellison? answer: to switch to the labour party which was james and rebecca's decision, not the editor's, incidentally. >> first of all, there was only one call with mr. murdoch, and it was on november the 10th, and that was a call that was related to afghanistan. and you've got five letters that are a after kates from people who were on that call, four of them on the call, one who had to report to the press what happened afterwards, and they make it absolutely clear that that call was about

mr. murdoch. there are times that i worked at downing street, he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. his voice was rarely heard, but then the same could be said of many of the other 23, but his presence was always felt. well, what do you make of that? >> with respect to policy, by the way, the whole -- if you look at the policies that rupert murdoch or indeed anybody else was concerned about, they fit into certain categories. europe was obviously -- that was probably the major thing he and i used to row about actually and debate. but sometimes what people wouldn't accept from the labor party perspective was things like public service reform or trade union reform, for example. our views may have coincided, but i believed in what i was doing. i didn't need him or anyone else to tell me what to do. so i think this is, you know -- >> he says when he submitted his book, "the spin doctor's diary" to the cabinet office, your staff was deeply unhappy. a third of their objections related to one man

mr. murdoch? >> yes. he was the key decision maker for sure. >> a schedule of all your contacts with editors between may, 1997, and june, 2007, has been provided. it runs to 18 pages. i'm sure we can put that on the screen. >> yeah. >> if there's any one point arising out of those earlier interactions, it's dinner at must sayerman's on the 15th of september, 1994, which had been arranged by gus and jillian fisher. first of all, do you remember anything about that? >> i remember that such a dinner took place. i don't remember a great deal about it, frankly. but you -- i've seen this account. >> there's an account, so we do know its source from mr. neil, full disclosure. in the bundle we've put together for you, it's pages 31 and 32. >> yeah. >> mr. fisher is described as rupert's senior man in london. is that right or not? this is september, 1994. >> i think so. i think he -- i remember him being there for -- i think for a reasonably short time, actually. but i certainly remember him, yeah. >> mr. neil say

mr. murdoch or not? >> no, absolutely not. for a start, the thing that we did, which is boost offcom, is the thing he absolutely disliked. and it was often written about this. channel 5 was not his -- i mean i never thought he was behind channel 5. channel 3 would have been a far better fit for him and that he was unable to do. i mean my thing within this communications act, because i did talk to the ministers about it several times, my thing was very much to do with trying to open up the media ownership thing. this issue to do with media ownership, i mean i have a view on this that is different from many people who worry about media power. you know, there are two elements sometimes people worry about. concentration of media ownership. sometimes people worry about foreign owners coming into the british media space. i thought the first was always best dealt with as a competition issue. i thought the second, i just disagreed with people, that if you said, okay, to any foreign owner, you're going to now put all the media in briti

mr. james murdoch. if you see that. then the list of your meetings with mr. rupert murdoch, you put in a revised schedule recently. >> it was a kind of office that gave me the information. i gave you the information that they gave me originally. >> we will publish the schedule. removing the meeting from the fifth of october, 2007, you say that it did not take place. there was, according to exhibit 27, mr. murdoch's statement, there was a meeting on the sixth of october. i thought that there was also by phone call on the fourth. that may not be right. he is meeting staff on the sixth of october. nothing since the fourth of october. if we could deal with one. in evidence, it relates to the snap election, if you could call it that, in 2007. a pre recorded interview with you on saturday, the sixth of october. we know that there was dinner at checkers with mr. murdoch, his wife, and others, on the evening of the sixth of october, 2007. >> there was a misunderstanding that people thought i had met mr. murdoch and it would have somehow improve relations with mr. marr

