:00:10. > :00:13.Tonight, the buck stops here, with two of the most powerful men in the
:00:13. > :00:18.world, James and Rupert Murdoch, they kept telling MPs they simply
:00:18. > :00:22.didn't know what was really going on in the organisation they run.
:00:22. > :00:25.Nobody in your UK company brought this fact to your attention. No.
:00:25. > :00:30.you think that might be because they thought you might think
:00:30. > :00:36.nothing of it? No. We will pass judgment with the help of a Tory MP
:00:36. > :00:39.from the committee, and two former News of the World reporters. She
:00:39. > :00:44.revealed who head hunted Andy Coulson into Government in the
:00:44. > :00:47.first place. It was George Osborne the Chancellor's idea that when
:00:47. > :00:51.Andy Coulson left the News of the World they should start discussions
:00:51. > :00:55.with him. More on the puzzle of which police chief said what to
:00:55. > :00:59.Downing Street official, as the scandal appears to move nearer to
:00:59. > :01:02.Number Ten. Home Office Minister, Damian Green
:01:02. > :01:06.is here. Are we getting close to Watergate
:01:06. > :01:10.moment, we will ask Earl Spencer, who complained of the press
:01:10. > :01:18.hounding his sister, Princess Diana, Will Self and the Watergate
:01:18. > :01:21.investigator, Carl Bernstein. Good evening, it was billed as the
:01:21. > :01:26.day when the mother of parliaments would finally get to grips with the
:01:26. > :01:30.mother of all scandals. Instead of the what do they know and when did
:01:30. > :01:32.they know it from Watergate, today's hearings were about what
:01:32. > :01:35.James and Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks claimed they did not
:01:35. > :01:41.know in the organisation they run. Was this a display of openness, or
:01:41. > :01:51.is there a cover-up, if the Murdochs haven't a clue who ordered
:01:51. > :01:59.
:01:59. > :02:03.We start with a committee in London's parliament...Rupert
:02:03. > :02:08.Murdoch has probably done more to change the look and feel of TV news
:02:08. > :02:15.than anyone. His channels often push the boundaries. News of the
:02:15. > :02:19.World is under the microscope today, we will be talking about it a lot.
:02:19. > :02:26.Today, though, a more uncomfortable position at the other end of the
:02:26. > :02:29.lens, in the glare of the beast, he helped create.
:02:29. > :02:35.Rupert Murdoch has arrived at British parliament. Snappers chased
:02:35. > :02:39.Rupert Murdoch as he left his home. Once inside parliament, the
:02:39. > :02:45.snappers were left behind, but in front of him, and his son, two
:02:45. > :02:51.hours of questioning. First of all I would like to say just how sorry
:02:51. > :02:55.I am, and how sorry we are. Murdoch junior began by saying
:02:55. > :03:00.sorry, but as he developed his theme of contrition, and
:03:00. > :03:06.explanation, watch for his father's hands on his arm. I would just like
:03:06. > :03:11.to say, one sentence, this is the most humble day of my life.
:03:11. > :03:16.This was not the media tyrant that some of today's billing had
:03:16. > :03:20.promised, he was more faltering and forgetful than fierce and forensic.
:03:20. > :03:30.Were you informed about the findings by hur son Mr Murdoch or
:03:30. > :03:33.
:03:33. > :03:37.by Rebekah Brooks? I forget, but I expect it was my
:03:37. > :03:42.son, I was in daily contact with them both. As his wife sat directly
:03:42. > :03:45.behind him, nudges him to tell him to stop banging the table, Rupert
:03:45. > :03:52.Murdoch explains that many of the details of who knew what and when
:03:52. > :03:58.were below his pay grade. This is not an excuse, maybe it is an
:03:58. > :04:04.explanation, my laxity, the News of the World is less than 1% of our
:04:04. > :04:13.company, I employ 5 3,000 people around the world, who are proud and
:04:13. > :04:20.great and ethical and distinguished people, professionals in their life,
:04:20. > :04:23.and perhaps I'm spread watching and appointing people whom I trust to
:04:23. > :04:27.run those divisions. One thing that we did have
:04:27. > :04:30.confirmed today was that after the News of the World's royal editor,
:04:30. > :04:34.Clive Goodman, and the private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, went
:04:34. > :04:39.to prison for phone hacking, News of the World continued to write
:04:39. > :04:43.checks towards the pair's legal fees. James Murdoch told the
:04:43. > :04:46.committee today he didn't know who authorised the payments. I can tell
:04:46. > :04:50.you I was as surprised as you are to find that some of those
:04:50. > :04:55.arrangements had been made. Murdoch senior I seem to be getting
:04:55. > :05:00.further with you, for which I'm grateful, would it have been Les
:05:00. > :05:02.Hinton? Would he have agreed, would he have had to sign that? It could
:05:02. > :05:07.have been. It could have been, would have been or could have been?
:05:07. > :05:12.It could have been. Who else could it have been? The chief legal
:05:12. > :05:15.officer. We got a glimpse today of what it's like to be Rupert Murdoch,
:05:15. > :05:20.Prime Ministers are desperate to see him, and desperate that we
:05:20. > :05:24.don't see him. Why did you enter the back door at Number Ten when
:05:24. > :05:30.you visited the Prime Minister following the last general
:05:30. > :05:36.election? Because I was asked to. You were asked to go in the back
:05:36. > :05:43.door of Number Ten? Yes. Why would that be? To avoid photographers in
:05:43. > :05:46.the front, I don't know, I just did what I was told. It's strange that
:05:46. > :05:53.given heads of state manage to go in the front door. Yes. Yet you
:05:53. > :05:58.have to go in the back door. Yes. I was invited within days to have a
:05:58. > :06:02.cup of tea to be thanked for the support by Mr Cameron. No other
:06:02. > :06:08.conversation took place. It lasted minutes. That was the one you went
:06:08. > :06:12.in through the back door. Yes. I had been asked also by Mr Brown,
:06:12. > :06:16.many times. Through the back door. Yes.
:06:16. > :06:20.And remember Gordon Brown's roaring speech in the Commons saying how he
:06:20. > :06:24.went to war with Rupert Murdoch. Well, that's not quite the version
:06:24. > :06:28.we got today. Did any senior politicians that you are in contact
:06:28. > :06:34.with, or you were in contact with during that period of time, raise
:06:34. > :06:37.this as an issue with that, raise concerns about phone hacking.
:06:37. > :06:41.Absolutely not, the politician I met most was Mr Brown when
:06:41. > :06:46.Chancellor of the Exchequer, his wife and my wife struck up quite a
:06:46. > :06:51.friendship, and our children played together on many occasions. And I'm
:06:51. > :06:55.very sorry that I'm no longer, I felt he had great values, which I
:06:55. > :06:59.shared with him, and I'm sorry that we have come apart, and I hope one
:06:59. > :07:03.day we will be able to put it together again. The confidentiality
:07:03. > :07:07.clause. As the last MP began questioning the Murdochs, there was
:07:07. > :07:12.an attack on Rupert Murdoch, by a member of the public, it would have
:07:12. > :07:18.been worse, had Mr Murdoch's wife not been so quick to his defence. A
:07:18. > :07:22.man was led away in handcuffs, the committee resumed, Mr Murdoch
:07:22. > :07:27.without his splattered jacket, it finished with a prepared statement.
