08/07/2011 Newsnight

Could Cameron's man get slammed. As Andy Coulson's former newspaper

might have asked. There is an awful lot I would like to say but I can't.

As he helps Scotland Yard with their inquiries, the judgment of

his former patron is called into question. That is what I is it

decided and did, people will judge me for that, I understand that.

much did ljl this do to him, Labour's deputy leader and a

Conservative minister are here to cross swords, and comedian Steve

Coogan hopes this is the end to what he calls the gutter press.

Rebekah Brooks keeps her job, what cost to the industry, plans to

regulate the press. We ask Greg Dyke, who knows what it is to

resign, and a former News of the World hack, what could be lost. As

the News of the World is sunk by shots of all sides, we ask is this

week really a sea change for British culture?

Good evening. The headlines, the stuff of tabloid dreams, only this

time they are about one of their own. Andy Coulson has been arrested,

and released on bail, Rebekah Brooks has been removed from the

investigation, but not fired. Ofcom suggests the scandal may scupper

News International's takeover bid for BSkyB. This morning the Prime

Minister called for two inquiries, but faced repeated questions about

his own judgment. How much did he ask his former communications

director about his past, and how friendly is he still with the News

International family. Let's look at the damage the week's

events have inflicted on the Prime Minister.

Turning the blind eye, a phrase that stems from Admiral Nelson,

when he put a telescope to his blind eye, to ignore warning

signals at the battle of Copenhagen in 1801. But today it was David

Cameron accused of turning a blind eye, to warnings that his former

communications director, Andy Coulson, was up to his neck in the

phone hacking scandal. Tonight, Mr Coulson emerged from

Lewisham Police Station, where he had been formally arrested this

form - morning. REPORTER: Are you the fall guy? I can't say anything

at this stage. REPORTER: What do you think about Rebekah Brooks

keeping her job Mr Coulson? Excuse me, excuse me. He had been there

for nine hours. Grilled over possible offences of corruption,

and intercepting communications. He was released on bail until October.

Earlier, police went to the home of David Cameron's former spin doctor,

they left with a computer. First thing this morning, Coulson ace

former boss called a sudden - Coulson's former boss called a

sudden press conference, to try to stem the growing crisis. He took

responsibility for hiring Coulson. No-one gave me any specific

information. I sought and received assurances, I commissioned a

company to do a basic background check. But I'm not hiding from the

decision I made. I made a decision, there had been a police

investigation, someone went to prison, this editor had resigned,

he said he didn't know what was happening on his watch, he resigned

when he found out. I thought it was right to give that individual a

second chance. Mr Cameron confirmed there would be two inquiries, a

judicial one into phone hacking and other allegation, and the second

into the practices of the press. Politicians had got too close to

the media owners, he admitted. Prime Minister people want to know

are you going to sort this issue out, inquiries to get to the truth,

a proper police investigation, no cover up over what might happen in

previous police investigations and yes, some frankness about what the

politicians got wrong themselves. The relationship that became too

close, too cosy, we were all in this world of wanting the support

of newspaper groups and yes even broadcasting organisations. And

when we are doing that, do we spend enough time asking questions about

how these organisations are regulated and malpractices and the

rest of it, no we didn't, we have to, there is a new chance to do

that, that is what I'm saying we will do today. He admitted too, to

watching Newsnight. I watched your programme last night, so that is a

good start. On last night's Newsnight, the

Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, said he had warned Cameron's

