26/02/2014 Newsnight

Britain tomorrow won't be David Cameron. The most powerful figure in

Britain will be Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime

Minister wants to renegotiate our EU membership, what succre can she

offer? What she want promise has no power to offer is the possibility of

treaty change. Will it be enough? These animals are on the verge of

extinction. Could these ones be going the same way, why isn't the

planet big enough for all of us. And... The first trip is vanish --

the first trick is vanishing inflation. If you wonder whether

Government plays fast and loose with statistic, we will show you how it

is done. And Jerry Springer on whether television serves up poor

people as a freak show for the amusement of couch potatoes.

Break out the beer, the Riesling the sasauges and the sourkraut, we are

on the eve of a celebration of all things German. The Chancellor of the

most powerful country in Europe is in London tomorrow to address a

joint meeting of parliament. Having tea with the Queen and being

buttered up by David Cameronment he wants to keep her sweet because

she's potentially his most powerful ally in his attempts to renegotiate

this country's relationship with Europe. An opinion poll today

suggested voters in the two countries have some quite similar

views on the European project. Emily Maitlis has been looking ahead to

the visit, which, like Emily's report, may contain flash

photography. ??FORCEDWHI # Here she comes... No, not the

Queen, but she might as well be, such is the weight of expectation

sitting on the German Chancellor's shoulders. Angela Merkel's due here

tomorrow, she will get the full royal treatment. It is what she may

say in private that may have a far greater impact. The Prime Minister

is hoping to hear from her something akin to support for the kind of

Europe that his party envisages. My admiration for Angela Merkel is

enormous and there are many things that she has achieved that I would

like to copy, not least getting re-elected! Angela Merkel gets to

come here it address both Houses and she gets tea with the Queen. Warm

words from the Prime Minister this morning, it all adds up to a very

different level of reception to that accorded other European heads of

state in recent weeks. It's far cry, for example, from the treatment the

French President got when he turned up here last month. Mr Hollande,

more renowned for his social life than socialism, was greeted with a

pub lunch. Now no-one can complain about an English country pub, but it

wasn't tea with Her 34. Madge. There is a clear reason behind the

love-bombing, David Cameron needs Angela Merkel to guarantee him

assurances in a revised treaty if he's to win a referendum campaign on

the EU. I asked the deputy EU if he thinks that could happen? Reform

yes, but unilateral repatriation, no. Merkel, for her part has a

vested interest in keeping Britain happy. As a figurehead of EU power,

she can't afford to see Britain leave it. I think she can offer

certainly her support when it comes to some areas where there are strong

common interests. One is to reduce EU regulation and red tape for small

and medium-sized enterprise, another would be the support for a trade

policy. Fine, says this woman, who understands German sensibilities

better than most, but it won't be enough. I think she would be able to

deliver what I call some "smarties", that will allow people to feel good

about themselves in a limited way. In terms of the fundamental

renegotiation which part of the British political class is looking

for, returning powers, Angela Merkel is simply not in that kind of

business. What the Conservatives want to set in stone, are what they

call "limited opt-outs", ways of Britain more power for certain areas

of policy. One German politician put it to my early it is not very likely

for an opt-out, saying we British want an opt-out for the financial

industry, and the Germans for the automotive industry, and the French

for their sheep, in other words, once you start you would never stop.

This restaurant, you didn't think you would see a whole piece on

German state visit without a reference to a sausage, is the baby

of two expatriots, they have been here four years, I asked how they

see the British appetite for Europe? Split in half because in some ways

the Brits always like to be the Brits on their own, in a way, I

think. But obviously they are also collaborative. So I don't know what

to really say? I'm totally in agreement, as long as they can keep

the pound! All is good! Hopefully fingers crossed. They serve the

Chancellor's favourite street food here, Crushy wurst, probably not on

the menu for the dignitaries tomorrow. It is over lunch they will

get down to business. Angela Merkel will all for targeted treaty change.