:07:27. > :07:31.I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how
:07:31. > :07:38.completely and deeply sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what
:07:38. > :07:45.has happened, still, I want them to know the depth of my regret for the
:07:45. > :07:50.horrible invasion noose their lives. I fully understand their ire, I
:07:50. > :07:53.intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness. The next witness
:07:54. > :07:58.was Rebekah Brooks, until last week the chief executive of News
:07:58. > :08:01.International, and editor of the News of the World, at the time when
:08:01. > :08:08.Milly Dowler's phone was hacked. She told the committee she had no
:08:08. > :08:11.knowledge of what happened. seems incredible that you as the
:08:11. > :08:15.editor were so unaware with fundamental issues to do with the
:08:15. > :08:20.investigation. In some ways I think the opposite, I don't know anyone
:08:20. > :08:25.in their right mind who would authorise, know, sanction, approve
:08:25. > :08:28.of, anyone listening to the voicemails of Milly Dowler in those
:08:28. > :08:32.circumstances. I just don't know anyone who would think it was a
:08:32. > :08:38.right and proper thing to do at this time, or at any time, and I
:08:38. > :08:42.know we know a lot more now, but that's all I can tell you.
:08:42. > :08:47.And what of her supposedly cosy relationship with David Cameron, no,
:08:47. > :08:57.she said, she had never been horse riding with the Prime Minister.
:08:57. > :09:01.truth is that he is a neighbour, a friend, but I deem the relationship
:09:01. > :09:04.to be wholly appropriate, and at no time have I ever had any
:09:04. > :09:12.conversation with the Prime Minister that you in the room would
:09:12. > :09:15.disapprove of. A dramatic day has wrapped up in
:09:15. > :09:18.testimony in the News of the World phone hacking scandal. In the end
:09:18. > :09:23.after all that detail and questioning, it all comes down to
:09:23. > :09:27.one question, do you believe the Murdoch account? Absolutely shocked,
:09:27. > :09:31.appalled and ashamed when I heard. Or not.
:09:31. > :09:37.I'm joined now by the former News of the World Glenn Mulcaire, the
:09:37. > :09:42.News of the World former politic - Mr McMullen, and one of the members
:09:42. > :09:45.of the committee who questioned the Murdochs today, Louise Mensch.
:09:46. > :09:51.First of all, were you frustrated that a lot of the answers to the
:09:51. > :09:56.questions were, "I have no knowledge of that", "I don't know
:09:56. > :10:00.what was going on there"? thrust of my questions at the end
:10:00. > :10:03.of the session, after the pie- throwing incident, was to ask the
:10:03. > :10:06.Murdochs if they didn't know, why didn't they know. That was the
:10:06. > :10:09.overarching question that came out of the session. They were clear
:10:09. > :10:13.they didn't know, they hadn't been informed, it seemed strange to me
:10:13. > :10:18.as I asked them, that Mr Murdoch senior had not been informed about
:10:18. > :10:23.such serious wrongdoing at one of his papers. It seemed Tobruk a
:10:23. > :10:31.failure of corporate governance at - to be a failure of corporate
:10:31. > :10:34.governance at News Corp. Was it a failure of governance or did you
:10:34. > :10:37.believe them? I challenged the Murdochs earlier on Newsnight that
:10:37. > :10:42.it would do them good to come before the committee and answer
:10:42. > :10:47.questions in depth, I found their answers mostly convincing w a
:10:47. > :10:50.couple of exceptions. The idea was floated to us that they wouldn't
:10:50. > :10:55.have noticed News of the World because it is such a tiny part of
:10:55. > :10:59.their media operation, that didn't seem credible t may be small in
:10:59. > :11:04.monetary terms, but as we have seen it is huge in reputational terms.
:11:04. > :11:08.That didn't strike me as credible. You put directly to Rupert Murdoch
:11:08. > :11:12.if he took responsibility for this, he said, no, do you accept that?
:11:12. > :11:15.put it to him that he ultimately is the head of the global company, and
:11:15. > :11:19.this happened on his watch, and if other people have considered their
:11:19. > :11:23.positions and resigned, would he consider his position and resign,
:11:23. > :11:26.that was a question that had to be asked of him. And his answer was
:11:26. > :11:32.that he had been too far above it to notice it, he delegated it down,
:11:32. > :11:35.and he could fix the problem. I did challenge the Murdochs, both Rupert
:11:35. > :11:38.and James Murdoch to institute massive review in their newsrooms
:11:38. > :11:42.and properties around the world and they said they would do so. He also
:11:42. > :11:51.said it was down to people that he trusted, and People Like Us they
:11:51. > :11:55.trusted, who are these people, you didn't drill down into that? This
:11:55. > :12:02.is the subject of a judicial and police investigation, when the
:12:02. > :12:07.questions were crafted from committees, we had the speaker from
:12:07. > :12:12.the hoims, and others from the House of Commons posed to Mrs
:12:12. > :12:15.Brooks, we had on a number of questions, not on too many, James
:12:15. > :12:19.Murdoch would say he couldn't answer it because of the police
:12:19. > :12:21.investigation, we were advised by counsel that we couldn't press
:12:21. > :12:26.further because of the police investigation. Did you broadly
:12:26. > :12:29.believe what you heard today? from Rupert, but not from anybody
:12:29. > :12:34.else. I was disappointed, possibly with the exception of yourself,
:12:34. > :12:41.with the quality of the question, they let them get away with, well,
:12:41. > :12:45.just a lot of nonsense, from I thought Rebekah Brooks. Like what?
:12:45. > :12:49.I was disappointed by James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, they are still
:12:49. > :12:56.blaming us, they are still blaming the reporters. We did these things
:12:56. > :12:59.for them, we went to the nth degree to get a story. The culture under
:12:59. > :13:02.Rebekah Brooks was you will do anything to get that story. I
:13:02. > :13:06.remember she said to me, I like McMullan, because he would turn
:13:06. > :13:09.over his own grandmother. That was the idea, that was the ethos, you
:13:09. > :13:14.will, where the biggest English language newspaper in the world,
:13:14. > :13:17.and we will remain that by having the best and most ruthless and
:13:17. > :13:23.dedicated reporters. So when they kept saying things like it is
:13:23. > :13:27.people they trusted, maybe people they trusted? He meant Rebekah
:13:27. > :13:31.Brooks probably. What did you think of it? I must take Paul on here, I
:13:31. > :13:34.have worked in executive roles in a number of newspaper, and I have got
:13:34. > :13:38.that pressure. I have had that steely look from the editor on a
:13:38. > :13:42.Thursday morning, what have we got, what we will put on page one, or
:13:42. > :13:47.two, three, four, five, six and seven, this list is rubbish, what
:13:47. > :13:50.will we do it. I don't go out and break the law, we try to get it by
:13:50. > :13:54.proper endeavour and old fashioned journalism, that is what we do.
:13:54. > :13:59.What we saw today, if Paul is saying here that he has been told
:13:59. > :14:04.by Rebekah Brooks to hack a phone, you know, say it. It was a bit more
:14:04. > :14:09.subtle, certainly, as we know, there were two whistle-blowers in
:14:09. > :14:14.this, one is now dead, amazingly and tragically, I was the other one,
:14:14. > :14:17.so it could be worse, I'm still here, but no, it was more coded
:14:17. > :14:22.language. When there was a big story breaking and it was getting
:14:22. > :14:27.towards Friday, and you really had to bring it in, Rebekah Brooks
:14:27. > :14:34.would either use the phrase "you must make it work ". There you are,
:14:34. > :14:38.use any means possible? Nobody has ever said that to me. They say
:14:38. > :14:44.there is a story you have to make a story by getting the facts, going
:14:44. > :14:48.out and meeting contacts. From the horse's mouth on the answer phone.
:14:48. > :14:52.It never crossed my mind, those thrown out of work because of
:14:52. > :14:59.things people like you have done, and be smerpblged the name of a
:14:59. > :15:04.good paper. You - You work in the lobby, it is a different world.