mr. murdoch's title date posts. currently "the sunday times" can do need to support the conservative party and the times position more equivocal to anybody who happens to be anti-europe. >> may i please have a definition of support. if you make debate right editorial in the least of all evils of the conservative party, the answer is probably that they did. if you mean, with their news coverage day in and day out, morning after morning, we can after weekend, but i'd have to say to you that i think it wise. so i think i would prefer to have less of the editorial support and work the equitable news coverage. >> affirms support for labor, might it be sad that mr. murdoch likes to backwardness. >> i don't think there's any surprise. i'm surprised "the sun" was always so embarrassed. maybe it was something they should've been embarrassed in retrospect. after all they have about the conservative party in 1992 in 1997, how could they come in all credibility have been said despite all we have written over the past five years

mr. murdoch, but then added they became personal friends while he was an office. from london, this portion is 1.5 hours. >> the other point on the abstract for mr. mullins diary. use of this mob and 70 words were you are intending to communicate that obviously the clear and stark message, which we see at the top of the page might not have been imparted to mr. murdoch as a more subtle version might have been. you accept that or not? >> i cannot remember precisely what -- precisely what i would have said. it was not an occasion that i did not recall. i do not know whether there is type of a system or not really. >> at the end of this encounter with mr. malone, you said my absolute priority is to win. i know that sounds and principle, but i see it as my role in life. >> sounds like it. by the way, let me emphasize i do not think it is an principle to win. i think if you believe in what your doing, you should. it is pointless to do anything else, but i saw an ability to go out and persuade the murder of a group as it did with others as important. >> mr. neal has attrib

mr. murdoch had replied. mr. i wish his family while at the end of my letters and everything else. suddenly, out of the blue, in our correspondence coming he says, well i disagree entirely with the management of the war effort. this was the first time he actually said to me personally that this is what he thought. i did not quite understand what he meant by the management of the war effort, because we had extra resources put in. equally, i had very little complaints about the management of the war effort sends. it seems to me that he was making a political point, and i wanted him to know that he had never said this before, and i asked him to reconsider it. if you look at the letter, it says i'm surprised to hear these views for me personally because you have never said them to me in any conversation we have had. and would you like to reconsider these views. i'm i >> i said look, no matter what "the sun" and "the times" does,aid i would rather be honest -- whatever happened, i said we are priursuing a campaign in a

mr. rupert murdochs. mr. james murdoch 15 and for rebekah brooks 19. in relation to her does that cover all social interactions or not? >> this is for the period when i was in opposition? >> the short answer, it might not. what wep did did go back over the diaries for the time i was leader of opposition. try and work out if we missed anything out but it doesn't always include -- for example diary count captured my decisions. there could be other meetings in there i haven't identified. going through other participant meetings we found some that didn't tally with us. we've been through and tried to reconcile as much as possible. i mean government is different because certainly in the office you have a diary -- john major explained this. a diary of what you want to do and a diary of what you actually do. in the office opposition was our best attempt but made gaps. >> it's going to lead to others if so karng the. mr. murdoch's list doesn't quite match yours but quite frankly an area of comparison in our view which we're just going to leave it there. >> it'

mr. murdoch, mr. black and the others had said at some stage, you will not hacked phones, you will not use long lens cameras, you will not pursue children on motorbikes, you will not do all the things that this inquiry has heard has been wrong. if it's set up in their reporters that they shall not do that, we would have had no need whatsoever for this inquiry, and no need for any discussion about sanctions of any sort. let alone statutory bodies. and the only reason we have this discussion and we have this inquiry is because proprietors, and to lesser extent, it has failed in their duty to hand that responsibility down to their reporters. the reporters operate within a culture. it seems to me. they have to provide stories or they are in difficult script the way in which they have obtained their stories, i found it very difficult to accept as a lay onlooker. that editors and proprietors do not know how they're reporters obtaining stories. i find it very difficult to accept that wendi just -- when they