This is a phrase that doesn't exist in EU process or proceed ducks and

Labour argue if the language were made any plainer the gap between

what David Cameron wants and what Chancellor Merkel can actually offer

would be way too obvious. The Chancellor will see all three

leaders tomorrow, each is likely to claim a meeting of minds. State

craft is a powerful tool, but once the red carpet is re-rolled and the

day is done, the Prime Minister will have to see with his own party if

the German Chancellor has come with enough. Emily's here with more

developments on coalition machinations. There were suggestions

that David Cameron would rule out any future coalition and even make

it a manifesto pledge if he thought it would bring back his backbenchers

or anyone who might lend UKIP their vote and tell them he wants to go it

alone. Last night on this programme you will remember Len McClusky from

Unite, urging Ed Miliband to say he would lead a majority if he could do

so. I put it to Nick Clegg in the press conference and asked him if he

had a direct Conservatives, or any knowledge that this is what David

Cameron might be wanting, along the lines of a coalition in future?

Clearly there is a... How can I put it a McClusky tendency in both the

Labour and the Conservative Party, what you are seeing is the last gasp

of the assumption from the two bigger parties that some how they

have always got a right to run things. It is now, they are now some

how claiming that they would have a right to decide how this country is

governed, even if they don't win a majority, that is clearly a

preposterous assertion. He sounds pretty confident he will be in power

again? He thinks, given the shape of electoral mathematics now, that

coalitions will be more not less likely. He thinks for that reason

the public have to get used to two parties working to the, even if they

don't particularly get on. The example he used was work place

colleagues. He says that people have to get used to hearing different

things because they all experience it themselves. Some will have

noticed, rather more stride dent tone in the recent weeks about Tory

partner, they have been saying things like "unbalanced" "unfocussed

and "dangerous policies", you but today he said the public knows and

expect us not to be on the same page. One source close to the

cabinet told me today that although they were going all out for a

majority, this was a Tory source, they would find it much easier to

work again with t Lib Dems than their own backbenchers. Still to

come, Jerry Springer on how television portrays the poor. The

two Muslim fanatics who hacked an offduty soldier to death were

sentenced today, one got a minimum 45 years, the other should spend the

rest of his life in prison. Neither showed remorse in court, and the

judge said one was beyond the possibility of rehabilitation. So

they will live at the tax-payers' expense for decades to come. What

can be done with them during that time. This report contains some

flashing images. It was, the judge said, a betrayal of Islam and the

peaceful Muslims who give so much to this country. Michael Adebolajo and

his accomplice, Michael Adebowale, started screaming and had to be

hauled from the dock as they were sentenced to long prison terms

today. There were sobs from the relatives and friends of Fusilier

Lee Rigby, who all sat in silence throughout the judge's remarks. A

police detective read the family's statement outside the Old Bailey.

The Rigby family welcomes the whole life and significant sentences that

have been passed down on Lee's killers. We feel that no other

sentence would have been acceptable and we would like to thank the judge

and the courts for handing down what we believe to be the right prison

terms. Both men will start their sentences at a category A prison,

like Belmarsh, in south London. This place has held some of the most

high-profile terror suspects of recent years, from the radical

preacher Abu Hamza, to one of the men behind the failed London

bombings. One in six of the men behind the walls is a Muslim

prisoner. As we were filming the man carrying Adebolajo and Adebowale

pulled into the prison gates. Both men will be held in the

high-security unit here, where any contact with other prisoners is

tightly controlled. They have their phone calls monitored, it is

unlikely they will be allowed to pray alongside other inmates. These

men served time in Belmarsh after being jailed for soliciting murder

after a rally about a cartoon satirising the profit Mohammed.

Their views are extreme to other Muslims. The fact they are in the

high-security unit people will be interested in what they were like. I

remember when Abu Hamza was in the unit, people hoped to be in the unit

just to see what they will like and hear what he has to say. A lot of

people in the prison system, that will go through their mind. First

and foremost they won't be able to see them in the high-security unit

isolated from all other prisoners. Perhaps five years down the line

will they transfer them to other high-security prisons where people

may have similar views. Looking up terror suspects and convicts in the

same place as of course led to serious difficulties in the past.