:15:04. > :15:08.have been a news reporter as well. It is different pressures than the
:15:08. > :15:12.world he has been in? I have been a news editor, running a team. Let me
:15:12. > :15:16.bring in Tina Brown, you are an editor, one of the questions where
:15:16. > :15:21.they did seem to get traction today was following the money. What we
:15:21. > :15:31.did find out was the legal fees of Mulcaire and Goodman were part paid
:15:31. > :15:33.
:15:33. > :15:39.by News International, do you think this should be followed up, because
:15:39. > :15:43.somebody somewhere must have signed off the cash somewhere? One of the
:15:43. > :15:47.most humorous things I found was neither of them had any knowledge
:15:47. > :15:52.of who it was that directed these cheques to be signed. Which just
:15:52. > :15:56.didn't seem credible to me. It is the most evil-smelling aspect of
:15:56. > :16:01.this case that smulsmul, the hackers continued to have their -
:16:01. > :16:04.Mulcaire, the hackers, continued to have their legal fees paid, after
:16:04. > :16:08.doing something they claimed to be so abhorrent. It was Mulcaire
:16:08. > :16:11.hacking into the phone of Milly Dowler. On the one hand they are
:16:11. > :16:16.saying it is abhorrent, but on the other hand they are paying his
:16:16. > :16:20.legal fees still, that seemed to be the most rich area of obvious
:16:20. > :16:26.weakness in their case. What about the general principle of I didn't
:16:26. > :16:32.know, didn't ask, I wasn't told, it was a small part of my business?
:16:32. > :16:36.is odd to me, obviously Rupert is right he has an enormous company.
:16:36. > :16:42.15 2,000. I do think he used to be far more involved in the British
:16:42. > :16:45.papers than today, in the past very much involved, now, he's far more
:16:45. > :16:49.engrossed in the American aspect of his company, it is where he lives
:16:49. > :16:52.and socialises, it is where his wife is involved, and his biggest
:16:52. > :16:57.business interests are, at the same time, he does remain very
:16:57. > :17:02.interested in stories, it is the fun part, in a sense, of his life.
:17:02. > :17:05.When he, I think Philip Davies said, what do you say when you call the
:17:05. > :17:09.News of the World editor, he said yes he called him on Saturday night
:17:09. > :17:14.and I would ask what's doing, have you a good story for tomorrow. The
:17:14. > :17:16.truth is the next question he would normally ask is how did you get it.
:17:17. > :17:24.Because Rupert is actually interested in the process of
:17:25. > :17:28.journalism. To me it doesn't ring true that he would was - that he
:17:28. > :17:31.was such a disinterested Monarch. He's interested in stories, how
:17:31. > :17:35.they are got, who they are doing over, and what is the method, he's
:17:35. > :17:39.interested in that kind of stuff, that surprised me. One further
:17:39. > :17:44.thought, in terms of how this will go down on Wall Street, how this
:17:44. > :17:48.will go down in confidence in his kblt to steer the Murdoch empire in
:17:48. > :17:52.the future, what do you make of that? It is all down to the foreign,
:17:52. > :18:01.the Corruption Act, the foreign practices Corruption Act that is
:18:01. > :18:06.the thing in play. If anyone can show that the News of the World
:18:06. > :18:12.hacked into an American citizen on American soil, they were very
:18:12. > :18:16.slippery on the 9/11 question, did anyone hack into the 9/11 victim, I
:18:16. > :18:20.didn't think James was as solid in his answer as I would have thought
:18:20. > :18:24.he would be, that would be a big problem if proven. I think Rupert
:18:24. > :18:29.will hang on to his company, not sure what will happen to James. In
:18:29. > :18:37.this story the shoes keep dropping, something incredible could happen
:18:37. > :18:44.tomorrow. As shore shoe here, everybody seems to agree - another
:18:44. > :18:49.shoe here, everybody seems to think Rupert has news in his veins, it is
:18:49. > :18:52.inconceivable he would not ask questions? A lot of newspapers is
:18:52. > :18:57.delegating. I don't report to my editor where I get my stories from,
:18:57. > :19:03.the editor wouldn't talk up to him on how he's managing the paper, it
:19:03. > :19:06.just difs him the broad brush stuff. - Gives him the broad brush stuff.
:19:06. > :19:11.Rupert Murdoch was the only one that defended journalism, saying it
:19:11. > :19:15.made society better. I thought he would say sometimes it is justified
:19:15. > :19:19.to hack into a corrupt MP's phone, and just talking to the common man,
:19:19. > :19:24.I always ask the taxi driver on the way in, he said it was outrageous
:19:24. > :19:29.that our boys are being sent home in body bags from Afghanistan and
:19:29. > :19:36.we still have politicians with their trousers round their ankles,
:19:36. > :19:39.you should carry on hacking into their phones. I take it you don't
:19:39. > :19:43.agree? I don't think the public expect a policeman to be bribed. I
:19:43. > :19:51.don't think anyone thinks the law should be broken on account of
:19:51. > :19:55.these, most of the time, pretty frivolous hackings. Just to mention,
:19:55. > :19:58.were you kind of disappointed you didn't get to the bottom of it?
:19:58. > :20:02.got all the answers we were going to get given there is a judicial
:20:02. > :20:07.inquiry, and in the case of Rebekah Brooks an on going active police
:20:07. > :20:10.investigation. I think we exposed what needed to be exposed, the on
:20:10. > :20:12.going payments of legal fees to Glenn Mulcaire and asked the
:20:12. > :20:15.questions people wanted to hear, have you hacked the 9/11 phones,
:20:16. > :20:21.have you considered resigning, these questions were put directly
:20:21. > :20:25.to the owners of News Corp. That, I think, was extremely important.
:20:25. > :20:28.What interested me was the way Mr Murdoch said "we have a free
:20:28. > :20:32.society", he was referring, although he's technically an
:20:32. > :20:36.American, he was referring to Britain, when he contrasted us to
:20:36. > :20:40.the United States, he said we are society in contrast to the American
:20:40. > :20:43.society, of which he is a citizen. So I think he take as lively
:20:43. > :20:47.interest, it may be one of the reasons he agreed to testify to
:20:47. > :20:50.parliament today. As usual with this story, it was
:20:50. > :20:53.multidimensional, beyond the Murdochs and the former News of the
:20:53. > :20:57.World editor, Rebekah Brooks, we also heard from Sir John Stevens,
:20:57. > :21:01.on what was probably his last day as chief of the Metropolitan Police.
:21:01. > :21:04.Another strand to the web of relationships between the former
:21:04. > :21:10.News of the World journalists and people in power, the Conservative
:21:10. > :21:15.Party confirmed that the PR adviser to Sir Paul, Neil Wallis, was on
:21:15. > :21:25.informal advisor to David Cameron's chief, Andy Coulson, before the
:21:25. > :21:25.
:21:25. > :21:28.last election. We unpick the police We heard today from three key
:21:28. > :21:32.police witnesses, commissioner Sir John Stevens who resigned at the
:21:32. > :21:36.weekend. Dick Fedorcio head of the media department, and Assistant
:21:36. > :21:38.Commissioner, John Yates, who resigned yesterday. All three are
:21:38. > :21:42.being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints
:21:42. > :21:46.Commisssion. Making sense of the tens of thousands of words of
:21:46. > :21:50.evidence made today, requires an understanding of the kind of
:21:50. > :21:53.hypothesis being pursued by MPs. It runs something like this, News of
:21:53. > :21:56.the World journalists were paying corrupt police officers for
:21:56. > :22:00.information, and their bosses at News of the World knew all about it
:22:00. > :22:02.and helped cover it up. Police officers themselves were in awe of
:22:02. > :22:06.their relationships with News of the World executives and this
:22:06. > :22:10.coloured their judgment and led them to pull their punches on the
:22:10. > :22:15.investigation, effectively letting the Murdoch empire off the hook.
