:00:09. > :00:13.Could Cameron's man get slammed. As Andy Coulson's former newspaper
:00:13. > :00:16.might have asked. There is an awful lot I would like to say but I can't.
:00:16. > :00:20.As he helps Scotland Yard with their inquiries, the judgment of
:00:20. > :00:24.his former patron is called into question. That is what I is it
:00:24. > :00:31.decided and did, people will judge me for that, I understand that.
:00:31. > :00:36.much did ljl this do to him, Labour's deputy leader and a
:00:36. > :00:40.Conservative minister are here to cross swords, and comedian Steve
:00:40. > :00:43.Coogan hopes this is the end to what he calls the gutter press.
:00:43. > :00:47.Rebekah Brooks keeps her job, what cost to the industry, plans to
:00:47. > :00:50.regulate the press. We ask Greg Dyke, who knows what it is to
:00:50. > :00:55.resign, and a former News of the World hack, what could be lost. As
:00:55. > :01:03.the News of the World is sunk by shots of all sides, we ask is this
:01:03. > :01:06.week really a sea change for British culture?
:01:06. > :01:11.Good evening. The headlines, the stuff of tabloid dreams, only this
:01:11. > :01:14.time they are about one of their own. Andy Coulson has been arrested,
:01:14. > :01:20.and released on bail, Rebekah Brooks has been removed from the
:01:20. > :01:22.investigation, but not fired. Ofcom suggests the scandal may scupper
:01:22. > :01:25.News International's takeover bid for BSkyB. This morning the Prime
:01:25. > :01:29.Minister called for two inquiries, but faced repeated questions about
:01:29. > :01:33.his own judgment. How much did he ask his former communications
:01:33. > :01:40.director about his past, and how friendly is he still with the News
:01:40. > :01:43.International family. Let's look at the damage the week's
:01:43. > :01:47.events have inflicted on the Prime Minister.
:01:47. > :01:52.Turning the blind eye, a phrase that stems from Admiral Nelson,
:01:52. > :01:57.when he put a telescope to his blind eye, to ignore warning
:01:57. > :02:02.signals at the battle of Copenhagen in 1801. But today it was David
:02:02. > :02:05.Cameron accused of turning a blind eye, to warnings that his former
:02:05. > :02:12.communications director, Andy Coulson, was up to his neck in the
:02:12. > :02:20.phone hacking scandal. Tonight, Mr Coulson emerged from
:02:20. > :02:25.Lewisham Police Station, where he had been formally arrested this
:02:25. > :02:28.form - morning. REPORTER: Are you the fall guy? I can't say anything
:02:28. > :02:34.at this stage. REPORTER: What do you think about Rebekah Brooks
:02:34. > :02:38.keeping her job Mr Coulson? Excuse me, excuse me. He had been there
:02:38. > :02:45.for nine hours. Grilled over possible offences of corruption,
:02:45. > :02:49.and intercepting communications. He was released on bail until October.
:02:49. > :02:55.Earlier, police went to the home of David Cameron's former spin doctor,
:02:55. > :02:58.they left with a computer. First thing this morning, Coulson ace
:02:58. > :03:03.former boss called a sudden - Coulson's former boss called a
:03:03. > :03:07.sudden press conference, to try to stem the growing crisis. He took
:03:07. > :03:11.responsibility for hiring Coulson. No-one gave me any specific
:03:11. > :03:15.information. I sought and received assurances, I commissioned a
:03:15. > :03:19.company to do a basic background check. But I'm not hiding from the
:03:19. > :03:22.decision I made. I made a decision, there had been a police
:03:22. > :03:25.investigation, someone went to prison, this editor had resigned,
:03:25. > :03:30.he said he didn't know what was happening on his watch, he resigned
:03:30. > :03:34.when he found out. I thought it was right to give that individual a
:03:34. > :03:38.second chance. Mr Cameron confirmed there would be two inquiries, a
:03:38. > :03:41.judicial one into phone hacking and other allegation, and the second
:03:41. > :03:46.into the practices of the press. Politicians had got too close to
:03:46. > :03:50.the media owners, he admitted. Prime Minister people want to know
:03:50. > :03:54.are you going to sort this issue out, inquiries to get to the truth,
:03:54. > :03:57.a proper police investigation, no cover up over what might happen in
:03:57. > :04:00.previous police investigations and yes, some frankness about what the
:04:00. > :04:04.politicians got wrong themselves. The relationship that became too
:04:04. > :04:08.close, too cosy, we were all in this world of wanting the support
:04:08. > :04:12.of newspaper groups and yes even broadcasting organisations. And
:04:12. > :04:14.when we are doing that, do we spend enough time asking questions about
:04:14. > :04:18.how these organisations are regulated and malpractices and the
:04:19. > :04:22.rest of it, no we didn't, we have to, there is a new chance to do
:04:22. > :04:27.that, that is what I'm saying we will do today. He admitted too, to
:04:27. > :04:32.watching Newsnight. I watched your programme last night, so that is a
:04:32. > :04:36.good start. On last night's Newsnight, the
:04:36. > :04:39.Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, said he had warned Cameron's
:04:39. > :04:43.advisers about Coulson before the election. There was an odd
:04:43. > :04:47.situation, we knew there was a big murder trial coming which involved
:04:47. > :04:51.one of the investigators Coulson had used, who had been in jail for
:04:51. > :04:55.seven years. It seemed 0 reasonable to try to warn Cameron that he
:04:55. > :04:59.shouldn't, before he took Coulson into Number Ten Downing Street, he
:04:59. > :05:03.should just make some inquiries about this. I know I'm not the only
:05:03. > :05:08.figure in Fleet Street who got this warning through to Cameron to say
:05:08. > :05:12.beware. I pressed the PM today whether he
:05:13. > :05:18.had grilled Coulson after the Guardian started making its
:05:18. > :05:21.revelations two years ago. Shouldn't you have hauled Andy
:05:21. > :05:27.Coulson in and said what's it all about and tell me everything, did
:05:27. > :05:32.you do that at any point after 2009? On the issue of his leaving,
:05:32. > :05:38.this was something we discussed before Christmas. It wasn't in the
:05:38. > :05:41.light of any specific thing. It was sense that the second chance wasn't
:05:41. > :05:45.working. Because he had been given a second chance, he was doing, I
:05:45. > :05:49.thought, a very good job, working very hard for the Government for
:05:49. > :05:53.the country. But was finding it impossible to do his job, because
:05:54. > :05:57.of all the swirling allegations of what had happened at the News of
:05:57. > :06:00.the World. The conclusion he came to, I think rightly, the second
:06:00. > :06:04.chance wasn't working, I have to resign all over again for what
:06:04. > :06:07.happened then, that was the decision that was made. In terms of
:06:07. > :06:10.conversation. Shouldn't you have said, surely more is coming out,
:06:10. > :06:13.tell us what is to come, anybody else would have done that surely?