The H-blocks in the Maze were notorious recruiting grounds for

republicans and unionists. The authorities started worrying that

looking up high numbers of extremists in Belmarsh could store

up similar problems, there was a decision made to disperse those

convicted of high-profile terror offences across the estate. It is a

massive challenge for prison officers up and -- prison officers

up and down the country, because you don't know what you are facing

day-to-day. For example those prisoners themselves with extreme

and radical views may well be the target themselves from the rest of

the prison population. They could be dangerous towards prison officers,

and the danger for them is that they radicalise other prisoners. Official

Muslim chaplains are now being used to Dublin a new programme of

one-to-one sessions meant for inmates with the most entrenched

views. Independent advisers who work with extremists say it is possible

to make a difference. You have to remember that these people hold

these extreme ideas, they are religious zealot, they are people

that want to propagage their point of view. They want to convince

others around them. You have a premise for engaging in the first

place. The difficulty would be I guess the idea that whether you are

a credible interlocketer or not, are you someone they could be worth

engaging with, you have to establish that credibility. Critics say the

Government strategy isn't cutting through, of the 150 people convicts

of terrorist-related offences in recent years, it is thought 40 have

agreed to par at thises operate in the programme -- participate in the

programme. The prison him mans were seen with suspicion. Nobody saw them

as somebody who confide in or even to really refer to or to ask. They

saw them as another guard or governor who was there to gather

intelligence and information. In the case of Adebolajo and Adebowale any

talk of rehabilitation and re-entry to society may mean little. Neither

will be eligible for release until 2059. It is up to the authorities

now to monitor and control. We are joined by Peter Neumann, founder and

director of the international centre for radicalisation at King's College

London. What will happen to these men? They are both going to go to

prison. One will be there without any chance of parole, the other one

is going to be released when he's a pensioner. So I don't think we

should expect any miracles. They don't have any incentive to change

their beliefs. If anything their incentive is to stick to their

beliefs, to change them would be to admit to themselves that they have

wasted their lives. Will they be free to associate with other inmates

do you think? The way it is being handled in this country is they are

being treated as high-security prisoners so they are in a

high-security prison. And within these high-security prisons there

are so called specialist units, they are not particularly made for

terrorism offenders but the chance to interact with the rest of the

prison population is pretty limited. You are an expert on

deradicalisation, you have already hinted that there may not be much

reason to think of deradicalising, but 45 years or longer is a great

time to think about it? Absolutely. But since they are not going to be

let out, I wonder if any efforts are going to be made? What would be the

point of doing that? The principle incentive to deradicalise people is

they will be let back into society at some point. If you are not going

to be let back into society why would you even try? Are they similar

in any sense to other guerrilla groups, terrorist groups that have

been in prison, I'm thinking for example of the IRA? So the principle

difference between Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and Irish republicans,