:22:15. > :22:18.That's the can conspiracy theory, but to what extent did evidence
:22:18. > :22:23.heard today support those ideas? Much of the controversy today
:22:23. > :22:26.concerns the Met's relationship with this man, Neil Wallis, former
:22:26. > :22:30.News of the World deputy editor. After leaving News of the World, Mr
:22:31. > :22:36.Wallis set up a freelance PR business, and was taken on by the
:22:36. > :22:40.Metropolitan Police as an advisor, he was paid �1,000 a day for 24
:22:40. > :22:43.days work, by the Department of Public affairs, or the DPA, over to
:22:43. > :22:47.the commissioner. Mr Lisence Luis was never employed to be my
:22:47. > :22:51.personal a- Mr Wallis was never employed to be my personal
:22:51. > :22:55.assistant or give personal advice to me. He was employed to provide
:22:55. > :23:00.advice to the head of the DPA, you will see later on, through that he
:23:00. > :23:04.would give me occasional advice. A very part-time minor role.
:23:04. > :23:10.Wallis was also advising the luxury Champneys Health Spa, the
:23:10. > :23:14.commissioner accepted thousands of pounds of free hospitality there
:23:14. > :23:19.while recuperating from an operation, he says it has been
:23:19. > :23:23.declared but not registered yet. When I heard Mr Wallis was
:23:23. > :23:25.connected with Champneys, that was a difficult story, it was
:23:25. > :23:28.unfortunate for me, I had no knowledge previously. That,
:23:28. > :23:31.together with everything else, I thought this will be a significant
:23:31. > :23:35.story, it will continue. committee member found it
:23:35. > :23:42.incredible that no-one had told the commissioner that Mr Wallis was
:23:42. > :23:47.also working for Champneys? only way we would know that is if
:23:47. > :23:52.Mr Wallis had declared it to someone. I had no way of knowing he
:23:52. > :23:57.was connected to Champneys. With 45 press officers already in the Met,
:23:57. > :24:01.why did they need an ex-hack from News of the World to help them any
:24:01. > :24:05.way. Who recommended Mr Wallis to you, you say you had a
:24:05. > :24:10.recommendation before you took him on? I was trying to think, in mid-
:24:10. > :24:15.August I discovered that he was now working independently. Was it
:24:15. > :24:20.someone from the News of the World, or News International? I honestly
:24:20. > :24:23.can't recall who said it. You can't recall, despite the scrutiny on
:24:23. > :24:30.this matter, and despite having given it careful consideration, you
:24:30. > :24:34.can't recall who suggested that you hire Mr Wallis, was it Rebekah
:24:34. > :24:37.Brooks? Certainly not. You needed an extra consultant, were you
:24:37. > :24:42.consulted before he was appointed. I was, just let me say, with the
:24:42. > :24:48.benefit of what we know now, I'm happy to put on the record, I
:24:48. > :24:53.regret the contract, clearly, it is embarrassing. You knew Mr Yates was
:24:53. > :24:59.a personal friend of Mr Wallis. But you still relied on Mr Yates to
:24:59. > :25:07.give you the all-clear to employ Mr Wallis? I accept the integrity of
:25:07. > :25:12.Mr Yates, he's a senior officer in the organisation. What about your
:25:12. > :25:15.integrity as someone who needs to show due diligence in signing off
:25:15. > :25:19.this contract. John Yates said he only sought personal assurances and
:25:19. > :25:24.denied this amounted to the kind of detailed checks the committee said
:25:24. > :25:31.the head of media had suggested. think that slightly overegging the
:25:31. > :25:37.pudding. To put it mildly. I did what I considered, and it wasn't
:25:37. > :25:42.due diligence in the due diligence sense. I sought assurances off Mr
:25:42. > :25:48.Wallis, before the contract was let, to the effect. I have a note, I can
:25:48. > :25:53.read from it if you like. Is there anything in the matters that Nick
:25:53. > :25:57.Davies is still chasing and reporting on, that could at any
:25:57. > :26:00.stage embarrass you Mr Wallis, the commissioner and the head of the
:26:00. > :26:05.Metropolitan Police, I received catagoric assurances that was the
:26:05. > :26:10.case. The most dramatic moment was when John Yates revealed he had
:26:10. > :26:18.offered to brief the Prime Minister on hacking but was told not to go
:26:18. > :26:28.ahead by an official? The official was the Chief-of-Staff.
:26:28. > :26:54.
:26:55. > :26:58.The Government released a statement tonight confirming that the cabinet
:26:58. > :27:02.secretary had seen the exchange of e-mails and believed that the
:27:02. > :27:06.Chief-of-Staff acted entirely properly, so the verdict from today,
:27:06. > :27:09.well the grand conspiracy theory is certainly not proven, but there was
:27:09. > :27:12.evidence which revealed some highly questionable judgment calls made by
:27:12. > :27:17.some of the most senior officers in the police. And ultimately, that's
:27:17. > :27:23.why they had to go. I'm joined by Newsnight's political
:27:23. > :27:26.editor, Michael Cirk, what did we learn today? After goodness knows
:27:26. > :27:33.how many hours of testimony on two different committees, not a huge
:27:33. > :27:42.amount. It was high and memorable drama. A huge day for the select
:27:42. > :27:48.committee, the stand out image is that of a two - of the two Murdochs,
:27:48. > :27:51.and Rupert Murdoch came across as faltering and forgetful, he was the
:27:51. > :27:55.absent-minded grandfather in the corner. James performed, in the
:27:55. > :28:01.circumstances, rather well, I think this is probably, symbolising the
:28:01. > :28:06.shift of shower within that organisation. It was also
:28:06. > :28:11.interesting that they relied very little on their lawyers and the
:28:11. > :28:14.fact that there was Anam going police investigation. David Cameron
:28:14. > :28:17.is - There was an on going police investigation. David Cameron will
:28:17. > :28:21.be in the Commons tomorrow, what does he need to do to get a grip on
:28:21. > :28:25.it? It is a big day, he's flying back from Africa, he has to make
:28:25. > :28:28.three speeches tomorrow. First of all he's doing a statement to the
:28:28. > :28:32.Commons, in that statement he will be giving some of the names on the
:28:32. > :28:37.judicial inquiry, and some of the more details of the remit of the
:28:37. > :28:40.inquiry. He's then got to make a speech opening the debate, and then
:28:40. > :28:44.making a speech to the 1922 Committee, who are a bit annoyed
:28:44. > :28:48.that he seems to have snubbed them over the last few days. He has been
:28:48. > :28:53.busily doing drafts of the speech on the plane back from Nigeria.
:28:53. > :28:56.Interestingly, also, on the plane back from Nigeria, Mr Cameron's
:28:56. > :29:00.aides were drawing attention to the evidence from Rebekah Brooks in her
:29:00. > :29:03.testimony today, that it wasn't her idea that Andy Coulson should go
:29:03. > :29:09.and work in Downing Street, but it was George Osborne's idea.
:29:09. > :29:13.Interesting that David Cameron's aide should draw attention to that.