:06:13. > :06:18.That is not the conversation that was happening. The conversation was
:06:18. > :06:22.that, even at that point, he was finding he couldn't do his job,
:06:22. > :06:25.because of all the allegation that is were swirling around and
:06:25. > :06:29.relating back. During the period of his employment, of course we
:06:29. > :06:33.discussed this issue, but I never saw any reason to alter the fact
:06:33. > :06:38.that the assurances he had given me, and I had accepted, and the job he
:06:38. > :06:41.was doing for me. At no point after 2009 you hauled him in and said
:06:41. > :06:46.what was going on? I did have conversations with him throughout
:06:46. > :06:48.the period of employment. It never led me to change the fact of the
:06:48. > :06:54.key assurance that I was given, that he didn't know what was
:06:55. > :06:57.happening at the news of the world. The other issue is the proposed
:06:57. > :07:02.takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. By
:07:02. > :07:05.today's deadline the Culture Secretary had received an
:07:05. > :07:11.unprecedented 160,000 public responses. And the Liberal Democrat
:07:11. > :07:16.leader, Simon Hughes, has urged the regulator, Ofcom to decide whether
:07:16. > :07:20.News Corp are fit and proper people to hold a broadcast license. Do you
:07:20. > :07:25.think they are fit and proper? don't. The reason it is important,
:07:25. > :07:28.is not just because I don't. But because I think if we are to have
:07:28. > :07:34.standards for companies getting licensed to broadcast, you have to
:07:34. > :07:39.respond to what the public mood is and the public think. The normal
:07:39. > :07:43.meaning of fit and proper, is are they people who you can trust, who
:07:43. > :07:53.are honest, and who are behaving in accordance with the law. Ofcom
:07:53. > :08:09.
:08:09. > :08:14.But if Ofcom did decide News Corp wasn't fit and proper, that might
:08:14. > :08:20.not just bar them from buying BSkyB outright, but also cause them to
:08:20. > :08:24.lose the 39% of BSkyB they already own. This afternoon Rebekah Brooks,
:08:25. > :08:29.the Murdoch's boss in Britain, was recorded addressing staff at the
:08:29. > :08:36.News of the World in Wapping. They will lose their jobs when the paper
:08:36. > :08:42.closes on Sunday. This is not exactly the best time in my life,
:08:42. > :08:46.but, I'm determined to get vindication for this paper.
:08:46. > :08:51.Today Brooks was taken off the Murdoch's internal inquiry into
:08:51. > :08:56.what went wrong. Though she's still in overall charge of their British
:08:56. > :09:01.papers. Despite David Cameron's strongly indicating she should go.
:09:01. > :09:04.Joining me now in the studio, one of those caught up in the phone
:09:04. > :09:13.hacking scandal, the comedian, Steve Coogan, the deputy Labour
:09:13. > :09:17.leader, Harriet Harman, and the Government minister, Grant Chaps.
:09:17. > :09:22.You reckon you were caught up in this, what is your reaction? I knew
:09:22. > :09:25.this was coming for a long time. 18 months ago I was told by a senior
:09:25. > :09:29.PR adviser not to pursue legal action because this day was dead
:09:29. > :09:37.and buried, and Coulson was untouchable because he was at the
:09:37. > :09:42.heart of Government. But I knew phone had been hacked, because my
:09:42. > :09:47.phone provider indicated it. I intuitively knew it was the tabloid
:09:47. > :09:54.press. Then when the story started to unfold, and there was the story
:09:54. > :09:58.in the New York Times, my lawyer said did I want to ask if McMullan
:09:58. > :10:02.had anything on you, and they got disclosure from the police that he
:10:03. > :10:06.had my passwords, my phone accounts and a number of personal details,
:10:06. > :10:11.and someone I was in a relationship at the time, lots of numbers and
:10:11. > :10:18.they hacked into her phone as well. That was when I decided against
:10:18. > :10:25.advice to take on legal action. I have to say, that this story has
:10:25. > :10:31.come about, not because of the soul searching from David Cameron or the
:10:31. > :10:35.tenacity of the opposition, or the police force, or even the Press
:10:35. > :10:38.Complaints Commission. This has come about, not because of any of
:10:38. > :10:43.those organisations, but because of the tenacity of the Guardian, and a
:10:43. > :10:47.few individual who is had the guts to take on an intimidating
:10:47. > :10:52.organisation. So, this happened to you a few years ago. What's been
:10:52. > :10:56.your response to this week then? Momentous events? I have to say,
:10:56. > :11:00.they are momentous events and people keep saying it is a very bad
:11:00. > :11:07.day for the press. I think as wonderful day, it is a small
:11:07. > :11:10.victory for decency and humanity. People knew this was going on.
:11:10. > :11:15.Everyone knew about t but people accepted it and thought it was part
:11:15. > :11:19.of the landscape to tolerate this kind of behaviour. I even think the
:11:19. > :11:22.tabloid press, people talk about it as if they have fallen from their
:11:22. > :11:26.huge high standards. They were already in the gutter, they just
:11:26. > :11:29.sunk lower than anyone thought they could. It is not a surprise to me.