mr. murdoch's adviser? >> i'm not aware of any communication. >> i'm going to move on now to another topic, is that okay? >> we have a break, mr. osborne, just for a short time. just a few minutes, thank you. >> all rise. >> the leveson inquiry into the connection between the british press and politicians is taking a break. they've been questioning chancellor of the exchequer george osborne. earlier this morning former labour prime minister gordon brown answered questions. he said a conversation about the rupert murdoch newspapers switching support never took place as the murdochs said in earlier testimony. you can see today's entire inquiry online at c-span.org's video library: these leveson inquiries are meeting four days this week. tomorrow, former british prime minister conservative john major testify along with labour party leader ed milliband. wednesday deputy prime minister and liberal democrat leader nick clegg answers questions. then thursday british prime minister david cameron. live coverage start

mr. murdoch would have remembered. to go earlier that month you and others were infected to a special celebration for launching new sky tv channels. >> oh, yes. >> mr. o'donnell on this occasion says at the end, do you want me to discourage -- discourage other cabinet members from attending the launch? take go whose handwriting is that with the double lines in the yes. -- >> whose handwriting is that with the double lines in the yes? >> that was me. >> can i go now to the conversation that you recall having on the second of february, 1997 in paragraph 21 of your statement. this was a dinner, which i think your wife was there as well. could you tell us what happened? just before the 1997 election, it was suggested to me that i should make some effort to get closer to the murdoch press. and i agreed that i would invite mr. murdoch to dinner. i did invite him to dinner. i had invited him in february of 1997. the dinner would have contained the little -- the usual amount of political gossip that these locations tend to have

mr. murdoch was a very interesting character. he was a gentleman who was recruited by the city fathers because of his newspaper ability. in our time, we would have called it booster newspapers, so he's basically promoting the town. he is a very, very, very well-known throughout the midwest and also throughout the country for his style of journalism. and also for his promotion and no holds barred, no hesitation about promoting the virtues of the town. he wants to sell this town as hard as he can, because whenever you get enough people in the town, the town is, of course, sure to survive. at least that's what their goal was. now, mr. murdoch was not the kind of person that would tell you any lies, but he also would kind of maybe leave a little bit out, shall we say. rather than saying that sometime in the middle of the spring your streets can become open sewers, he might say, well, we have a very nice, strong south wind that keeps the air fresh and clean. so he does lie? not necessarily. but he certainly paints wichita in a good li

mr. murdoch, mr. black and the others had said at some stage, you will not hacked phones, you will not use long lens cameras, you will not pursue children on motorbikes, you will not do all the things that this inquiry has heard has been wrong. if it's set up in their reporters that they shall not do that, we would have had no need whatsoever for this inquiry, and no need for any discussion about sanctions of any sort. let alone statutory bodies. and the only reason we have this discussion and we have this inquiry is because proprietors, and to lesser extent, it has failed in their duty to hand that responsibility down to their reporters. the reporters operate within a culture. it seems to me. they have to provide stories or they are in difficult script the way in which they have obtained their stories, i found it very difficult to accept as a lay onlooker. that editors and proprietors do not know how they're reporters obtaining stories. i find it very difficult to accept that wendi just -- when they

mr. murdoch's defense, putting out some responses of his own. >> my only criticism here is that the only ared for, were overturned, not overturned, half overturned and no answer. what about all the other possibilities? i mean i think we've got to be ready for anything. jim. >> the united states supreme court has done what none of us have expected. the mandate has been struck down, there's been another recount, and george bush is president again. >> today the united states supreme court did what none of us expected -- sad news from washington, as the united states supreme court has committed octuple murder-sewer side, leaving only clarence thomas to rule on obama care, he has remained silent. the united states supreme court surpriseded many analysts today when justice samuel alito announced he will be stepping down from the bench to become the bass player for iron maiden. today the long awaited decision on obama care came down -- excuse me, excuse me, i said nobody in the break room. get out, out. >> iron maiden reference, you don't hear that enough. for his part, we should point out mr. m