:29:13. > :29:16.But but I think David Cameron's biggest problem at the moment is he
:29:16. > :29:22.hasn't a huge amount of support from his party at the moment,
:29:22. > :29:27.either from backbenchers or members of the cabinet. How many have come
:29:27. > :29:30.out backing them. Boris Johnson today came out more strongly. The
:29:30. > :29:33.whips have been doing quite an operation tonight to try to
:29:33. > :29:39.persuade people to talk in tomorrow's debate. It is a struggle
:29:39. > :29:43.because a lot of MPs have gone on their holidays already. What is the
:29:43. > :29:46.significance between the e-mails between Ed Llewellyn and ACC John
:29:46. > :29:50.Yates? That is a potential problem for David Cameron. The Downing
:29:50. > :29:54.Street line is this shows our integrity, we didn't want to be
:29:54. > :29:59.briefed by John Yates, we didn't want to be accused of interfering
:29:59. > :30:06.in the police operation. On the other hand, Yvette Cooper,ed shadow
:30:06. > :30:10.Home Secretary, says this is deeply troubling, this is the second
:30:10. > :30:14.incidence of Ed Llewellyn blocking information from being passed to
:30:14. > :30:18.David Cameron about this affair. But Ed Llewellyn was backed by Andy
:30:18. > :30:22.Hayman, the permanent secretary in Number Ten, and tonight he's backed
:30:23. > :30:27.by the cabinet secretary, Gus O'Donnell. Just on that point, why
:30:27. > :30:31.is it important to keep the Prime Minister in ignorance? It is not
:30:31. > :30:35.keeping him in ignorance, it is making sure that nothing
:30:35. > :30:39.inappropriate happens. That he doesn't know things? Ed Llewellyn
:30:39. > :30:43.had to make a judgment koul, there was a police operation going on,
:30:44. > :30:47.John Yates said do you want me to discuss the language, if there is a
:30:47. > :30:57.police investigation going on, politicians shouldn't be involved
:30:57. > :31:00.
:31:00. > :31:04.in can he tail. Ed Llewellyn had a judgment call to make and he got it
:31:04. > :31:08.absolutely right. Excuse me, why is it then that the Chief-of-Staff to
:31:08. > :31:11.the Prime Minister writes in such coded terms, "on the other matters
:31:12. > :31:16.that have caught your attention, assuming we are thinking of the
:31:16. > :31:20.same thing, don't tell the Prime Minister" what's that all about?
:31:20. > :31:23.That is what John Yates said. In fact, you cut what the actually, if
:31:24. > :31:26.you read the full e-mail, John Yates was coming in to brief the
:31:27. > :31:31.Prime Minister about a very, very important skurtd issue, that was
:31:31. > :31:36.the main point. He then said do you want me to talk about these other
:31:36. > :31:41.things. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, why did they talk like that?
:31:41. > :31:43.Llewellyn said no, it wouldn't aib proper rate. Why is it in code?
:31:43. > :31:48.They both knew what they were talking about. Assuming we are
:31:48. > :31:51.thinking of the same thing, it was a code, nudge and a wink, they felt
:31:51. > :31:55.there was something wrong here, it fails the Prime Minister's own
:31:55. > :32:01.smell test? No it doesn't. What it does is Ed Llewellyn making it
:32:01. > :32:06.clear that to have a conversation with a police officer about the
:32:06. > :32:10.details or nuances as John Yates put it, of an operational matter,
:32:10. > :32:13.it would not be appropriate for politicians to get involved. That
:32:13. > :32:19.was one of the basic principles, that when a police investigation is
:32:19. > :32:25.going on the police should control it. It is not plausible? As someone
:32:25. > :32:28.arrested in my time, it is a distinction that politicians
:32:28. > :32:33.shouldn't interfere in police investigations. Is Has that changed
:32:33. > :32:39.your view being arrested and exonerated? I'm not an uncritical
:32:39. > :32:42.admirer of those who used to run the Met. One of the more serious
:32:42. > :32:48.thing, other than the media, which is in serious crisis is making sure
:32:48. > :32:53.we get the Met back on an even keel. That is really important for all of
:32:53. > :32:56.us. Do you think it was appropriate for Neil Wallis to advise Andy
:32:56. > :32:59.Coulson, while Mr Coulson worked for David Cameron? I don't know
:32:59. > :33:03.what an informal advisor is, I know the Conservative Party didn't pay
:33:03. > :33:08.money to Mr Wallis, didn't employ him, didn't have him on a contract,
:33:08. > :33:12.or a consultant. So if he phoned Coulson up, he phoned Andy Coulson
:33:12. > :33:16.up, nobody else senior in the campaign had any knowledge that Mr
:33:16. > :33:19.Wallis was involved at all. It is a symptom, isn't it, of the cosy
:33:19. > :33:23.relationships that were going on by two people who fell under
:33:23. > :33:26.suspicious, and both of whom have been arrested? But what it doesn't
:33:26. > :33:30.prove is anything about the Conservative Party, the
:33:30. > :33:34.Conservative Party didn't have Mr Wallis. It talk about the judgment
:33:34. > :33:41.of people talking the judgments recorded in the Metropolitan Police,
:33:41. > :33:45.that Wallis was an appropriate person to employ, and Andy Coulson
:33:45. > :33:48.was an appropriate person to employ. There is a difference that
:33:48. > :33:51.obviously the Metropolitan Police are investigating Mr Wallis,
:33:51. > :33:55.therefore, it was clearly inappropriate to have him on the
:33:55. > :34:00.payroll, where Andy Coulson's case is completely different. He gave
:34:00. > :34:03.the Prime Minister assurances he did nothing wrong, he repeated them
:34:03. > :34:08.in court and to a select committee. It is not unreasonable for the
:34:08. > :34:13.Prime Minister to believe those assurances. It was George Osborne's
:34:13. > :34:18.idea and a great idea? That is known for some time. Andy Coulson
:34:18. > :34:22.did a great job in his time as press officer. And George Osborne
:34:22. > :34:25.deserves all the credit for the God thaing that Coulson has done?
:34:25. > :34:28.Coulson did a good job working for David Cameron. We will find out,
:34:28. > :34:36.and there is a police investigation going on, what happened over phone
:34:36. > :34:39.hacking. Who else's phone has been hacked, has the Prime Minister's
:34:39. > :34:42.phone been hacked? I don't know, all this was happening years ago,
:34:42. > :34:47.and the previous Government did nothing about it. What is happening
:34:47. > :34:53.now is we have not only got a police investigation, but a judge-
:34:53. > :34:57.led inquiry into the way newspapers operate. As they sieve through the
:34:57. > :35:00.numbers you must figure that out? I'm a politician I don't get
:35:00. > :35:04.involved in individual police operations, this is the very strong
:35:04. > :35:08.principle, if the police are conducting a criminal investigation,
:35:08. > :35:12.they should do that properly on their own. They should not be
:35:12. > :35:16.interfered with at every stage by politicians, that is the basic
:35:16. > :35:20.correct decision that Ed Llewellyn took. Thank you very much.
:35:20. > :35:26.Now the event itself, the sight of two of the most powerful men in the
:35:26. > :35:30.world, and one of the most powerful women, answering questions about
:35:30. > :35:35.the world's most powerful media empire was not something we would
:35:35. > :35:41.see in Britain often. As a piece of theatre, it might have reminded
:35:41. > :35:51.people of the Watergate scandal and even the Lewinsky affair. We
:35:51. > :35:56.
:35:56. > :36:00.analyse the impact of what we saw Summer, festivals, show time, the
:36:00. > :36:05.smell of the grease paint and the roar of the burgers, think about it.