advisers about Coulson before the election. There was an odd

situation, we knew there was a big murder trial coming which involved

one of the investigators Coulson had used, who had been in jail for

seven years. It seemed 0 reasonable to try to warn Cameron that he

shouldn't, before he took Coulson into Number Ten Downing Street, he

should just make some inquiries about this. I know I'm not the only

figure in Fleet Street who got this warning through to Cameron to say

beware. I pressed the PM today whether he

had grilled Coulson after the Guardian started making its

revelations two years ago. Shouldn't you have hauled Andy

Coulson in and said what's it all about and tell me everything, did

you do that at any point after 2009? On the issue of his leaving,

this was something we discussed before Christmas. It wasn't in the

light of any specific thing. It was sense that the second chance wasn't

working. Because he had been given a second chance, he was doing, I

thought, a very good job, working very hard for the Government for

the country. But was finding it impossible to do his job, because

of all the swirling allegations of what had happened at the News of

the World. The conclusion he came to, I think rightly, the second

chance wasn't working, I have to resign all over again for what

happened then, that was the decision that was made. In terms of

conversation. Shouldn't you have said, surely more is coming out,

tell us what is to come, anybody else would have done that surely?

That is not the conversation that was happening. The conversation was

that, even at that point, he was finding he couldn't do his job,

because of all the allegation that is were swirling around and

relating back. During the period of his employment, of course we

discussed this issue, but I never saw any reason to alter the fact

that the assurances he had given me, and I had accepted, and the job he

was doing for me. At no point after 2009 you hauled him in and said

what was going on? I did have conversations with him throughout

the period of employment. It never led me to change the fact of the

key assurance that I was given, that he didn't know what was

happening at the news of the world. The other issue is the proposed

takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. By

today's deadline the Culture Secretary had received an

unprecedented 160,000 public responses. And the Liberal Democrat

leader, Simon Hughes, has urged the regulator, Ofcom to decide whether

News Corp are fit and proper people to hold a broadcast license. Do you

think they are fit and proper? don't. The reason it is important,

is not just because I don't. But because I think if we are to have

standards for companies getting licensed to broadcast, you have to

respond to what the public mood is and the public think. The normal

meaning of fit and proper, is are they people who you can trust, who

are honest, and who are behaving in accordance with the law. Ofcom

But if Ofcom did decide News Corp wasn't fit and proper, that might

not just bar them from buying BSkyB outright, but also cause them to

lose the 39% of BSkyB they already own. This afternoon Rebekah Brooks,

the Murdoch's boss in Britain, was recorded addressing staff at the

News of the World in Wapping. They will lose their jobs when the paper

closes on Sunday. This is not exactly the best time in my life,

but, I'm determined to get vindication for this paper.

Today Brooks was taken off the Murdoch's internal inquiry into

what went wrong. Though she's still in overall charge of their British

papers. Despite David Cameron's strongly indicating she should go.

Joining me now in the studio, one of those caught up in the phone

hacking scandal, the comedian, Steve Coogan, the deputy Labour

leader, Harriet Harman, and the Government minister, Grant Chaps.

You reckon you were caught up in this, what is your reaction? I knew

this was coming for a long time. 18 months ago I was told by a senior

PR adviser not to pursue legal action because this day was dead

and buried, and Coulson was untouchable because he was at the

heart of Government. But I knew phone had been hacked, because my

phone provider indicated it. I intuitively knew it was the tabloid

press. Then when the story started to unfold, and there was the story

in the New York Times, my lawyer said did I want to ask if McMullan

had anything on you, and they got disclosure from the police that he

had my passwords, my phone accounts and a number of personal details,

and someone I was in a relationship at the time, lots of numbers and

they hacked into her phone as well. That was when I decided against

advice to take on legal action. I have to say, that this story has

come about, not because of the soul searching from David Cameron or the

tenacity of the opposition, or the police force, or even the Press

Complaints Commission. This has come about, not because of any of

those organisations, but because of the tenacity of the Guardian, and a

few individual who is had the guts to take on an intimidating

organisation. So, this happened to you a few years ago. What's been

your response to this week then? Momentous events? I have to say,

they are momentous events and people keep saying it is a very bad

day for the press. I think as wonderful day, it is a small

victory for decency and humanity. People knew this was going on.