:11:29. > :11:31.You say it wasn't down to soul searching by David Cameron, you
:11:31. > :11:37.watched a lot of the press conferences this morning, what was
:11:37. > :11:41.your impression? He had no choice. This whole story has had to be, the
:11:41. > :11:46.Government has dragged their heels, the opposition didn't want to take
:11:46. > :11:52.part in it, until very recently, didn't want to point the finger at
:11:52. > :12:00.Murdoch. Let's not forget that the News of the World is, as far as I'm
:12:01. > :12:05.concerned, and always has been, a missoingistic, Zen know dib
:12:05. > :12:12.missojistic, zenophobic, single parent hating, asylum-seeker hating
:12:12. > :12:17.and it has gone to the wall and I'm delighted. Did David Cameron draw a
:12:17. > :12:25.line under it for you? The two inquiries are a good thing. If he
:12:25. > :12:29.means what he says, then question, it is closing - yes, it is closing
:12:29. > :12:33.the door after the horse has bolted. As Steve Coogan says, is it not
:12:33. > :12:37.down to the Government, but they were dragged kicking and screaming
:12:37. > :12:44.and David Cameron is part of it? Steve's right, we have all been
:12:44. > :12:50.guilty in politics for a long time not being prepared to take on this
:12:50. > :12:54.organisation. No-one has been prepared to say some of this is
:12:54. > :12:59.blood curdlingly disgusting, and has got to the point where we have
:12:59. > :13:03.to change the course of the British media. That means, today I don't
:13:03. > :13:06.think was the end of it, as you suggested, but it is the beginning
:13:06. > :13:09.of getting to the bottom of it. talk about getting to the point,
:13:09. > :13:13.getting to the point would have been David Cameron having heeded
:13:13. > :13:17.the warnings, that as you heard, Alan Rusbridger, are alleging, it
:13:17. > :13:24.got through to him before he had even hired Andy Coulson? You heard
:13:24. > :13:30.David Cameron's explanation that, in fact, he took the view this was
:13:30. > :13:33.man who already resigned, having said he wasn't involved. He ignored
:13:33. > :13:38.the advice? He resigned once, and he was undoubtedly a talented
:13:38. > :13:43.person. Let's not get too pious about this, I think all politicians,
:13:43. > :13:46.some of the media were to blame, no party has ever taken this on, the
:13:46. > :13:50.previous Government didn't any more than we have. We have got to a
:13:50. > :13:53.position where there will be two inquiries. Let's talk specifically
:13:53. > :13:56.about Andy Coulson. He took on Andy Coulson with warnings from
:13:56. > :14:02.newspaper editors that were given to his Chief-of-Staff and to others
:14:02. > :14:05.very close to him, not to touch him, he ignored those? Two things, first
:14:05. > :14:09.of all, David Cameron said very clearly the buck stops with him, he
:14:09. > :14:13.takes full responsibility. It was his decision and he decided he
:14:13. > :14:16.wanted to take on Andy Coulson. is extraordinary, he didn't ask him
:14:16. > :14:20.any questions? One second, he decided he would take him on. The
:14:20. > :14:24.second thing is, people usually do get a second chance, in fact, it
:14:24. > :14:28.didn't work out, and he had to resign again. He didn't ask him
:14:28. > :14:31.what was to come then? You heard that question to him this
:14:31. > :14:35.morningment when he resigned he said, clearly there is worse to
:14:35. > :14:38.come, what is that? You will remember, there was so much stuff
:14:38. > :14:42.every single day in the press it became impossible to do the day-to-
:14:42. > :14:44.day job, once you become the story it is impossible to do the job.
:14:44. > :14:48.That is fairly key that the Prime Minister knows what is to come,
:14:48. > :14:51.from the man who then advised him to take the next communications
:14:51. > :14:56.head? You say why didn't the Prime Minister listen to an editor
:14:56. > :15:01.telling him something, if he listened to an editor telling him
:15:01. > :15:07.something every day, he would take different action every day. All the
:15:07. > :15:11.papers give advice to the Prime Minister every day in their columns.
:15:11. > :15:14.David Cameron said the buck stops with him, and it could have stopped
:15:14. > :15:18.with your Government and you did very little? We could and should
:15:18. > :15:21.have done something about it. Although Grant is right to say that
:15:21. > :15:24.neither the previous story Government or this one had taken
:15:24. > :15:27.action, nor the previous Labour Government. It was for very
:15:27. > :15:30.different reasons. As far as I understand it, I think that the
:15:30. > :15:34.stories, it wasn't in their interests to take on Murdoch,
:15:34. > :15:39.because Murdoch was a paper, a media empire that was supporting
:15:39. > :15:44.the Tories, it tueted them. suited - suited you at the time?
:15:44. > :15:47.suited them to have an overmighty Murdoch press intimidating the
:15:47. > :15:54.Labour Party. That was in their political vested interest, and they
:15:54. > :15:57.let it go forward. For us he was a menacing presence, and obviously we
:15:57. > :16:04.allowed ourselves to feel that even though we were in Government, and
:16:04. > :16:07.they were just a media empire, that they were...We Never heard him
:16:07. > :16:11.called a menacing presence, we had Tony Blair flying half way round
:16:11. > :16:15.the world to Australia to meet him? This is my view about what actually
:16:15. > :16:18.happened. We should have taken action. And actually the people
:16:18. > :16:22.would have been more protected had we done that. I believe it was not
:16:22. > :16:27.the people sitting down and saying we would like to do this, but we
:16:27. > :16:30.can't, because Murdoch's too powerful. Blair was wrong? No, but
:16:30. > :16:33.the relationship was wrong between the Government and the Murdoch
:16:33. > :16:37.empire, and the relationship was wrong too between the Murdoch
:16:37. > :16:40.empire and the police. We have now got an opportunity to sort this out,
:16:40. > :16:44.and David Cameron's the Prime Minister. But he can't do this on
:16:45. > :16:48.his own. He actually needs the opposition to be involved in equal
:16:48. > :16:52.terms. We have to sort out the concentration of media ownership,
:16:52. > :16:54.we have to sort out the Press Complaints Commission, which is
:16:54. > :16:59.completely useless, and we have to make sure that whilst politicians
:16:59. > :17:03.are not afraid of the press, nor are the press afraid of politicians.