:36:05. > :36:10.But if you are a Newsnight viewer, and let as say you are, hanging
:36:10. > :36:18.about in the chillout tent, to catch some of the original line-up
:36:18. > :36:22.of the Inpiral Carpets, doesn't cut it. The season had little to match
:36:22. > :36:27.the prospect of Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks appearing before the
:36:27. > :36:30.committee. In the long hot summer we are having, today's
:36:30. > :36:40.parliamentary session promised to be like a rock festival. Like a
:36:40. > :36:43.
:36:43. > :36:47.parliamentary session cranked up to But did the line-up live up to all
:36:47. > :36:51.the hype, how did it shape up as an event what did it tell us, if
:36:51. > :36:57.anything b the state of our institutions? First question, did
:36:57. > :37:00.it cut it as drama? Rupert Murdoch is a bit like King Lear, he has
:37:00. > :37:04.hived off his kingdom to other people, and is rather surprised by
:37:04. > :37:07.how that has turned out. The tension between James Murdoch and
:37:08. > :37:11.Elizabeth Murdoch is one of the stories, another is the sense in
:37:11. > :37:17.which Rebekah Brooks is a kind of surrogate daughter for Murdoch, you
:37:17. > :37:21.have the three children, like in King Lear, and the slightly
:37:21. > :37:25.unexpected fishering that comes about as a result of that.
:37:25. > :37:31.claimed in the Wall Street Journal that Harbottle & Lewis had made a
:37:31. > :37:35.major mistake, can I ask what mistake you were referring to?
:37:35. > :37:42.of the things about courtroom drama is there is always an unexpected
:37:42. > :37:46.hero, a quiet man, in this incidence it was Tom Watson. One of
:37:46. > :37:52.the other features was the long pauses, pauses in theeure tend to
:37:52. > :37:57.be associated with Chekhov, and Harold Pointer, these pauses were
:37:57. > :38:02.self-indulgent and even beyond that point. Extraordinary we wills of
:38:02. > :38:07.silence. We spoke to a lawyer that worked for Robert Maxwell's sons
:38:07. > :38:10.who faced MPs in the 1990s, what moment stood out for him today?
:38:10. > :38:14.me the most electrifying moment would be James trying to explain
:38:14. > :38:17.why the company was paying Mulcaire's legal fees, and having
:38:17. > :38:22.to wriggle on the situation that clearly it has been paying his fees
:38:22. > :38:27.up until recently, and trying to find some rational for justifying
:38:27. > :38:32.it and failing miserably in that way. I do know that certain legal
:38:32. > :38:40.fees were paid for Mr Mulcaire by the company and I was as surprised
:38:40. > :38:45.and shocked to learn that as you are. That was the one moment when
:38:45. > :38:50.he was really down, other than that they didn't land any real punches
:38:50. > :38:58.on him. Was Rupert Murdoch's appearance calculated to garner
:38:58. > :39:05.sympathy. Mr Blair visited you half way around the world. He what?
:39:05. > :39:11.visited you half way around the world. Before the 1997 election?
:39:11. > :39:15.That was something Mr Cameron or Campbell arranged. It would be a
:39:15. > :39:22.strategy to go to Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful mogul in the
:39:22. > :39:27.world, and say we think you should come across as a shambling, falters,
:39:28. > :39:30.semi-deaf old geezer? I think the idea of portraying him as a
:39:30. > :39:34.Simpson-like Mr Burns character, would be a job too far.
:39:34. > :39:40.wouldn't like to sell that to him? I certainly wouldn't walk into the
:39:40. > :39:43.room and say hi, I have great strategy here, we will send you in
:39:43. > :39:48.like some dithering old fool and fumbling around the crisis is.
:39:48. > :39:58.is just the way he is, perhaps then? If this has shown us one
:39:58. > :39:58.
:39:58. > :40:02.thing, it has shone a light on to the McKiss Mo of that - machismo of
:40:02. > :40:08.this organisation, that isn't as forceful as you would have thought
:40:08. > :40:12.it was. The shares rose today, for many days, and recently, the News
:40:12. > :40:15.Corp shares have suffered a discount, because people felt that
:40:15. > :40:21.Rupert Murdoch was past his best. If he left, then the shares could
:40:22. > :40:25.rise even further. As with every festival there is the
:40:25. > :40:31.sobering feeling that the party is over, but the cleaning may take a
:40:31. > :40:34.while yet. Joining us now from New York is
:40:34. > :40:40.Carl Bernstein who with Bob Woodward broke the story of
:40:40. > :40:46.Watergate. The former chairman of the BBC and ITV, Will Self, writer,
:40:46. > :40:50.and TV producer Daisy Goodwin, who also writes for the Times, first
:40:50. > :40:56.Earl Spencer, the brother of Princess Diana, and giving his
:40:56. > :41:01.first interview on the phone hacking scandal. You had some hopes
:41:01. > :41:04.on press reform going back a long time, any hope today? I had no high
:41:04. > :41:08.hopes today, I thought they would be briefed well enough to get
:41:08. > :41:13.through the questions from, frankly, hampered inquisitors, because they
:41:13. > :41:16.are dealing against the backdrop of a legal inquiry and other things.
:41:16. > :41:20.Not many punches were landed, I don't think any great progress was
:41:20. > :41:24.made. Did you feel at least it was a big moment, did you feel things
:41:24. > :41:28.were changing? I hope so, I'm an optimist, and I think if they don't
:41:28. > :41:32.change on the back of what has been happening in the last few weeks, so
:41:32. > :41:35.we get a more accountable and summonsable press, and one not
:41:35. > :41:40.capable of being accused of corruption and criminal acts, non-
:41:40. > :41:45.when we are. What has been, over the years, the affect on you and
:41:45. > :41:51.your family? Pretty massive, I'm not here to whinge at all. I have
:41:51. > :41:55.chose to live abroad with my young children to get away from tabloid
:41:56. > :42:00.intrusion, this is much more a case not about people like myself who
:42:00. > :42:05.can move abroad, it is about people who may be rolled over by the press
:42:05. > :42:11.unexpectedly in their lives. It is a Titanic force. I have the means
:42:11. > :42:16.to take any action I want against newspapers or other media outlet
:42:16. > :42:20.that is overstep the mark. I hope what comes out of this is not just
:42:20. > :42:24.News International, but other groups resorting to the same
:42:24. > :42:28.methods, which I know they have been. It is not just them, you are
:42:29. > :42:33.sure about that? I'm sure there are other newspaper groups waiting for
:42:33. > :42:38.the spotlight to move to them. I know that without a doubt. So so
:42:38. > :42:43.the fact is we may be looking at the Murdochs being put before an
:42:43. > :42:48.inquisition today, but my hope is that we can purge the whole system,
:42:48. > :42:51.not control the press in way they can't do the responsible job of
:42:51. > :42:56.proper journalism, such as the journalism which has unearthed what
:42:56. > :43:00.is going on and brought us to this stage in this process, but which
:43:00. > :43:04.can make the press accountable for their actions and less likely to
:43:04. > :43:08.overstep the mark. But did you feel, when you were watching this today,
:43:09. > :43:13.did you feel any sympathy at all for Rupert Murdoch? I always feel
:43:13. > :43:17.sorry for man well past his prime, and who is obviously struggling at
:43:17. > :43:22.times. I had to keep reminding myself this is a man who has
:43:22. > :43:27.actually taken large swathes of the British media down a certain root
:43:27. > :43:31.and has not, as a result, and done things that are not great. What do
:43:31. > :43:34.you think of the implication for David Cameron on this, it touches
:43:34. > :43:37.him in various ways too? I know very little about this, the
:43:37. > :43:41.political side. But I imagine anyone who is touched by these
:43:41. > :43:46.implications in a meaningful way will have a lot to answer for. What
:43:46. > :43:54.is very exciting for me, as somebody sitting on the sidelines
:43:54. > :43:58.and there has been been as an occasional tabloid punch bag. What
:43:58. > :44:01.is exciting for me is everything gets it now. There has been a
:44:01. > :44:06.guilty little secret among politicians and newspaper providers
:44:06. > :44:13.and a lot of celebrities and others, that this goes on. Phone hacking
:44:13. > :44:17.and worse, a purlioning of medical records and so on. It is only now
:44:17. > :44:22.that it has become a major issues, because of the terrible hacking
:44:22. > :44:31.into a dead girl's phone, Milly Dowler. These have taken it into a
:44:31. > :44:35.different areana that, I hope we will all have a better press in ten
:44:35. > :44:38.years time. How important is in moment for the British and Murdoch
:44:38. > :44:44.organisation? I think this is a huge event in the history of the
:44:44. > :44:47.west, particularly the English speaking world. What we saw today
:44:47. > :44:52.is really evidence of the sad tale of what has happened to modern
:44:52. > :44:59.Great Britain, and how one man has been able to capture the political
:44:59. > :45:05.system, the media and the cops of a great nation, over a generation or
:45:05. > :45:12.two. It is appalling. The one thing that the Earl is right about is
:45:12. > :45:17.certainly that people are now on to what this is about, which is a
:45:17. > :45:22.semi-criminal pre, at the bottom of, the sewer level, - press, at the
:45:22. > :45:24.pot tomorrow, the sewer level of journalism. As opposed to decent
:45:24. > :45:28.institutions in the British and American press. We are talking
:45:28. > :45:34.about the sewer, and the terrible thing about this, is the British
:45:34. > :45:39.public has lapped it up. Just as much as the American public has
:45:39. > :45:45.lapped up this kind of tabloid journalism, perhaps not as extreme.