mr. murdoch, mr. black and the others had said at some stage, you will not hacked phones, you will not use long lens cameras, you will not pursue children on motorbikes, you will not do all the things that this inquiry has heard has been wrong. if it's set up in their reporters that they shall not do that, we would have had no need whatsoever for this inquiry, and no need for any discussion about sanctions of any sort. let alone statutory bodies. and the only reason we have this discussion and we have this inquiry is because proprietors, and to lesser extent, it has failed in their duty to hand that responsibility down to their reporters. the reporters operate within a culture. it seems to me. they have to provide stories or they are in difficult script the way in which they have obtained their stories, i found it very difficult to accept as a lay onlooker. that editors and proprietors do not know how they're reporters obtaining stories. i find it very difficult to accept that wendi just -- when they

mr. murdoch talking about news corp. splitting into two companies, which he says splitting that company will create more shareholder value. we also continue to wait on president obama making a statement regarding the supreme court's decision to uphold the affordable care act. it was, as you know, the centerpiece of the obama presidency. this president accomplishing what many of his predecessors could not. i think it's set in the white house to do just that. what's your reaction to the news? we've seen several stocks move fairly sharply on the news. hospital stocks seem to be the big winner as they will now get reimbursed for care that they otherwise would not have. >> it's one of the biggest surprises i recall seeing. you take a look at how some of these stocks are trading. >> i'm going to stop you, stephen. let's go to president obama. >> earlier today, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act. the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. in doing so, they've reaffirmed a

mr. murdoch there was a meeting with mr. murdoch and rebekah brooks. is that right? >> meeting is an ambitious known for what happened. my recollection of it was as i was leaving -- rupert murdoch was in the building and i exchanged a few sentences with him, perfectly civilized, amicable greeting in the building where the bunch was being held. >> sins entering governmentlunch was being held. >> sins entering government which is the second phase--the first is the smaller and more formal meeting, the phone calls. how many of these were 1:1 without even an advisor there? >> reporter: ended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousnded by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneous and depending on my judgment of what the person would prefer. there was not really any rule. i don't recollect. a fair number of these would be meetings where i me

mr. murdoch a dear rupert letter. >> that's right. i decided as shareholder, i wanted to give rupert murdoch advice what he should do to fix the company. i can't read the whole thing but i will read a little bit of it. dear rupert. my name is john. we met a few years ago, when my friend, steve dunleavy was retiring from the "new york post." i didn't get invited to the party but managed to get in while the door keepers were distracted. i have a few suggestions how to fix our company. firstoff, let's be even more fair and balanced. when fox news came onto the scene it pierced through the veil of bias that blanketed most of television news. in other words, it was ah. you thumb your nose at all the right people and i think you need to keep thumbing your nose. many of the anchors and producers of broadcasting news programs existed within a happy consensus that had high aspirations for what america could become but a leo pin of what america actually was. secondly, hey, remember that show with donald sutherland's kid? there was a time when fo

mr. murdoch now wants to put all his published interesting -- interest into a new separate company and to repair -- and to protect his tv interests. >> it has had an impact on the whole of news corp'. what part of it is the logic of preventing these reputation bleeding into the other parts of the business? that is what is urgent. that is the catalyst. >> will the new company's look like in a business sense? for the first nine months, the film and television interests totaled 2.7 billion pounds. by contrast the newspaper and book publishing generated profits of 219 billion pounds. it is 90% smaller on that measure. what's more, film and television profits have been growing, whereas news and publishing have been falling. rupert murdoch recently said judge. to a >> is going to be a blot on my reputation for the rest of my life. >> i do not think rupert murdoch would be doing this unless he really had to. i don't think he wants to split the company a. he is under huge pressure from shareholders in america. data like the newspapers. -- they do not like the newspapers. >> they were easing the p

mr. murdoch to cut the fee, but prepared to meet him part way along the way. >> quite difficult to argue at a time when you know if you get into the government, you will have to be making spending reductions and see the bbc license fee go up and up and up. we had a consistent argument from my own views and the bbc needed to be strong and needed the backing of the license fee and i think the bbc had gone into areas it shouldn't have done and i have mentioned that in my evidence, but it's a fair settlement and not one that james murdoch supported. this was clear from paragraph 109, you made an announcement to the effect of the license fee being frozen. did that represent your policy at the time between march of 2009 and the election? the license fee. >> i made that announcement in march of 2009. and we have delivered that, more than that policy in government, yes. it just caught my eye, if there was this great conspiracy to hand over bbc policy to the murdoches, it would seem to be quite a strange choice for the creative industries, chaired by former bbc director general. if he wanted a mu