:17:03. > :17:06.Ed Miliband said for too long the political class have been too
:17:06. > :17:10.concerned about what the people in the press think, and too slow to
:17:10. > :17:14.speak out, we must all bear responsibility for that, his party
:17:14. > :17:17.is not immune from it. What will change skrult as a result of your
:17:17. > :17:20.leader saying that today. There will be no relationship between the
:17:21. > :17:24.Labour Party and News Corp or News International? It is not across the
:17:24. > :17:29.board that nobody is prepared to speak out. I would mention, as
:17:29. > :17:35.Steve did, Nick Davies of the Guardian and his editor standing up
:17:35. > :17:39.for him. They are hardly the former cabinet? Chris Bryant of the Labour
:17:39. > :17:43.Party, Tom Watson, and Norman Fowler of the Tories, you have to
:17:43. > :17:47.be brave. Norman Fowler no doubt they have private investigators all
:17:47. > :17:51.over him. They are bullying and intimidating, if you go to the
:17:51. > :17:56.press complaints commission they unleash a vendetta against you. We
:17:56. > :17:59.have to work together on this. We both didn't do what we needed to do
:17:59. > :18:06.for different reasons. Now they have to take the action, and we
:18:06. > :18:09.have to be involved on equal terms to get it sorted out. A lot of your
:18:09. > :18:14.cabinet turn up at News International parties, both sides
:18:14. > :18:18.of you will write in the Sun and Murdoch publications, will that
:18:18. > :18:24.stop now? The media is there, any Government or opposition have to do
:18:25. > :18:27.it via the media. It is a fact of life. I doint not write for the
:18:27. > :18:33.Guardian even though they don't support Conservatives. They are too
:18:33. > :18:38.powerful, we have to sort out the concentration of power in the media.
:18:38. > :18:43.It is true there hasn't been a preparedness to get to the heart of
:18:43. > :18:53.it. It is not just about Murdoch, it is the press in general. The
:18:53. > :18:53.
:18:53. > :19:02.Mail has been conspicuous by its rekal transon this, I think where's
:19:02. > :19:07.- recalcitranc, where is Paul Deco, this inquiry will require him to be
:19:07. > :19:10.forth coming. One of the rumours is there is worse to come, that is why
:19:10. > :19:14.the News of the World has shut down. Are you prepared for that? The News
:19:15. > :19:18.of the World is a private business that has to make its own decisions.
:19:18. > :19:22.They are not just a private business. At one point, one of the
:19:23. > :19:26.things we ought to do at this point is say, we should recognise and
:19:26. > :19:29.reaffirm the absolute importance of the BBC. When James Murdoch comes
:19:29. > :19:34.over here and says the BBC is a terrible thing and should be cut
:19:34. > :19:37.down to size, we should take that as a real clue that the BBC is
:19:37. > :19:40.incredibly important. There is a lot we agree on here, looking
:19:40. > :19:44.forward the two independent investigations and another two by
:19:44. > :19:48.the police, should help to unveil a lot of what is going on. This is a
:19:48. > :19:52.new chapter and a chance to get things sorted. Are we going to work
:19:52. > :19:56.together to get that sorted out. have to. We will come to the police
:19:56. > :19:59.investigations in a second, Steve Coogan is staying with us.
:19:59. > :20:02.This morning the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced an
:20:02. > :20:06.independent inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, which will be led
:20:06. > :20:10.by a judge. He said a second inquiry into examine the ethics and
:20:10. > :20:12.culture of the press. This isn't, you will be thinking, the first
:20:12. > :20:14.time anyone has called an inquiry on the subject, none of the
:20:14. > :20:24.previous ones came close to clearing things up. What will
:20:24. > :20:32.
:20:32. > :20:36.change this time round? A tale of bizarre connections, a
:20:36. > :20:39.seemingly innocent story in the News of the World about Prince
:20:39. > :20:44.William suffering a knee strain led Buckingham Palace to suspect his
:20:44. > :20:52.phone had been hacked. The strain, it is safe to say, has spread well
:20:52. > :20:55.beyond the royal leg. The Prime Minister has confirmed
:20:55. > :21:00.two inquiries with one objective, find out what went wrong. The first,
:21:00. > :21:05.into the police. One of the most worrying, some
:21:05. > :21:09.might say sinister aspects of this whole affair, is how a supposedly
:21:09. > :21:14.rigorous police investigation completely missed wholesale
:21:14. > :21:18.evidence of what we now know was widespread wrongdoing by News of
:21:18. > :21:22.the World journalists. Today, in outlining the terms of his first
:21:23. > :21:27.inquiry, the Prime Minister listed three questions that he says
:21:27. > :21:31.urgently need answers. Why did the first police investigation fail so
:21:31. > :21:36.abysmally. What exactly was going on at the News of the World. And
:21:36. > :21:40.what was going on at other newspapers. I want everything and I
:21:40. > :21:44.want everyone to be clear. Everything that happened is going
:21:44. > :21:49.to be investigated. The witnesses will be questioned, by a judge,
:21:49. > :21:52.under oath. And no stone will be left unturned. The initial police
:21:52. > :21:56.investigation that led to the jailing of the man on the left, the
:21:56. > :22:00.News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and Paul McMullan,
:22:00. > :22:04.the private investigator, uncovered thousands of names of tarts, and
:22:04. > :22:08.get the police - targets, yet the police said there was no other
:22:08. > :22:12.evidence of any other cases, even when they were led to review the
:22:12. > :22:17.evidence in 2009. Our inquiries show in the vast majority of cases
:22:17. > :22:20.there was insufficient evidence to show that tapping had actually been
:22:20. > :22:23.achieved. At the same time the police found evidence of absolutely
:22:23. > :22:28.nothing, the Information Commissioner found evidence of
:22:28. > :22:32.plenty, not of hacking, but of the wholesale use, by journalist, of
:22:32. > :22:38.illegally obtained data. What the Information Commissioner's Office
:22:38. > :22:45.had discovered, by raiding a private investigator, was that
:22:45. > :22:49.there were 31 national newspapers and magazines, and 305 journalists
:22:49. > :22:53.working for them, they were making regular use of a private detective
:22:53. > :22:57.to access information, which for the most part, was unlawfully
:22:57. > :23:02.obtained. What is interesting is, if we look at the top of the
:23:02. > :23:06.Information Commissioner's list of culprits from 2006, the News of the
:23:06. > :23:08.World only comes fifth, well behind the Mail.