Irish republicans looked at other prisoners as ordinary criminal, they

wanted nothing to do with them. They didn't want to recruit them, they

saw themselves as superior to them. Where as Al-Qaeda-inspired prisoners

see their time in prison as an opportunity to radicalise. If they

are being exposed to other prisoners they will try to make recruits. That

creates a dilemma for the prison authorities, they can't allow them

to associate with other prisoners that much because they will try to

radicalise them. They are a real security risk? They are, they are

and they have been, there have been incidents, and Abu Qatada said he

saw so many people in prisons coming in ripe for recruitment. And now it

is a dilemma for the prison authorities because they don't want

the prisoners to be exposed to them. Let's hope there are no more

incidents, if there are more there will be more men and women being

locked up, because the Government have a strategy? Well the

Government, if you had asked me that question five or six years ago I

would have said probably no, but over the past five or six years they

have actually done quite a lot, so prison staff have been trained,

there are moderate Imans in prisons, you don't have to go to extremist to

get religious instructions. There are a lot of things in place that

would prevent radicalisation happening. It is not perfect but

better than it was five or six years ago. Thank you very much. Now the

end of life as we know it. In the last 500 million or so years there

have been five mass extinctions of life on earth. The most famous is

the one that wiped out the dinosaurs after a meetite about the --

meteorite in excess of 45,000 miles an hour hit the earth. We are

entering a sixth mass extinction it is thought, this time the agent is

us. Kolbert is the author of The Sixth Extinction -- Elizabeth

Kolbert is author of The Sixth Extinction, and we have the previous

economist and writer from the Economist. Elizabeth Kolbert, how

close are we to the sixth extinction? Well, some people would

say that they are, you know, only on the verge of it, we can still

prevent it and some scientists would say we are pretty deep into this

project already. That we have been, human cause of extinction is a thing

that goes back 50,000 years or so ago, since our ancestors went to

places like Australia and caused a wave of extinctions. Do you worry

about this? Yes I do. It is a really dramatic impact we have had on other

species on the planet. I'm a little less pessimistic in that I think

richer countries are beginning to take this in hand. One of the key

factors in this is climate change isn't it? Yes. Climate change is

predicted. If you, once again, all we can do at this point, because

there is a pretty big lag time in the system in climate change. So

there is a lot of modelling efforts, people trying to figure out what

will the world look like 50-100 years from now. Many of the studies

will be climate change will become the major driver of extinction. It

isn't at this point. There we are. Some reassurance there? Well, if

climate change is at the upper end of current estimates, then it will

be disastrous, but if it is at the lower end than probably most

biodiversity won't have that much of a problem with it. What time scale

are we talking about here? In terms of climate change? Yeah. Well we can

see some serious climate change by the end of the century. Some people

are talking about four degrees, some talking one degree. One degree is

not that much of a problem, four degrees is a massive problem. Let's

supposing, Elizabeth Kolbert, I don't think in New York you can see

this, but we have a rather nice illustration of a spotted frog,

which has now vanished conveniently, a spotted frog and a wildcat. But

supposing these creatures disappear, in what way are we diminished? We

are really talking about the richness and variety of life on

earth, which is last taken many, many millions of years reach this

point, and we are unravelling it very, very quickly. We have to be

concerned on absolutely all levels, on an ethical and practical level,

at every level. Surely extinction is the natural counterpart to

evolution. Everything is going to become extinct at some point? That

is absolutely true. The question is the rate at which things are

becoming extinct. When you think about it, it is absolutely clear.

You don't see new species popping up around you all the tile. And you

shouldn't, in the course of a human lifetime for example you should not

be able to see a single species of mammal go extinct, it should only

happen on the order of many hundreds of years that one species of mammal

should go extinct. If they are going extinct faster than that, it means

they are evolving more slowly an extinction, the variety of the

planet is plummeting. That is happening now. Are you bothered by

this deminute fusion in variety? Yes, but I do think we need to look

at the efforts that a lot of countries are making to stop this

reduction in variety. If you look over the last 30 years in the rich

world we have made huge efforts in terms of getting rid of invasive

species, of increasing nature reserves. The deforestation on the

Amazon is running now at about 10% of what it was ten years ago. All

over the world people are making a huge effort to stop this happening.

You are absolutely right that over thousands of years humanity has had

a disastrous affect on other species, but there is a good chance

that we, simple Lewis because we have decided to, may be able to stop

this destruction. And there will be plenty of people at home will say

frankly what does it matter if the spotted frog disappears? A number of

things, all sorts of species have really interesting DNA that medical

researchers are increasingly realising can solve all sorts of

problems that scientists which themselves cannot. Chairman Mao

decided to wipe out all the sparrows and the result was a playing of

insects. We need creatures more than we think we did. What do you make of

the argument that human kind has it within its possibility of doing

something to arrest this extinction, which may already have started, not

of the frog of the general extinction, the mass extinction? I

certainly hope that Emma is right. Absolutely. I think that what is

propelling this extinction event forward is the ways in which we are

changing the planet. Changing the planet on a global, geological

scale. Very rapidly, much more rapidly than most species can adapt

to, what we need to be thinking about and we need to be thinking

about it very fast and on a global level is how we are doing that and

how can we minimise our impact. Let as be realistic about it, this is

all accelerating since the Industrial Revolution kicked off.