Everyone knew about t but people accepted it and thought it was part

of the landscape to tolerate this kind of behaviour. I even think the

tabloid press, people talk about it as if they have fallen from their

huge high standards. They were already in the gutter, they just

sunk lower than anyone thought they could. It is not a surprise to me.

You say it wasn't down to soul searching by David Cameron, you

watched a lot of the press conferences this morning, what was

your impression? He had no choice. This whole story has had to be, the

Government has dragged their heels, the opposition didn't want to take

part in it, until very recently, didn't want to point the finger at

Murdoch. Let's not forget that the News of the World is, as far as I'm

concerned, and always has been, a missoingistic, Zen know dib

missojistic, zenophobic, single parent hating, asylum-seeker hating

and it has gone to the wall and I'm delighted. Did David Cameron draw a

line under it for you? The two inquiries are a good thing. If he

means what he says, then question, it is closing - yes, it is closing

the door after the horse has bolted. As Steve Coogan says, is it not

down to the Government, but they were dragged kicking and screaming

and David Cameron is part of it? Steve's right, we have all been

guilty in politics for a long time not being prepared to take on this

organisation. No-one has been prepared to say some of this is

blood curdlingly disgusting, and has got to the point where we have

to change the course of the British media. That means, today I don't

think was the end of it, as you suggested, but it is the beginning

of getting to the bottom of it. talk about getting to the point,

getting to the point would have been David Cameron having heeded

the warnings, that as you heard, Alan Rusbridger, are alleging, it

got through to him before he had even hired Andy Coulson? You heard

David Cameron's explanation that, in fact, he took the view this was

man who already resigned, having said he wasn't involved. He ignored

the advice? He resigned once, and he was undoubtedly a talented

person. Let's not get too pious about this, I think all politicians,

some of the media were to blame, no party has ever taken this on, the

previous Government didn't any more than we have. We have got to a

position where there will be two inquiries. Let's talk specifically

about Andy Coulson. He took on Andy Coulson with warnings from

newspaper editors that were given to his Chief-of-Staff and to others

very close to him, not to touch him, he ignored those? Two things, first

of all, David Cameron said very clearly the buck stops with him, he

takes full responsibility. It was his decision and he decided he

wanted to take on Andy Coulson. is extraordinary, he didn't ask him

any questions? One second, he decided he would take him on. The

second thing is, people usually do get a second chance, in fact, it

didn't work out, and he had to resign again. He didn't ask him

what was to come then? You heard that question to him this

morningment when he resigned he said, clearly there is worse to

come, what is that? You will remember, there was so much stuff

every single day in the press it became impossible to do the day-to-

day job, once you become the story it is impossible to do the job.

That is fairly key that the Prime Minister knows what is to come,

from the man who then advised him to take the next communications

head? You say why didn't the Prime Minister listen to an editor

telling him something, if he listened to an editor telling him

something every day, he would take different action every day. All the

papers give advice to the Prime Minister every day in their columns.

David Cameron said the buck stops with him, and it could have stopped

with your Government and you did very little? We could and should

have done something about it. Although Grant is right to say that

neither the previous story Government or this one had taken

action, nor the previous Labour Government. It was for very

different reasons. As far as I understand it, I think that the

stories, it wasn't in their interests to take on Murdoch,

because Murdoch was a paper, a media empire that was supporting

the Tories, it tueted them. suited - suited you at the time?

suited them to have an overmighty Murdoch press intimidating the

Labour Party. That was in their political vested interest, and they

let it go forward. For us he was a menacing presence, and obviously we

allowed ourselves to feel that even though we were in Government, and

they were just a media empire, that they were...We Never heard him

called a menacing presence, we had Tony Blair flying half way round

the world to Australia to meet him? This is my view about what actually

happened. We should have taken action. And actually the people

would have been more protected had we done that. I believe it was not

the people sitting down and saying we would like to do this, but we

can't, because Murdoch's too powerful. Blair was wrong? No, but

the relationship was wrong between the Government and the Murdoch

empire, and the relationship was wrong too between the Murdoch

empire and the police. We have now got an opportunity to sort this out,

and David Cameron's the Prime Minister. But he can't do this on

his own. He actually needs the opposition to be involved in equal

terms. We have to sort out the concentration of media ownership,

we have to sort out the Press Complaints Commission, which is

completely useless, and we have to make sure that whilst politicians

are not afraid of the press, nor are the press afraid of politicians.