:23:08. > :23:12.The second inquiry the Prime Minister announced today then is
:23:12. > :23:15.into the culture, ethics and practices of the press,
:23:15. > :23:20.particularly the way it is regulated. Press freedom does not
:23:20. > :23:23.mean the press should be above the law. Yes, there is much excellent
:23:23. > :23:28.journalism in Britain today. But I think it is now clear to everyone
:23:28. > :23:32.that the way the press is regulated today is not working. Let's be
:23:32. > :23:38.honest. The press complaints commission has failed. In this case,
:23:38. > :23:41.in the hacking case, frankly, it was pretty much absent. In 2009,
:23:41. > :23:45.the Guardian newspaper uncovered fresh evidence of the scale of the
:23:45. > :23:49.hacking that had gone on at the News of the World. The press
:23:49. > :23:54.complaints commission did investigate. But, they concluded it
:23:54. > :24:04.was the Guardian that had got their facts wrong. They even hinted maybe
:24:04. > :24:14.
:24:14. > :24:17.the journalist who wrote it was Whilst clearly not the Press
:24:17. > :24:23.Complaints Commission's finest hour, they had based their investigation
:24:23. > :24:29.on what the police had told them. Hacking was, and is, a criminal
:24:29. > :24:33.offence. Could any regulatory bodey, however constituted, really be
:24:33. > :24:38.expected uncover such practice when the police couldn't do so.
:24:38. > :24:46.police said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone else.
:24:46. > :24:50.As the Prime Minister said himself this morning, when he hired Andy
:24:50. > :24:56.Coulson, he put great stead by the fact that the police inquiry had
:24:56. > :25:00.said there was no other wrongdoing going on. I don't think that is a
:25:00. > :25:05.reason for suggesting that the self-regulatory system doesn't work.
:25:05. > :25:08.In calling for a wider review of the relationship between press and
:25:08. > :25:12.politicians, David Cameron was echoing one of Tony Blair's final
:25:12. > :25:15.speeches as PM. It is like a feral beast, tearing people and
:25:15. > :25:19.reputations to bits. You have to start from the bottom line and
:25:19. > :25:22.build up. In that sense it is a good thing that the Government have
:25:22. > :25:25.announced this inquiry into the wider culture of the way the media
:25:25. > :25:31.has been behaving. Because that gives everybody a chance to sit
:25:31. > :25:35.down and look at some of the basic problems about the way the media
:25:35. > :25:39.operates and try to find effective solutions. The News of the World
:25:39. > :25:43.ran the stories it did, because it solds lots of newspapers the
:25:43. > :25:48.fundamentally, can you change the culture of the media without
:25:48. > :25:54.changing what people want? There has undoubtedly been widespread
:25:54. > :26:00.public revulsion this week, but for how long will that revelgs last?
:26:00. > :26:05.Joining me is the former victor general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, Paul
:26:05. > :26:09.McMullan, who used to be deputy features editor at News of the
:26:09. > :26:13.World, and Steve Coogan. Doesn't this smack of having to do
:26:13. > :26:16.something, it could be an overreaction? What is happening
:26:16. > :26:20.this week is much more profound than this. We have had 30 years in
:26:20. > :26:25.this country where Governments have cosied up to News International and
:26:25. > :26:28.the Murdoch operation, and I think this week that has been broken. I
:26:28. > :26:33.think it will fundamentally change politics and the media in this
:26:33. > :26:38.country. The darkest recesss of your industry, really laid bear
:26:38. > :26:44.this week, something had to give, didn't it? What a loss it is going
:26:44. > :26:48.to be. The biggest loss is that we are going to lose, I have always
:26:48. > :26:52.said that I have tried to write articles in a truthful way, and
:26:52. > :26:56.what better source of getting the truth is to listen to someone's
:26:56. > :27:01.messages, that might sound frivolous, but several celebrities
:27:01. > :27:05.have called us evil and scum, where as all we have ever tried to do.
:27:05. > :27:10.What right have you got to listen to their messages, what possible
:27:10. > :27:13.right? Let's bring in Steve Coogan. I have to say, you're walking PR
:27:13. > :27:18.disaster for the tabloids, you don't come across in a sympathetic
:27:18. > :27:22.way, you come across as a risable individual, who is sim tot
:27:22. > :27:27.tomorrowatic of everything that is wrong with the tabloids d
:27:27. > :27:29.symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the tabloids, it is just
:27:29. > :27:35.selling newspapers and investigative journalist s. You are
:27:35. > :27:40.not uncovering corruptions or bringing down institution that is
:27:40. > :27:44.herently corrupt. It is just who is sleeping with who. If you want a
:27:44. > :27:49.free press and democracy. That is absolute. You are nothing to do
:27:49. > :27:54.with a free press or decent democracy. Garbage, you are hiding
:27:54. > :27:59.between. If this silences the press. We can't catch politicians with
:27:59. > :28:03.their trousers down, fiddling their expenses. You are not. Let Paul
:28:03. > :28:07.answer. If this brings about a law that silences the press so we can
:28:07. > :28:13.no longer catch politicians lying and cheating to the electorate who
:28:13. > :28:18.voted them in. I'm not a politician. You are a small price to pay.