Which has been a huge benefit to human kind. Are you suggesting that

we some how diminish the benefits to human kind in order that we avoid

something that may happen in a couple of million years time. How do

you get people to think about that? I don't think we are talking about

something that may happen in a couple of million years time. If we

continue on the trajectory we are on, we are talking about causing a

significant extinction event, a major extinction event within a

matter of centuries, not a couple of million years from now. We are not

talking about something that lies in some distant mythological future,

and balancing what people need. There are as you suggest seven. Two

billion of us on the planet right now, balancing what we need and

want, against the needs of all the other creatures with whom we share

this planet, the challenge really I think of our times and as was

suggested it is not some abstract thing that is it nice to share your

planet on with other creature, we dependant on those other creatures.

I will ask Emma a question, without any preparation, could you persuade

your children to wore and care about -- worry and care about an event

that may happen in century's time? ? I would encourage them in different

ways, I would say we need soil to grow stuff and DNA. You look very

sceptical, but, about, more than a quarter, something like a half of

the new drugs found these days comes from the DNA of other creatures,

this is really important to us. Plus, people like nature, you know.

People actually like holidaying in the sun, they don't want live in

concrete jungles. Even the Chinese they have destroyed their

environment more than anywhere else on the planet, they are now creating

National Parks as a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. We could

talk all night on this. Now there is a 97% chance you will believe this

and a very much smaller chance that you won't. Politicians misused

statistics to their own advantage. The head of the statistics society,

the man in charge of guarding the official significants pointed out

today that figures given by the Government for spending on flood

defences weren't all they appeared to be. Ed Miliband announced that

the Government was banged to rights, and no Labour Government would ever

stoop so low as we all know. In this four-year period and indeed in this

parliament overall spending on flood defences has gone up. Mr Speaker I

am afraid that the figures the Prime Minister is quoting are phoney, and

I believe he knows it. How is it that politicians are always able, as

if by magic, to find statistics to suit their case? Revealing the

Westminster's inner circle's inner trick, we present to you tonight

Lessons in Lull illusion. The First trip is vanishing inflation. The

slight of -- sleight of hand here is the Government hopes you don't

realise that money loses its value over time. You might hear them talk

about protecting a budget in cash terms, that is what they say when

they can't say they are protecting a budget in real terms. That is to say

they are increasing the budget faster than inflation. If you

protect it only in tax terms it means you are only cutting it by

more than 10%. The The second trick is apples and oranges. This piece of

conjuring is very switch but very powerful. What you do is you compare

two numbers and they seem to talk about the same thing but aren't the

same at all. Chris Grahaming back in 20 -- Grayling produce figures that

showed a rise in crime in the 1980s, but in truth statisticians knew it

had fallen. But Mr Grayling was looking at the way they recorded

crime. That was one trick that didn't come off. For their next

trick the amazing moving goal posts. This is where Governments just

change rules when the data doesn't suit them. Take the case of Gordon

Brown, he set himself two fiscal rules, those are rules that are

designed to show that he was a prudent custodian of the public

finances. When one of them, the golden rule, didn't suit him, he

fiddled with the definitions of the data and finally changed the years

over which it would count. For their next trick, junk research. Ministers

can just commission dodgy analysis. Cambridge University opposed plans

to change the AS-level, presenting real research that showed it was

helpful. Whitehall officials cooked up some nonsense numbers of their

own in retaliation. Finally, just lying claim You know how that works.