:45:45. > :45:49.Other journalists have stood by and said this is perfectly fine, we
:45:49. > :45:53.will understand, wink and laugh at it, then you realise this is a
:45:53. > :46:00.terrible business and a whole country has been polluted by the
:46:00. > :46:07.people that we saw up there today. Do you think, as it has been called
:46:07. > :46:12.on Twitter, "hackgate", same as Watergate, is it really a moment of
:46:12. > :46:18.change like that? For almost 40 years, I have winced every time the
:46:18. > :46:27.Murdoch press has particularly appended a "gate" to anything else.
:46:27. > :46:31.A few days ago I wrote a piece for the newspaper saying Murdoch's
:46:31. > :46:36.Watergate speculation. Such as what are the similarities? First of all,
:46:36. > :46:42.it is about the corruption an institution, just as Nixon
:46:42. > :46:48.corrupted his White House, his administration, Murdoch has
:46:48. > :46:53.corrupted the press under his watch, the low end of his empire. Now we
:46:53. > :46:57.are looking for a smoking gun, just as we were in Watergate, we don't
:46:57. > :47:01.need a smoking gun to know what kind of aura existed at News of the
:47:01. > :47:06.World, and other publications. Also I think there is something that
:47:06. > :47:11.this is not just about Murdoch's papers, as Murdoch went deeper into
:47:11. > :47:14.the gutter, in terms of the lowest descending common denominator in
:47:14. > :47:19.journalism, with his publications, others followed suit, just as they
:47:19. > :47:23.did in this country, when the New York Post started to go down.
:47:23. > :47:26.Let me put it to Will Self, do you see this as a Watergate moment, a
:47:26. > :47:32.huge moment of change because it is so awful? I would like to believe
:47:32. > :47:35.it is some kind of moment in change that way. I would certainly agree
:47:35. > :47:38.with Carl, what this represents is a kind of corruption of the British
:47:38. > :47:45.political system, and I thought one of the most telling things that
:47:45. > :47:48.Murdoch said today was when he leaned over to the MPs facing him
:47:48. > :47:53.and said Singapore, as far as he was concerned was the most open
:47:53. > :47:59.society in the world, because every MP was on a million dollars. That
:47:59. > :48:04.got a laugh from the assembled MPs. What I saw there was the arch
:48:04. > :48:10.apostle of envy in our culture, that is the culture that Murdoch
:48:10. > :48:13.has introduced. Everything flows from a more devisive society, and a
:48:13. > :48:16.more envious culture. Even when Yates and Stephenson of the yard
:48:16. > :48:21.were up there giving evidence to the home affairs committee, that
:48:21. > :48:23.was about envy too. You have been involved in the big
:48:23. > :48:28.media organisations, the Press Complaints Commission, do you share
:48:29. > :48:31.any of this optimisim that Earl Spencer and Will Self was talking
:48:32. > :48:37.about there? I think we have to remember the hard cases
:48:37. > :48:41.investigated go back a few years, any journalist today knows that if
:48:41. > :48:47.they start hacking or trying to get stories by criminal means they will
:48:47. > :48:55.go to jail. The law of the land is stronger than any regulator can
:48:55. > :49:01.possibly be. That alone is pretty salry. I didn't mean - All salutery.
:49:01. > :49:06.I didn't mean to say I'm optimistic about where this is going and it is
:49:06. > :49:16.going to reform politics in the English speaking world or
:49:16. > :49:17.
:49:17. > :49:21.journalism in the English speaking world, I wish I had that optimisim.
:49:21. > :49:26.David, as a big moment, did you think, some people tuning in today
:49:26. > :49:29.in the hope of seeing some kind of hanging didn't they? This is the
:49:29. > :49:34.story that keeps on giving, they did not get the hanging but they
:49:34. > :49:39.did get the custard pie. That was an extraordinary moment. It
:49:39. > :49:46.delivered wonderfully in TV terms, as a TV producer, I thought the
:49:46. > :49:51.relationship between Rupert and James was fascinating, Wendi behind.
:49:51. > :49:54.Rupert's pauses were extraordinary, Pointeresque. There was a moment
:49:54. > :49:58.when he said, when Rupert Murdoch stuck up for investigative
:49:58. > :50:02.journalism, I thought it was a wonderful irony, it is
:50:02. > :50:06.investigative journalism on the part of Nick Davies and the
:50:06. > :50:09.Guardian ended up with him sitting in front of the select committee.
:50:09. > :50:15.Do you feel any sympathy for Rupert Murdoch today? As a woman and
:50:15. > :50:20.person, yes I did. I have not met him, I have written for the Sunday
:50:20. > :50:26.Times, I don't know if I can say I feel sympathy for him. I thought at
:50:26. > :50:29.the beginning he looked confused, and he looked extremely
:50:29. > :50:32.uncomfortable, I thought might be. I thought there was a moment where
:50:32. > :50:38.I was watching it with a group of people in my office, and the
:50:38. > :50:43.pendulum was swinging towards him. It is a very unusual experience for
:50:43. > :50:46.Rupert Murdoch and the sire of the family to be accountable in that
:50:46. > :50:55.public fashion. This is not a scenario Rupert Murdoch would be
:50:55. > :50:58.used to. He's used to qutable to share holders, he has the votes so
:50:58. > :51:03.just listens to them. The thing that would have got News Corp
:51:03. > :51:08.completely out of the woods by now, if they had gripped this from the
:51:08. > :51:13.beginning, as soon as the phone hacking incident came to light. If
:51:13. > :51:17.they had called in independent investigators, forensic detectives
:51:17. > :51:22.from the outside, and saying they know there is one case are there
:51:22. > :51:25.any more. And they have done everything they can to dripfeed and
:51:25. > :51:35.avoid the difficult questions. I don't agree, Murdoch's whole career
:51:35. > :51:36.