:28:18. > :28:21.not a politician, why go after me. Milly Dowler's relatives aren't
:28:21. > :28:25.politicians, why go after them, it is morally bankrupt, and you are
:28:26. > :28:29.morally bankrupt. The whole notion of press freedom is a smoke screen
:28:29. > :28:33.for selling newspapers with tittle tattle, and you hide behind this
:28:33. > :28:37.whenever it comes up, it is absolute BS. You have a publicist,
:28:37. > :28:43.you spend your entire life trying to get in the newspapers.
:28:43. > :28:46.Absolutely I don't. Trying to work. I don't give interviews to the
:28:46. > :28:50.tabloids because I'm interested in writing and entertaining the public
:28:50. > :28:53.with the comedy that I right. getting in a Murdoch movie, how
:28:53. > :28:57.many Murdoch movies have you been in. Listen I deal with Rupert
:28:57. > :29:00.Murdoch already, I deal with his organisation. Why is it such a
:29:00. > :29:07.great day. I'm talking about tabloid newspapers and the muck
:29:07. > :29:11.raking you do. You take �5 million a movie and bleat about someone
:29:11. > :29:19.listening to the newspapers. are morally bankrupt. If these
:29:19. > :29:23.means were used for example to hunt down Ian Huntly instead of the
:29:23. > :29:28.Soham girls, would we find it less morally reprehensible, the answer
:29:28. > :29:33.is probably question? You see very occasionally there are public
:29:33. > :29:38.interest case, but most of the time no. Most of the journalists were
:29:38. > :29:43.well meaning. These boys just phone happened anyone they could think of.
:29:43. > :29:47.Even when it looks laudible, like Sarah's Law, it is nothing to do
:29:47. > :29:51.with a moral imperative. I was proud of naming and shaming, I was
:29:51. > :29:55.the journalist who did it. It is all selling newspapers, if you do
:29:55. > :29:59.something laudible or despicable it is about selling newspapers.
:29:59. > :30:02.However strongly you feel about this, do you look at this inquiry
:30:02. > :30:07.or the possibility of regulation and think hurray, it will be fine?
:30:07. > :30:10.No, I think it may temper the behaviour. What has happened is the
:30:10. > :30:15.broadsheets have colluded with the tabloids, because they think the
:30:15. > :30:23.price of a free press is letting these people shovel crap. You don't
:30:24. > :30:28.have to do that, you can have a free press and regulate the
:30:28. > :30:32.tabloids. The world will be a better place because we won't be
:30:32. > :30:37.able to expose silly celebrities cheating on their wives and taking
:30:37. > :30:44.coke, which I always found a bit of fun. So the world will be a better
:30:44. > :30:48.place if you are regulated? This guy sat outside my house, it is a
:30:49. > :30:52.risable deplorable. It was a nice house. You were in the Green Room
:30:52. > :30:55.talking about the number of houses you bought this year, we feel sorry
:30:55. > :30:59.for you. What do you think actually will change in the tabloid press
:30:59. > :31:02.from this year to next?. There will have to be regulation. There is no
:31:02. > :31:07.doubt. The idea that it will be a voluntary system is ridiculous.
:31:07. > :31:11.This is illegal, phone hacking is illegal, why didn't Ofcom? I didn't
:31:11. > :31:14.say Ofcom, something. If you look at broadcasting, these guys who sit
:31:14. > :31:18.here saying it is the end of the freedom of the press, it is
:31:18. > :31:23.nonsense. Broadcasting has always been regulated. Broadcasters do a
:31:23. > :31:27.much greater job and much better job than half of the tabloid press
:31:27. > :31:31.in serious issues. What he is talking about is just tittle tattle.
:31:31. > :31:34.But do you know what there are a lot of times when the News of the
:31:34. > :31:39.World gets an amazing scoop and it exposes the thing that everyone
:31:39. > :31:43.wanted to know about, and then everyone is praising them, the fake
:31:43. > :31:49.Sheikh, nobody complain about it then? Very occasionally, Hitler was
:31:49. > :31:54.nice to dogs. That is why we don't have a Hitler in this country, we
:31:54. > :32:03.have nice politicians, like Mr Clegg, because the bad guys walk
:32:03. > :32:09.into the spotlight. When did you last expose a bad guy, you don't,
:32:09. > :32:16.you shuffle...We Shovel that to sell five million copies, and in
:32:16. > :32:19.order when we do something good it comes on. You seem like a slightly
:32:19. > :32:23.tortured soul, are you questioning what you do more than you did in
:32:23. > :32:27.the past, will you stop doing it? No, I have always been a journalist,
:32:27. > :32:32.I have always tried to write articles that tittle late,
:32:32. > :32:35.entertain and shine a bit of light on to the grubby, shallow lives
:32:35. > :32:38.that some people who present themselves in a completely
:32:38. > :32:41.different life. I spent most of my life being a journalist and I'm
:32:41. > :32:45.nothing to do with him. I don't think you should be called a
:32:45. > :32:48.journalist, you are not a journalist, you know you're not
:32:48. > :32:53.deep down, you keep justifying yourself and being wheeled out this
:32:53. > :32:56.whole week because nobody else can be bothered here. You are here as
:32:56. > :33:01.well. There is a load of celebrities jumping on the back of
:33:01. > :33:05.it, Hugh Grant hasn't done a movie for two years. The celebrities in
:33:05. > :33:10.your newspapers and a lot of the other tabloids did not pursue this
:33:11. > :33:16.story at all, it was one column inch in the Sunday papers. Just
:33:16. > :33:22.respond to that, there are people saying, there are a lot of celebs
:33:22. > :33:27.who do court the case? I won't make any money out on this, if they give
:33:27. > :33:31.me damagesly give it to a Victim Support group. I'm not interested
:33:31. > :33:36.in the money. It is a question about using the wider press to put
:33:36. > :33:41.yourself out there? If they never wrote another word about me I would
:33:41. > :33:45.be delighted, I don't court them. You walk down a red carpet and pose
:33:46. > :33:49.at the cameras. Is the public still with you on this? Sadly not, you
:33:49. > :33:51.have to get rid of the emotion so you can think about it rationally,
:33:51. > :33:54.Britain will be a poorer place without it.