mr. murdoch, at news corp want to carry that baggage into 2013. >> tom: does murdoch stay in charge of both companies if it happens next year? >> yes. he's not relinquishing anything. he's going to still have the whip hand and iron control of both entities until he decides-- if he ever does decide-- to step down. >> tom: i have to ask how a deal like this is structured best for shareholders. there are always big tax implications involved in these spin-outs. how best to do this so shareholders don't necessarily get caught with a big tax bill? >> it can be a share-for-share tax-free situation if it's structured properly, and then you have to figure out what the shareholders who get the spin-off company where are going to do with those shares. they may try to unlode them as quickly as they can, and parent news corp would go right through the roof in terms of market value. >> tom: we will leave it at that. looking forward to the next calendar year. porter bibb. >> susie: the founder of best buy may be buying. "the wall street journal" reports best buy founder richard schulze is considering maki

mr. murdoch i suppose that you developed a friendship with her? >> yes. for rebekah brooks as she became. again, probably. closer once i left office when again you were free from the constraints and when you know, it wasn't a relationship as it were that was about the power relationship. >> did you offer her any messages of support in july of last year? >> you know, i'm somebody who doesn't believe in being a fair weather friend. and certainly i was very sorry for what had happened to her. and i don't know, i remain -- obviously whatever has happened, i don't know anything about the facts of the particular case. but i have been or seen people go through these situations and i know what it's like. >> look at some specific case studies, i suppose now. the first one is paragraph 16 of your statement. i think you agree that there was a change of policy. had you kept to the original policy it would have been a problem for the murdoch press. then you say there were sound reasons for changing it. is that a fair summary of your evidence? >> absolutely. can i ask

mr. murdoch during his time as prime minister, but added that they became personal friends after his time in office. later during the hearing a protester interrupted the proceedings, calling the former prime minister a war criminal. tony blair served as prime minister from 1997 to 2007. this is about four hours. >> the witness today is the honorable tony blair. >> thank you very much indeed. >> i swear by all mighty god that the evidence i shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name please, mr. blair. >> anthony charles lindon blair. >> you've kindly provided us with a witness statement. i haven't seen a signed copy but it doesn't matter. are you happy to confirm the truth of your statements to the inquiry? >> absolutely. >> i'll deal with some general matters first. before we do, mr. blair, thank you very much for providing the inquiry with the assistance that you have. you comment in your statement that you haven't received some papers from the cabinet office. have you yet received them? are you satisfied you got what you require? >> yes, i

mr. rupert murdochs had a good personal relationship with mr. brown. were you? >> yes. >> and was it explained to you, or did you work it out anyway, that that was likely to be an impediment, to say those terms, to the "sun" shifting sides? >> i think both that rupert -- a strong relationship with rebekah brooks. i knew we had our work cut out to win over the "sun" yes, but i felt what we had on our side was that "sun" readers were leaving the government and dumbcoming towards us. it was going to try to get a center right pro-enterprise, pro-family small seed conservative paper back into the fold. >> and was it your understanding that the final decision would be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least it couldn't be made without his consent? >> i didn't know. obviously, he would have a big say in it, but i sensed if we could show that some readers were moving in a conservative direction, we would have a good -- a good effort a good chance of winning support. as i say, this was one of many things we tried to do. >> did mr. corson give you advice as to how bes