But even so they do a lot of it. Takes the case of the Liberal

Democrats who claimed credit for a doubling of our offshore wind

capacity since 2010. That did actually happen, we have increased

our offshore wind capacity, but all because of policies undertaken by

the last Government. Everyone involved in politics says they want

more evidence-based policy. But if we are going to have that we need

everyone involved in politics, the politicians, the lobbyists, the

charities and the journalists to just be a little bit straighter when

it comes to statistics. Chi Onwurah is a Labour Shadow

Cabinet office minister with an MBA in statistic, David Spiegelhalter is

Professor for public understanding at the University of Cambridge. You

are not surprised Governments play slightly fast and loose with

statistics? As we saw in the segment, you need to tell a story to

get a message across. Politicians need to tell us in the story and a

narrative, and statistics are important. Characters in that

narrative. The real danger comes when they are part of the fiction.

It is the case that this Government seems to be running a kind of

culture of statistical administration. Gordon Brown

wouldn't have doing anything like that would he? This Government has

been written to by the national statistics authority, so repeatedly,

a so many times that it is becoming embarrassing. It is also the case

that this Government doesn't believe in active intervention. They are not

going to freeze energy prices. Get off the party horse for a second?

When you believe it should be left to free markets then you need to do

more, you have more of a temptation to manipulate the statistics. Do you

think things have got cleaner and better? Actually I think they have a

bit. I think they have got better. I think statistics now are subject to

more scrutiny than they used to be. There is agencies such as Fact Check

and Full Fact, that will take people to task, then there is the national

statistics authority. When be somebody sees a bad number they

write to Sir Andrew Dilnot, it is like going to the headmaster and say

David Cameron said something wrong and then he's writing letters. It is

a great development that politicians are being held to account for their

use of numbers. Is public understanding any better though?

Yes, that was supposed to be my job. It is difficult, I mean the royal

statistical society has a campaign to try to improve public and

political understanding of statistics and chance and risk and

how that will work in society. It is a long job, to give them their

credit the changes to the GCSE and the proposed new core maths

qualification should also contribute to that in education. Do your

colleagues have any idea of statistics? MPs represent people,

and coming from engineering it was something of a shock to the system

to see the extent to which the understanding of statistics and

figures and being familiar around numbers is no better than the public

average. The fact that what we say tends to be amplified we contribute

often more to the noise than the signal when it comes to statistics

and figures. That is really important because statistics are so

important. I often think about Florence Nightingale, well known as

a nurse, less well known as a statistical innovator who invented

the Pi Chart and said if you want to understand God's thoughts you must

study statistics for there is written his purposes. I wouldn't put

it so religiously, I would say if you want to understand humanity and

Government achievement study statistics. For example in

Newcastle, some areas of Newcastle the average life expectancy is 15

years more than some areas of south Kensington. It tells us. Fewer,

sorry 15 years fewer than in some areas of south nsington. That tells

us a lot about our society. In a highly educated person like you

makes that elementary slip where will the rest of us go. I'm sure

that everybody could make slips and what we're talking about here is the

public understanding and use of statistics.

There is a big difference though between the sort of job that we have

got over here and your sort of job. Your job is about clean, facts,

data? Yes. Your job is about judgment? That's very true. I don't

think you can make a complete split. People who produce statistics knows

that statistics have been chosen and constructed. They are not just pure

facts about the world. The last unemployment figures in the last

couple of weeks says unemployment has gone down 124,000, no it hadn't.

It is based on a survey, did you know that. They only know those

figures accurately to plus or minus 100,000. People don't know that.