Ed Miliband said for too long the political class have been too

concerned about what the people in the press think, and too slow to

speak out, we must all bear responsibility for that, his party

is not immune from it. What will change skrult as a result of your

leader saying that today. There will be no relationship between the

Labour Party and News Corp or News International? It is not across the

board that nobody is prepared to speak out. I would mention, as

Steve did, Nick Davies of the Guardian and his editor standing up

for him. They are hardly the former cabinet? Chris Bryant of the Labour

Party, Tom Watson, and Norman Fowler of the Tories, you have to

be brave. Norman Fowler no doubt they have private investigators all

over him. They are bullying and intimidating, if you go to the

press complaints commission they unleash a vendetta against you. We

have to work together on this. We both didn't do what we needed to do

for different reasons. Now they have to take the action, and we

have to be involved on equal terms to get it sorted out. A lot of your

cabinet turn up at News International parties, both sides

of you will write in the Sun and Murdoch publications, will that

stop now? The media is there, any Government or opposition have to do

it via the media. It is a fact of life. I doint not write for the

Guardian even though they don't support Conservatives. They are too

powerful, we have to sort out the concentration of power in the media.

It is true there hasn't been a preparedness to get to the heart of

it. It is not just about Murdoch, it is the press in general. The

Mail has been conspicuous by its rekal transon this, I think where's

- recalcitranc, where is Paul Deco, this inquiry will require him to be

forth coming. One of the rumours is there is worse to come, that is why

the News of the World has shut down. Are you prepared for that? The News

of the World is a private business that has to make its own decisions.

They are not just a private business. At one point, one of the

things we ought to do at this point is say, we should recognise and

reaffirm the absolute importance of the BBC. When James Murdoch comes

over here and says the BBC is a terrible thing and should be cut

down to size, we should take that as a real clue that the BBC is

incredibly important. There is a lot we agree on here, looking

forward the two independent investigations and another two by

the police, should help to unveil a lot of what is going on. This is a

new chapter and a chance to get things sorted. Are we going to work

together to get that sorted out. have to. We will come to the police

investigations in a second, Steve Coogan is staying with us.

This morning the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced an

independent inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, which will be led