mr. murdoch that i threatened him. this did not happen.to say to you, that there is no evidence that it happened other than mr. murdoch's, but it didn't happen, because i didn't call him, and i have no reason to want to call him. i would not have called him given everything that i have said to you. >> the former prime minister was testifying at an inquiry of the phone hacking scandal of murdoch's tabloids. it is still ongoing. >>> well, now no the current british prime minister in a little bit of forgetfulness, david cameron and his wife and bodyguards accidentally left their 8-year-old daughter nancy behind after having a male at a local pub. turns out though, they were dining with another family, and they all loaded into two cars after dinner, and there was some confusion, and one thought that the other had the kid and the other thought that the other kid, and nancy was left behind. but the camerons figured it out quickly, and the prime minister rushed back to the pub to get her and take her home. >>> and dead ly shootings wreaking havoc

mr. murdoch has a love for newspapers. but how much or how little growth might be associated with the publishing arm? would it be almost no growth assets? >> there would not be any growth at all. there's a concern, while they've handled the internet quite well at dow jones and the "wall street journal," australia internet access, things of that nature perhaps a bit behind the states, and concern of deterioration in properties in australia in particular. nobody is looking at this as a growth company. it is a cash producing asset that might have a decent dividend associated, perhaps take on leverage, more debt on its balance sheet, a bit more and be a not growing company but one that attracts some sort of shareholder base. >> stick around. >>> would it be a good thing for news corp. investors or should you buy into the company now if you don't invest in it already? let's bring in don, president and co-cio of asset management owning more than a billion of news corp. making him at last count the fourth largest institutional in

mr. murdoch, i think, who defeated richard lugar ran on the platform of noome prsed n.ncom ae w matyay suspect it doesn't really. i think people do not like the status quo. we'll know better after this election, if that's true. but i think most americans would like to get things done, and you n't aomplisf se ta fs t i , ar o politics, to coin an old-fashioned -- reuse an old-fashioned phrase is the art of compromise. d, you know, that's what do in vermont more or less much better thanin core cossu tbee in mega m ways should be considered a hero because he worked with democrats on the nuclear arms control treaty. instea he is villainized for that. i think the public has to speak up a say ha thikind o in nnd ttis r of money in politics. these super pacs, that's all they do is purchase negative ads. ree czeunwe findwa haot these super pacs. but, again, the public has to speak up. and with or without money, i still believe that individual voices can have an impact. deac ruin democracy. interesting thing happened in massachusetts. if they can stick with it, both scott brown

mr. murdoch will be 82 years old. he is currently 81.rs will be right to ask about plans for succession. for many years, peopled anticipated to try to position his children in a way they might be willing to or able to take over. the one company. now we have two. what about it? i asked him. >> i'm in great shape. and obviously, you know, if i live -- lucky enough to live a very long time, there will be a time when i'll slow down mentally and i'll have to get down. >> you don't think it's any time soon? >> no. >> clearly he feels like he is in a position to continue to run. both companies as chairman and ceo of the entertainment company. the far larger of the two though the first love and continued love is newspapers but there he said i'll be active and find a ceo. back to you guys. >> take the boy out of australia. can't take australia out of the boy. still got the accent. great stuff. >> i have a question for you. do we have any idea who's going to run the publishing business? >> we don't. you can start to speculate. robert thompson. it'

mr. murdoch, my first question is simple one of, why now? >> you can always do better. and i'm not saying we managed it badly in the past. but, you know, the breadth of this company, the different things it's in, geographically, too, it all seemed to add up to make a lot of sense. and, you know, once we'd said, let's try to do this, there was no point in delaying. >> will be about a year until it takes place and interesting to note that the heart of the answer seems to be about managing a company that has gotten bigger and bigger in some ways and the belief he will be able to focus or management will be able to focus far better on one business and another business as opposed to all being combined. of course, one business that's been a key part of news corp. is satellite television. the hacking scandal of the uk really would seem at least prevented the company from something it previously wanted to do. namely, buy in what it didn't already own. of b sky b and now according to murdoch there's a change in strategic direction. >> we have sort of moved on from that. >> you h