That changes almost within the margin of error? Exactly. But last

year unemployment went down by 37,000 and a big fuss was made about

it, actually you had no idea if it had gone down or not. That is not

part of the discourse. People don't understand that statistics are

actually constructed to some extent. The argument today with David

Cameron and the flooding expenditure, that was because of

changing the time scale, changing not allowing for inflation, it was

what you included in terms of expenditure, all those little

changes meant that they could say they sent more than Labour did in

their period. It is not to say those statistics in a sense are correct,

it is just what they chose to use. That is why you do need people to

look rat these, to take them -- to look at these and take them apart

and deconstruct them. It is not a choice between fact and fiction,

there is always an element of judgment in the statistics we have

useded. You have to use facts to get across developed policy and a

message. What we can perfectly agree about is the really important

decision that is we're taking now. Say on flood defence but in the

future around climate change and increasing population extinction

there will be a lot of statistics involved in making those choices,

people have to understand how they are used and politicians who have

the job of getting those decisions made have to understand them. Can I

ask you on public subjects understanding. At what point does an

unemployment figure become reliable. If it goes down by 50,000 it is

meaningless. It is not meaning less, it is more likely to go down rather

than up, but it has to go down by 100,000 for the confidence of it

going down. The broadcasting regulator Ofcom

says it is going to investigate the Channel 4 programme Benefits Street,

after receiving the best part of 2,000 complaints. Yet the programme

yielded Channel 4 their biggest audience for the best of two years.

It is more evidence of the way in which a particular portrayal of poor

people on television has become immensely popular. The people on the

Jeremy Kyle show on the ITV reflects the same taste. The old injunction

for the special care and reverence for the poor seems to have been

shunted aside for the freak show. There was a time not so long ago

when the two people you needed and replied upon were your grand show.

Years ago the talk show was a careful gassing about the business

of the day, and perhaps the little general discussion on such saucy

topics as relationships. Then this happened... The Jerry Springer show

and others like it found huge ratings success in the 1990s, with

an increasingly unashamed brand of lurid personal confession and

confrontation between protaganists. My next guests say they have double

the troupe. At the show's peak this journalist turning politician turned

ring master, he spawned a foul mothed opera in his tribute.

# Hope you die slow with Payne The airing of dirty washing on

national television format has found notable success on these shores too.

The Jeremy Kyle once "human bear bating" by a judge has reached its

ten years. Recently Channel 4's Benefits Street brought a slanging

match over whether the trove viles of poor people -- at that veils of

poor people should be put on television.? ? What does the creator

of these shows think about the monster he helped to create. The

Godfather of the confessional chat show is here. Are you ashamed of it?

The show is stupid but I have always thought the show is stupid. Ashamed,

not. Shouldn't you be? No, not any more than a journalist should be

doing the news. For example you would make a living, let as say you

are a journalist and you do the news every night, every night you tell

stories about very bad things and it is very profitable for the station,

you are not necessarily helping the people you talk about, newspapers

are in that business all the time. You could decide, you could decide

only to put well-scrubbed, wealthy people that speak the Queen's

English on television and just do that. But that wouldn't reflect the

whole society. You are being factitious? No television should

reflect, in a free society the entire culture. If all shows were

like mine that would be wrong. But you cannot just have television that

is like Friends, Seinfeld, all these good looking and wealthy people and

you love it. If some wealthy and famous person goes on television and

talks about who he or she has been sleeping with, we can't get enough

of it, we cheer them. If it is a person of low income we say trash,

trash, like they are less than another person. Speak for yourself,

some of us chose not to look at either? You do watch television, are

you saying here that you don't want television? Of course you watch

television. I'm interested in whom is sleeping with whom? I'm not, I

watch sport. I don't watch my show I have always said that. If I was in

college I would. I would get a hoot out of it. I'm saying we shouldn't

be too uppity and say if these shows show poor people it is trash but if

it is rich people it is OK. It is not that it shows poor people but

that it ex-employments poor people? -- it exploits poor people. I worked

in news for ten years, that was exploitation, never once was there a

conversation in the newsroom that we should drop a story because this

story might hurt this person, ruin their career, ruin their marriage or

as you them discomfort. We never cared about the people we did

stories on. You were working in a rubbish newsroom. I have been party

to those conversations many a time? You are telling me when you run a

story on the BBC that puts someone in a bad light, you ask their

permission first. No, not ask their permission, that is what you said, a

conversation saying is this going to be damaging to the person, that

Conservatives most certainly the one? Did you say to the person who

was it was damaging and you don't run the story. That happened many a

time? That is not true. If