by a judge. He said a second inquiry into examine the ethics and

culture of the press. This isn't, you will be thinking, the first

time anyone has called an inquiry on the subject, none of the

previous ones came close to clearing things up. What will

change this time round? A tale of bizarre connections, a

seemingly innocent story in the News of the World about Prince

William suffering a knee strain led Buckingham Palace to suspect his

phone had been hacked. The strain, it is safe to say, has spread well

beyond the royal leg. The Prime Minister has confirmed

two inquiries with one objective, find out what went wrong. The first,

into the police. One of the most worrying, some

might say sinister aspects of this whole affair, is how a supposedly

rigorous police investigation completely missed wholesale

evidence of what we now know was widespread wrongdoing by News of

the World journalists. Today, in outlining the terms of his first

inquiry, the Prime Minister listed three questions that he says

urgently need answers. Why did the first police investigation fail so

abysmally. What exactly was going on at the News of the World. And

what was going on at other newspapers. I want everything and I

want everyone to be clear. Everything that happened is going

to be investigated. The witnesses will be questioned, by a judge,

under oath. And no stone will be left unturned. The initial police

investigation that led to the jailing of the man on the left, the

News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and Paul McMullan,

the private investigator, uncovered thousands of names of tarts, and

get the police - targets, yet the police said there was no other

evidence of any other cases, even when they were led to review the

evidence in 2009. Our inquiries show in the vast majority of cases

there was insufficient evidence to show that tapping had actually been

achieved. At the same time the police found evidence of absolutely

nothing, the Information Commissioner found evidence of

plenty, not of hacking, but of the wholesale use, by journalist, of

illegally obtained data. What the Information Commissioner's Office

had discovered, by raiding a private investigator, was that

there were 31 national newspapers and magazines, and 305 journalists

working for them, they were making regular use of a private detective

to access information, which for the most part, was unlawfully

obtained. What is interesting is, if we look at the top of the

Information Commissioner's list of culprits from 2006, the News of the

World only comes fifth, well behind the Mail.

The second inquiry the Prime Minister announced today then is

into the culture, ethics and practices of the press,

particularly the way it is regulated. Press freedom does not

mean the press should be above the law. Yes, there is much excellent

journalism in Britain today. But I think it is now clear to everyone

that the way the press is regulated today is not working. Let's be

honest. The press complaints commission has failed. In this case,

in the hacking case, frankly, it was pretty much absent. In 2009,

the Guardian newspaper uncovered fresh evidence of the scale of the

hacking that had gone on at the News of the World. The press

complaints commission did investigate. But, they concluded it

was the Guardian that had got their facts wrong. They even hinted maybe

the journalist who wrote it was Whilst clearly not the Press

Complaints Commission's finest hour, they had based their investigation

on what the police had told them. Hacking was, and is, a criminal

offence. Could any regulatory bodey, however constituted, really be

expected uncover such practice when the police couldn't do so.

police said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone else.

As the Prime Minister said himself this morning, when he hired Andy

Coulson, he put great stead by the fact that the police inquiry had

said there was no other wrongdoing going on. I don't think that is a

reason for suggesting that the self-regulatory system doesn't work.

In calling for a wider review of the relationship between press and

politicians, David Cameron was echoing one of Tony Blair's final

speeches as PM. It is like a feral beast, tearing people and

reputations to bits. You have to start from the bottom line and

build up. In that sense it is a good thing that the Government have

announced this inquiry into the wider culture of the way the media

has been behaving. Because that gives everybody a chance to sit

down and look at some of the basic problems about the way the media

operates and try to find effective solutions. The News of the World

ran the stories it did, because it solds lots of newspapers the

fundamentally, can you change the culture of the media without

changing what people want? There has undoubtedly been widespread

public revulsion this week, but for how long will that revelgs last?

Joining me is the former victor general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, Paul

McMullan, who used to be deputy features editor at News of the

World, and Steve Coogan. Doesn't this smack of having to do

something, it could be an overreaction? What is happening

this week is much more profound than this. We have had 30 years in

this country where Governments have cosied up to News International and

the Murdoch operation, and I think this week that has been broken. I

think it will fundamentally change politics and the media in this

country. The darkest recesss of your industry, really laid bear

this week, something had to give, didn't it? What a loss it is going

to be. The biggest loss is that we are going to lose, I have always

said that I have tried to write articles in a truthful way, and

what better source of getting the truth is to listen to someone's

messages, that might sound frivolous, but several celebrities

have called us evil and scum, where as all we have ever tried to do.

What right have you got to listen to their messages, what possible

right? Let's bring in Steve Coogan. I have to say, you're walking PR

disaster for the tabloids, you don't come across in a sympathetic

way, you come across as a risable individual, who is sim tot

tomorrowatic of everything that is wrong with the tabloids d

symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the tabloids, it is just

selling newspapers and investigative journalist s. You are

not uncovering corruptions or bringing down institution that is

herently corrupt. It is just who is sleeping with who. If you want a

free press and democracy. That is absolute. You are nothing to do

with a free press or decent democracy. Garbage, you are hiding

between. If this silences the press. We can't catch politicians with

their trousers down, fiddling their expenses. You are not. Let Paul

answer. If this brings about a law that silences the press so we can

no longer catch politicians lying and cheating to the electorate who

voted them in. I'm not a politician. You are a small price to pay.

not a politician, why go after me. Milly Dowler's relatives aren't

politicians, why go after them, it is morally bankrupt, and you are

morally bankrupt. The whole notion of press freedom is a smoke screen

for selling newspapers with tittle tattle, and you hide behind this

whenever it comes up, it is absolute BS. You have a publicist,

you spend your entire life trying to get in the newspapers.