mr. repor murdoch had a relationship with brown were you? >> yes. >> did they explain to you that it was likely to be an impediment to "the sun" shifting sides? strong relationship. a strong brown. that some readers were coming toward us. to a center-right, conservative newspaper back into the fold. >> could be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least be made about his consent? >> i did not know. i assumed he would have a big say in it. show the readers we're moving in a conservative direction we would have a good chance of winning their support. this is one of many things we were trying to do. >> did he give you advise as to how best to proceed? >> of course. he was my director. taking our policies and working out the best way of provoke -- promoting our values, what we can do for the country to all of these things. >> union that t -- union that he was -- you knew that he was familiar with rebekah brooks? she was friendly with tony blair. strong arguments. pretty vigorously for gordon brown. >> when did you sense that mrs. brooks would b

mr. murdoch set to talk about splitting news corporation into two companies.again, this happens a bit later this morning. expect that about 10:45 a.m. eastern time, about 09 minutes from now. -- 90 minutes from now. jamie: we want the tell you we're keeping all eyes on the supreme court at this hour as you are as well, and as we await this historic decision on president obama's health care law, we wanted to talk about what changes we will all see and how it could effect your insurance and next visit to your doctor. dr. marc siegel is joining me here. doc, good to see you. >> good to see you, jamie. jamie: how much input did doctors have on the obamacare law? >> very little. i've been writing articles about it, but the reality is the american medical association weighed in, they sat at a white coat ceremony, they made a faustian deal where he said, basically, we're going to make a doctors' fix for you where you won't get these draconian cuts from medicare that are looming over you every year. that never happened. there was an obamacare table, basically, where i

mr. murdoch about congratulations. paragraph 70 of your statement -- >> it's mr.ment on the system. >> i believe it is. able i believe it's on the screen. >> i can see it, but by the system. i want to make sure that it's in the public doe mission, because it wouldn't normally be in the public domain until it was either formally read in the record, but it should go, that everybody can see the whole context in which mr. jenkins has spoken. just wanted to make one point on 1706 your witness statement, which is 04149. you say the key point is four lines down, not whether jeremy hunt expressed a personal opinion about a bid privately or publicly in the past, but rather how he would conduct himself in the future. that, of my understanding, was not in fact the advice of mr. general kens or the advice we see from lord o'donnell on the 22nd of december. how do you express an opinion which disclosed actual or apparent bias. do you follow that? >> i do, but what i'm putting in my evidence is what the cabinet secretary's advice was, and that key point was the point that he ma

mr. murdoch it haag? ? -i would not put it like that. i think i won the leadership the what i said during the party conference. it helped me get my message across. i wanted us to have a good relationship. i know we needed to win overall support. there were some that were very keen to do this. i would say i was more cautious about thinking we wanted it to work very hard on television. we should do what we did on the newspapers. i think that is the way it was. it was thought one set of circumstances. >> mr. eustace has said we pursued a strategy of raising the status of real journalism. is that a fair analysis of? >> parts of it are right. the route everything labor had done. look at the meetings i to to win people over. think it's totally squares up. i think there is nothing more between the two. >> be made a point that you would not have a flown halfway around the world to speak at the annual conference. is that an accurate assessment? saw. i saw what he wrote. is winning support of including actually flying off to meet the owners of the

mr. murdoch says will be one of the best cop talibanized in the industry.ting in the first half of 2013, subject to regulatory approval as well, gretchen. they say this within 12 months because our fiscal year ends at the end of june. but again, mr. murdoch will stay chairman of both companies, ceo of the new media company. no mention of who will head up the publishing unit. that's something that's going to be under a lot of speculation to come. >> gretchen: robert gray, thanks so much. steve? >> steve: yep. the debt crisis, the pentagon is now gearing up for massive defense cuts. $100 billion worth pretty quickly. but a new analysis shows this may actually cost the united states a million jobs or more. joining us now to expand on the severe backlash these cut also have across our country is virginia congressman randy forbes. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> steve: we all think that washington, d.c. spends too much. so that's why -- somebody has got to give somewhere. according to the estimates, a million jobs are going to be lost if these cuts go t