:33:54. > :34:00.We have to end it there, thank you very much.
:34:00. > :34:04.The revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone fuelled
:34:04. > :34:07.discussions on websites, homes and pubs, that public anger forced many
:34:07. > :34:11.of the events of this week, culminating in the closure of the
:34:11. > :34:18.News of the World. Will the much cited public anger really prompt a
:34:18. > :34:22.permanent change in our culture going forward.
:34:22. > :34:26.For people watching this scandal unfold, there is something very
:34:26. > :34:30.disturbing about what they see. Just think of who they put their
:34:30. > :34:38.trust in, the police to protect them, the politicians to represent
:34:38. > :34:42.them and the press to inform them. And all of them have been let down.
:34:42. > :34:45.Trust in the establishment has been shaken time and again over the last
:34:45. > :34:55.five years, and the public has not been slow to voice its anger with
:34:55. > :35:00.the banks who look after their money. At the politicians who
:35:00. > :35:03.fiddled their expenses. Mrs Beckett, are you going to pay back the �7
:35:03. > :35:09.2,000 that you have taken after your mealy mouthed answer trying to
:35:09. > :35:18.explain that yourself? No, I'm not, because, as I pointed out a moment
:35:18. > :35:21.ago. (boos and hisses) And now at the press, who abuse public privacy.
:35:21. > :35:25.Advertisers fleeing from the News of the World were reacting to the
:35:25. > :35:32.voice of the people. And both tweeters and those on Mumsnet claim
:35:32. > :35:38.credit for the close of a 168-year- old institution. The status quo was
:35:38. > :35:44.turned on its head as celebrity targets attacked tabloid
:35:44. > :35:47.journalists. You have mo morals or scruple, you didn't care who got
:35:47. > :35:52.hurt, because you just wanted to sell your newspaper, you have no
:35:52. > :35:59.interest in journalism, it is just money. Will all this sound and fury
:35:59. > :36:06.amount to a permanent change in attitudes to our institutions.
:36:06. > :36:10.Steve Coogan is still here and I'm joined by the Mumsnet founder,
:36:10. > :36:14.Justine Roberts, Will Self and the editor of Heat magazine. The big
:36:14. > :36:20.question, is this a proper sea change, will something permanently
:36:20. > :36:25.change, Will? I rather suspect not. I kind of blame the people actually,
:36:25. > :36:28.I think a lot of energy is concentrated on looking for the bad
:36:28. > :36:35.apples or the agency that is involved in this. But the fact of
:36:35. > :36:42.the matter is that there is a uby- election to us appetite for what
:36:42. > :36:51.the - ubiquitious appetite for what they peddle. Now Mrs A electronic
:36:51. > :36:59.media that does the same job as the newspapers does. This whole
:36:59. > :37:04.embrogula, is eppi phenomenal, this is something happening between the
:37:04. > :37:07.tectonic plates. You are saying the public hasn't had a shift to make
:37:07. > :37:11.it stop? With the greatest will of the world to the British public,
:37:11. > :37:19.they went out and bought the News of the World year in and out, they
:37:19. > :37:22.wanted to put their money up for Help for Heros, or whatever
:37:22. > :37:27.paedophile bashing campaign it was, but at the same time they were
:37:27. > :37:30.involved in the titilation, it is Oscar Wilde, the native land of the
:37:30. > :37:34.hypocrite. I think the public did get involved, public on social
:37:34. > :37:39.media got involved for the first time, we saw what social media can
:37:39. > :37:43.do when people individually decide to take direct action when they are
:37:43. > :37:47.disgusting by that. I think that is a change. We have been relying on
:37:47. > :37:50.print media to do this job for us, barring a few notable exceptions
:37:50. > :37:54.they just haven't. We have been relying on the police and the
:37:54. > :37:59.Government. All those institutions have failed. But up stepped a lot
:37:59. > :38:02.of angry individuals, Milly Dowler made that sea-change in people's
:38:02. > :38:06.thoughts. We are getting used to the uprising of the angry
:38:06. > :38:11.individual, the comparison has been made, not least by Cameron, of the
:38:11. > :38:16.bankers and the financial crisis, and of course, at the MPs expense,
:38:16. > :38:22.each of these are landmark moments do you think this is one, do you
:38:22. > :38:26.think it will have a permanentance? I think there will be a permanence,
:38:26. > :38:30.if the fundamental issue is addressed. There is too much power
:38:30. > :38:34.concentrated in the hands of media moing gulls. Why were the
:38:34. > :38:39.Government running scared, why was the media running scared, they were
:38:39. > :38:44.all terrified of being turned over by essentially a blackmailing
:38:44. > :38:49.racket. Does that still exist at the top? I think the spell is
:38:49. > :38:52.broken because ordinary people on Twitter, on Facebook on Mumsnet.
:38:52. > :38:56.The ordinary people have done such a great job in changing the
:38:56. > :39:00.financial set up of the country since 2008 or changing the
:39:00. > :39:04.parliamentary set up of the country since the expenses scandal, what
:39:04. > :39:07.evidence do you have for this great success of social media? Here we
:39:07. > :39:12.have evidence, it is slightly different, you have consumer power.