Absolutely I don't. Trying to work. I don't give interviews to the

tabloids because I'm interested in writing and entertaining the public

with the comedy that I right. getting in a Murdoch movie, how

many Murdoch movies have you been in. Listen I deal with Rupert

Murdoch already, I deal with his organisation. Why is it such a

great day. I'm talking about tabloid newspapers and the muck

raking you do. You take �5 million a movie and bleat about someone

listening to the newspapers. are morally bankrupt. If these

means were used for example to hunt down Ian Huntly instead of the

Soham girls, would we find it less morally reprehensible, the answer

is probably question? You see very occasionally there are public

interest case, but most of the time no. Most of the journalists were

well meaning. These boys just phone happened anyone they could think of.

Even when it looks laudible, like Sarah's Law, it is nothing to do

with a moral imperative. I was proud of naming and shaming, I was

the journalist who did it. It is all selling newspapers, if you do

something laudible or despicable it is about selling newspapers.

However strongly you feel about this, do you look at this inquiry

or the possibility of regulation and think hurray, it will be fine?

No, I think it may temper the behaviour. What has happened is the

broadsheets have colluded with the tabloids, because they think the

price of a free press is letting these people shovel crap. You don't

have to do that, you can have a free press and regulate the

tabloids. The world will be a better place because we won't be

able to expose silly celebrities cheating on their wives and taking

coke, which I always found a bit of fun. So the world will be a better

place if you are regulated? This guy sat outside my house, it is a

risable deplorable. It was a nice house. You were in the Green Room

talking about the number of houses you bought this year, we feel sorry

for you. What do you think actually will change in the tabloid press

from this year to next?. There will have to be regulation. There is no

doubt. The idea that it will be a voluntary system is ridiculous.

This is illegal, phone hacking is illegal, why didn't Ofcom? I didn't

say Ofcom, something. If you look at broadcasting, these guys who sit

here saying it is the end of the freedom of the press, it is

nonsense. Broadcasting has always been regulated. Broadcasters do a

much greater job and much better job than half of the tabloid press

in serious issues. What he is talking about is just tittle tattle.

But do you know what there are a lot of times when the News of the

World gets an amazing scoop and it exposes the thing that everyone

wanted to know about, and then everyone is praising them, the fake

Sheikh, nobody complain about it then? Very occasionally, Hitler was

nice to dogs. That is why we don't have a Hitler in this country, we

have nice politicians, like Mr Clegg, because the bad guys walk

into the spotlight. When did you last expose a bad guy, you don't,

you shuffle...We Shovel that to sell five million copies, and in

order when we do something good it comes on. You seem like a slightly

tortured soul, are you questioning what you do more than you did in

the past, will you stop doing it? No, I have always been a journalist,

I have always tried to write articles that tittle late,

entertain and shine a bit of light on to the grubby, shallow lives

that some people who present themselves in a completely

different life. I spent most of my life being a journalist and I'm

nothing to do with him. I don't think you should be called a

journalist, you are not a journalist, you know you're not

deep down, you keep justifying yourself and being wheeled out this

whole week because nobody else can be bothered here. You are here as

well. There is a load of celebrities jumping on the back of

it, Hugh Grant hasn't done a movie for two years. The celebrities in

your newspapers and a lot of the other tabloids did not pursue this

story at all, it was one column inch in the Sunday papers. Just

respond to that, there are people saying, there are a lot of celebs

who do court the case? I won't make any money out on this, if they give

me damagesly give it to a Victim Support group. I'm not interested

in the money. It is a question about using the wider press to put

yourself out there? If they never wrote another word about me I would

be delighted, I don't court them. You walk down a red carpet and pose

at the cameras. Is the public still with you on this? Sadly not, you

have to get rid of the emotion so you can think about it rationally,

Britain will be a poorer place without it.