:51:36. > :51:42.has been based, he started, his idea was he's a rank outsider and
:51:42. > :51:47.anti-establishmentarium, he published Christine Keeler's
:51:48. > :51:51.memoirs. He's the back stoor establishment, nonetheless he's the
:51:51. > :51:53.establishment. His placeman is beside the Prime Minister's side,
:51:53. > :51:57.another one beside the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, there
:51:57. > :52:04.is a degree of solution in this story that is phenomenal, what is
:52:04. > :52:14.the access here is around the BSkyB deal. In fact, that smelt to high
:52:14. > :52:18.
:52:18. > :52:21.heaven. There is a Cinergy between that and the hacking issue - - the
:52:21. > :52:26.synergy between that and the hacking issue.
:52:26. > :52:31.Do you think those who invest or otherwise will be facted today?
:52:31. > :52:34.think this - affected today? I think this will depend on popular
:52:34. > :52:37.will. If ordinary people express themselves and say enough of this
:52:37. > :52:40.kind of journalism, that will get through to the board of the
:52:40. > :52:44.directors, that will get through to the British political establishment.
:52:44. > :52:50.I think that's ultimately where it lies. I think one of the things we
:52:50. > :52:54.ought to look at today, is one of the absolutely incredible things we
:52:54. > :53:00.heard today is, that whatever conspiracy there was, it probably
:53:00. > :53:03.goes on because the criminals are still being paid. They are still
:53:03. > :53:08.receiving money from under a legal agreement in which they are bound
:53:08. > :53:12.not to talk, and one of them wants to talk, apparently, and cannot.
:53:12. > :53:17.This is an extraordinary thing. me bring in Earl Spencer again, as
:53:17. > :53:23.the optimist on the panel, perhaps the only one. Why do you feel that
:53:23. > :53:25.things are changing now, when they didn't after what you said at
:53:25. > :53:30.Diana's funeral, that everybody remembers, you made similar points
:53:30. > :53:35.then, about the hounding by the press? Yes, I think Carl Bernstein
:53:35. > :53:39.is right there, in his minimal optimisim, you know, it is up to
:53:39. > :53:44.the public to change. I don't know whether they have the appetite to
:53:44. > :53:49.change. I think though there is a revulsion which I haven't seen for
:53:49. > :53:53.14 years against the worst excesses of the tabloids. But actually, the
:53:54. > :54:00.worst excesses of the tabloids have been some what neutered now. No
:54:00. > :54:04.politician can provide the figleaf of respect bltd for it to continue.
:54:04. > :54:12.No mainstream high level politician can be seen supping with the
:54:12. > :54:15.Murdochs again. The great dilemma here, whilst there is public anti-
:54:15. > :54:20.pathy towards Rupert Murdoch per se, they still love his products, the
:54:20. > :54:25.News of the World was the best- selling newspaper this country, and
:54:25. > :54:29.the Sun the best selling tabloid. Some how the public feel that they
:54:29. > :54:33.don't like people wielding political influence, when they
:54:33. > :54:37.haven't got any votes. Do you see, you referred to the
:54:37. > :54:43.relationship he found interesting between father and son today. Do
:54:43. > :54:50.you think this is the break-up of the great empire that the dynasty
:54:50. > :54:54.will be not handed on in the way they thought? It is hard to saying,
:54:54. > :55:00.every word Rupert said mattered. It seemed to me James Murdoch talked a
:55:00. > :55:05.lot, I can't really remember what he said. I thought that was quite
:55:05. > :55:10.an interesting thing. He said I didn't know that. He said often it
:55:10. > :55:17.is a very good question, I'm glad you asked that. What about Rebekah
:55:17. > :55:22.Brooks? Again I had sympathy for her. She's a woman under enormous
:55:22. > :55:27.pressure. I think she has been maybe rightly vilified, but she has
:55:27. > :55:31.certainly been vilified not just as an editor, but also a woman. If I
:55:31. > :55:34.see another reference to her hair, which is magnificent, but it is
:55:34. > :55:39.just hair, I feel there has been too much of that, and there has
:55:39. > :55:45.been less talk about what she actually did as an editor. Do you
:55:45. > :55:50.have any sympathy for her? depends if she has been made a fall
:55:50. > :55:55.guy or whether she's responsible. Right now, I think the jury is open.
:55:55. > :56:01.I'm withholding sympathy. Did you have any dealings with her? I did,
:56:01. > :56:05.I had dealings with her when the front page of a Sun was inaccurate
:56:05. > :56:12.and damaging, she was very helpful and offered no help or redress
:56:12. > :56:16.whatsoever. That was her speciality. As a company, does News
:56:16. > :56:19.International or News Corp need the Murdochs? As Carl pointed out, the
:56:19. > :56:24.institutional sharehold remembers the people who will count on that,
:56:24. > :56:32.we all know what the fault line is in the states. My impression is
:56:32. > :56:36.that James, everybody is grasping for the Shakespearian analogy, is
:56:36. > :56:42.he Cordelia or Reagan? My impression is that Rupert Murdoch
:56:42. > :56:46.isn't all together happy with the idea of James's success, that is
:56:46. > :56:52.what Rebekah was about, she was the surrogate in that way. I think you
:56:52. > :56:59.are going to see the strong arm of corporate governance finally
:56:59. > :57:03.imposed on News Corp and News International companies. The broad
:57:03. > :57:07.structures are not compliant with best practice corporate governors.
:57:07. > :57:17.We have to leave it there, we have run out of time completely.
:57:17. > :57:17.
:57:17. > :58:12.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 54 seconds
:58:12. > :58:15.That's all from nice night tonight, we will leave you with
:58:15. > :58:21.extraordinary pictures from a documentary shown on BBC One
:58:21. > :58:26.earlier, of a scientist trying to get a lava sample from the volcanic
:58:26. > :58:36.lake in the Great Rift Valley. We are not sure how they got a close-
:58:36. > :59:03.
:59:03. > :59:06.up shot, but everyone lived to tell Good evening, parts of north-east
:59:06. > :59:10.England and south-east Scotland will continue to see heavy rain
:59:10. > :59:14.into the night and the morning. A wet day towards the far South-West.
:59:14. > :59:17.Elsewhere a largely dry start, brightness here and there, but
:59:17. > :59:20.plenty of cloud a few showers developing. For the north and
:59:20. > :59:25.north-east of England, as well as the borders of Scotland, we will
:59:25. > :59:29.continue with the thundery downpour, risk of flooding. Parts of Greater
:59:29. > :59:32.Manchester, dry and bright. The south-east and southern counties,
:59:32. > :59:36.after a reasonably bright start, we will see showers through the day.
:59:36. > :59:39.Devon and Cornwall will turn dryer, as will parts of South Wales.
:59:39. > :59:44.Brightness breaking towards the clouds towards western coasts and
:59:44. > :59:47.across the north. The wind light, getting in the sunshine it will
:59:47. > :59:52.feel warm. The breeze developing in Northern Ireland will make it
:59:52. > :59:56.cooler, largely dry with some occasional sunshine. Into Scotland
:59:56. > :59:59.western areas, dry and bright, more cloud further east, it is the
:59:59. > :00:02.south-east where we will see the heaviest of the rain. To take us
:00:02. > :00:06.from Wednesday into Thursday, we will see some heavy showers around,
:00:06. > :00:08.not a huge amount of change to be honest. Further south a different
:00:08. > :00:14.picture, we have the cloudy conditions on Wednesday, outbreaks
:00:14. > :00:18.of rain, Thursday, though, a greater risk of some heavy and