:39:12. > :39:16.When you can put pressure on Ford, and all these companies. It is
:39:16. > :39:22.interesting, isn't t on the one hand you have the advertisers
:39:22. > :39:25.pulling out arguably, that is what pushed Murdoch to that point. Phone
:39:25. > :39:29.hacking may be illegal, but your magazine and plenty like it will
:39:29. > :39:33.still do the close-up of the zit or the bikini or the scruffy neck, or
:39:33. > :39:38.whatever else it is, and people will keep buying and reading it,
:39:38. > :39:41.that won't change? I think the British tabloid press has been a
:39:41. > :39:47.unique phenomenon around the world. There is nothing like it around the
:39:47. > :39:56.world. Particularly what Steve has been talking about tonight and Will,
:39:56. > :40:01.that self-righteous, faux fury, and social attitude, homophobia, and
:40:02. > :40:07.missojy, I totally agree with that. That genre of journalism is a weird
:40:07. > :40:12.thing. I think there may be a slow change in that. All the papers are
:40:13. > :40:21.being run by fairly old only o people, who think they have to -
:40:21. > :40:26.fairly old people, who think they have to appeal to "middle England".
:40:26. > :40:30.Our readers just want to see David Beckham's pants. Would you prefer a
:40:30. > :40:34.close-up lens to a hacked phone? There is a difference between a
:40:34. > :40:39.certain kind of fun, populist journalism than something which is
:40:39. > :40:43.vicious. I don't read Heat magazine but I know a lot of people who do.
:40:43. > :40:49.That to me sort of thing is the acceptable face. Of course people
:40:49. > :40:52.want to read about people's private lives. As Hugh Grant said the other
:40:52. > :40:57.day, it may be of interest to the public, but it is not in the public
:40:57. > :41:01.interest. There is a middle ground, it is not a either or that the
:41:01. > :41:06.tabloid listened tomorrow, you can have a healthy, populist press and
:41:06. > :41:12.a free press, as long as it is properly regulated. If you look at
:41:12. > :41:20.the Daily Mail, the print edition prints out the same stuff, the on-
:41:20. > :41:26.line version is all about Kim Kardazian in a bikini, there is
:41:26. > :41:29.room for an irref rent cheeky fun without it being vicious. It is the
:41:29. > :41:37.moralising tone that people object to? We had a marvellous
:41:37. > :41:43.demonstration of it in the earlier conversation, with the man from,
:41:43. > :41:46.the quandumemployee of News of the World, filling this rat-like feral
:41:46. > :41:51.persona and being beaten back by Steve with the sword of justice. I
:41:51. > :41:54.mean I wish I had everybody's faith that this is some kind of sea-
:41:54. > :42:03.change, I think what goes around comes around. And the interesting
:42:03. > :42:05.thing about the net is it is an awful coinage, it is a "glocal
:42:05. > :42:12.phenomenon", it is able to concentrate individuals in the
:42:12. > :42:17.cause of righteousness, but also purience too. The way our press
:42:17. > :42:20.works, this is typical of how we operate, that we go in pendulum
:42:20. > :42:24.swings, of course n a week's time people will be going, was that
:42:24. > :42:31.really bad, we shouldn't have let the News of the World fold, because
:42:31. > :42:36.it is taking us down the wrong line. Will that happen? I don't think it
:42:36. > :42:40.will happen, I think the argument that is presented that this idea
:42:40. > :42:45.our unique hypocritical way. I do think there is a strand of tabloid
:42:45. > :42:51.journalism that was powered by hacking. And hacking now, I think,
:42:51. > :42:54.is probably history. It was the steroid that allowed tabloid
:42:54. > :43:00.journalism to carry on surviving when it was in decline, take that
:43:00. > :43:03.away and what have you got left. We all move on-line and look at
:43:03. > :43:08.people's waistlines, maybe the really nasty stuff, the stuff where
:43:08. > :43:12.they turned nasty. The question, is this person anorexic or put on baby
:43:12. > :43:16.weight the next? It is not blackmail, it is not listening to
:43:16. > :43:20.people's private conversations and forcing them to out themselves or
:43:20. > :43:24.they will be publicly humiliated. What people talk about in pubs,
:43:24. > :43:31.people's body sizes, is on a completely different level to what
:43:31. > :43:35.you get on the horrible recesss. There has isn't been a damasine
:43:36. > :43:40.conversion, it is just they got caught and the only reason they are
:43:40. > :43:45.addressing this is because it hit them in the wallet and suddenly
:43:45. > :43:51.they grow a conscience. They will revert to type unless there is some
:43:51. > :43:54.sort of regulation. Also the reversion to type will also occur
:43:54. > :43:59.because people want to see celebrities brought low, or people
:43:59. > :44:07.in the public eye, there is a great popular appetite to that. That's
:44:07. > :44:10.not going to change? No, because it is symptomatic to the faux
:44:10. > :44:15.egalitarianism, the Big Brother culture of everyone being a star,
:44:15. > :44:19.QED, everyone can be dragged down from that as well. The elites will
:44:19. > :44:22.be still there, woven together? They will, but hopefully power will
:44:22. > :44:26.be dispersed a little bit from where it is at the moment, which is
:44:26. > :44:33.entirely in the centre of two or three. Why do you think that will
:44:33. > :44:40.happen? Because, base clik he - basically the aura of Murdoch has
:44:40. > :44:44.disappeared. I think he's in trouble, and people won't roll over,
:44:44. > :44:49.Governments won't kowtow, and Tony Blair won't fly to meet him and
:44:49. > :44:53.David Cameron won't go there. would like to think things will
:44:53. > :44:56.change, unless we have proper regulation, and the tabloids can no
:44:56. > :45:01.longer hide behind this idea that it is either freedom of the press
:45:01. > :45:05.or regulation, you can have proper regulation, not the PCC, they are a
:45:05. > :45:09.waste of time, and have a healthy free press, it is not either or.
:45:09. > :45:12.Thank you very much. Let's take you through tomorrow's papers. Front
:45:12. > :45:17.pages you probably guessed what they will say. The FT weekend has