We have to end it there, thank you very much.

The revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone fuelled

discussions on websites, homes and pubs, that public anger forced many

of the events of this week, culminating in the closure of the

News of the World. Will the much cited public anger really prompt a

permanent change in our culture going forward.

For people watching this scandal unfold, there is something very

disturbing about what they see. Just think of who they put their

trust in, the police to protect them, the politicians to represent

them and the press to inform them. And all of them have been let down.

Trust in the establishment has been shaken time and again over the last

five years, and the public has not been slow to voice its anger with

the banks who look after their money. At the politicians who

fiddled their expenses. Mrs Beckett, are you going to pay back the �7

2,000 that you have taken after your mealy mouthed answer trying to

explain that yourself? No, I'm not, because, as I pointed out a moment

ago. (boos and hisses) And now at the press, who abuse public privacy.

Advertisers fleeing from the News of the World were reacting to the

voice of the people. And both tweeters and those on Mumsnet claim

credit for the close of a 168-year- old institution. The status quo was

turned on its head as celebrity targets attacked tabloid

journalists. You have mo morals or scruple, you didn't care who got

hurt, because you just wanted to sell your newspaper, you have no

interest in journalism, it is just money. Will all this sound and fury

amount to a permanent change in attitudes to our institutions.

Steve Coogan is still here and I'm joined by the Mumsnet founder,

Justine Roberts, Will Self and the editor of Heat magazine. The big

question, is this a proper sea change, will something permanently

change, Will? I rather suspect not. I kind of blame the people actually,

I think a lot of energy is concentrated on looking for the bad

apples or the agency that is involved in this. But the fact of

the matter is that there is a uby- election to us appetite for what

the - ubiquitious appetite for what they peddle. Now Mrs A electronic

media that does the same job as the newspapers does. This whole

embrogula, is eppi phenomenal, this is something happening between the

tectonic plates. You are saying the public hasn't had a shift to make

it stop? With the greatest will of the world to the British public,

they went out and bought the News of the World year in and out, they

wanted to put their money up for Help for Heros, or whatever

paedophile bashing campaign it was, but at the same time they were

involved in the titilation, it is Oscar Wilde, the native land of the

hypocrite. I think the public did get involved, public on social

media got involved for the first time, we saw what social media can

do when people individually decide to take direct action when they are

disgusting by that. I think that is a change. We have been relying on

print media to do this job for us, barring a few notable exceptions

they just haven't. We have been relying on the police and the

Government. All those institutions have failed. But up stepped a lot

of angry individuals, Milly Dowler made that sea-change in people's

thoughts. We are getting used to the uprising of the angry

individual, the comparison has been made, not least by Cameron, of the

bankers and the financial crisis, and of course, at the MPs expense,

each of these are landmark moments do you think this is one, do you

think it will have a permanentance? I think there will be a permanence,

if the fundamental issue is addressed. There is too much power

concentrated in the hands of media moing gulls. Why were the

Government running scared, why was the media running scared, they were

all terrified of being turned over by essentially a blackmailing

racket. Does that still exist at the top? I think the spell is

broken because ordinary people on Twitter, on Facebook on Mumsnet.

The ordinary people have done such a great job in changing the

financial set up of the country since 2008 or changing the

parliamentary set up of the country since the expenses scandal, what

evidence do you have for this great success of social media? Here we

have evidence, it is slightly different, you have consumer power.

When you can put pressure on Ford, and all these companies. It is

interesting, isn't t on the one hand you have the advertisers

pulling out arguably, that is what pushed Murdoch to that point. Phone

hacking may be illegal, but your magazine and plenty like it will

still do the close-up of the zit or the bikini or the scruffy neck, or

whatever else it is, and people will keep buying and reading it,

that won't change? I think the British tabloid press has been a

unique phenomenon around the world. There is nothing like it around the

world. Particularly what Steve has been talking about tonight and Will,

that self-righteous, faux fury, and social attitude, homophobia, and

missojy, I totally agree with that. That genre of journalism is a weird

thing. I think there may be a slow change in that. All the papers are

being run by fairly old only o people, who think they have to -

fairly old people, who think they have to appeal to "middle England".

Our readers just want to see David Beckham's pants. Would you prefer a

close-up lens to a hacked phone? There is a difference between a

certain kind of fun, populist journalism than something which is

vicious. I don't read Heat magazine but I know a lot of people who do.

That to me sort of thing is the acceptable face. Of course people

want to read about people's private lives. As Hugh Grant said the other

day, it may be of interest to the public, but it is not in the public

interest. There is a middle ground, it is not a either or that the

tabloid listened tomorrow, you can have a healthy, populist press and

a free press, as long as it is properly regulated. If you look at

the Daily Mail, the print edition prints out the same stuff, the on-

line version is all about Kim Kardazian in a bikini, there is

room for an irref rent cheeky fun without it being vicious. It is the

moralising tone that people object to? We had a marvellous

demonstration of it in the earlier conversation, with the man from,

the quandumemployee of News of the World, filling this rat-like feral

persona and being beaten back by Steve with the sword of justice. I

mean I wish I had everybody's faith that this is some kind of sea-

change, I think what goes around comes around. And the interesting

thing about the net is it is an awful coinage, it is a "glocal

phenomenon", it is able to concentrate individuals in the

cause of righteousness, but also purience too. The way our press

works, this is typical of how we operate, that we go in pendulum

swings, of course n a week's time people will be going, was that

really bad, we shouldn't have let the News of the World fold, because

it is taking us down the wrong line. Will that happen? I don't think it

will happen, I think the argument that is presented that this idea

our unique hypocritical way. I do think there is a strand of tabloid

journalism that was powered by hacking. And hacking now, I think,

is probably history. It was the steroid that allowed tabloid

journalism to carry on surviving when it was in decline, take that

away and what have you got left. We all move on-line and look at

people's waistlines, maybe the really nasty stuff, the stuff where

they turned nasty. The question, is this person anorexic or put on baby

weight the next? It is not blackmail, it is not listening to

people's private conversations and forcing them to out themselves or

they will be publicly humiliated. What people talk about in pubs,

people's body sizes, is on a completely different level to what

you get on the horrible recesss. There has isn't been a damasine

conversion, it is just they got caught and the only reason they are

addressing this is because it hit them in the wallet and suddenly

they grow a conscience. They will revert to type unless there is some

sort of regulation. Also the reversion to type will also occur

because people want to see celebrities brought low, or people

in the public eye, there is a great popular appetite to that. That's

not going to change? No, because it is symptomatic to the faux

egalitarianism, the Big Brother culture of everyone being a star,

QED, everyone can be dragged down from that as well. The elites will

be still there, woven together? They will, but hopefully power will

be dispersed a little bit from where it is at the moment, which is

entirely in the centre of two or three. Why do you think that will

happen? Because, base clik he - basically the aura of Murdoch has

disappeared. I think he's in trouble, and people won't roll over,

Governments won't kowtow, and Tony Blair won't fly to meet him and

David Cameron won't go there. would like to think things will

change, unless we have proper regulation, and the tabloids can no

longer hide behind this idea that it is either freedom of the press

or regulation, you can have proper regulation, not the PCC, they are a

waste of time, and have a healthy free press, it is not either or.

Thank you very much. Let's take you through tomorrow's papers. Front

pages you probably guessed what they will say. The FT weekend has