:00:00. > :00:00.From high-street hero to retail tragedy -
:00:07. > :00:09.what really happened at British Home Stores?
:00:10. > :00:11.Did Sir Philip Green act responsibly when
:00:12. > :00:19.You get really egregious cases, which I suspect this is one,
:00:20. > :00:22.then it brings to light how casually the duties of directors
:00:23. > :00:32.Facebook agrees to look into charges of political bias.
:00:33. > :00:34.Did it remove right-wing stories from its trending list?
:00:35. > :00:36.And should we worry that we are increasingly getting news
:00:37. > :00:44.And on Artsnight, Tate director Nicholas Serota dares to ask -
:00:45. > :00:46.just how important is contemporary art?
:00:47. > :00:49.We stand here, on the point of opening the new Tate Modern,
:00:50. > :00:51.the extended Tate Modern, with many people still doubting that
:00:52. > :01:08.Just how did the tycoon dubbed the King of the High Street
:01:09. > :01:11.become the "unacceptable face of capitalism".
:01:12. > :01:14.Philip Green, the man behind many key fashion brands,
:01:15. > :01:17.was lauded and loved - knighted indeed.
:01:18. > :01:20.That was before he sold British Home Stores a year ago for ?1.
:01:21. > :01:26.Last month, the retail chain went into administration,
:01:27. > :01:29.and is likely to be sold again in coming days.
:01:30. > :01:32.Crucially, the move left a ?571 millon hole in its pension fund.
:01:33. > :01:35.The blame has been laid squarely at Philip Green's door.
:01:36. > :01:39.Well, Newsnight has been trying to untangle what happened
:01:40. > :01:41.with the business - and how much blame, if any,
:01:42. > :02:09.Nothing scroomed British style more than British Home Stores, it became
:02:10. > :02:15.a thriving chain of 160 odd shops nationwide.
:02:16. > :02:18.That was then, now BHS is in administration, led by a man who has
:02:19. > :02:25.been bankrupt three times, and lumbered with a hole in its pension
:02:26. > :02:30.pot that seems to be ?571 million wide. And the fall out from this
:02:31. > :02:35.could be immense. One of the BHS known retailers in this country, a
:02:36. > :02:41.Knight of the Realm has been accused of recklessly selling BHS, even
:02:42. > :02:46.though it has helped to make him a multiple billionaire, overnight a
:02:47. > :02:51.man feted as one of our greatest entrepreneurs has been regarded as a
:02:52. > :02:57.pariah. When you get egregious case, I suspect this is one, it brings to
:02:58. > :03:01.light how casually the duties of directors are being taken by some
:03:02. > :03:07.people, and I think we therefore need to remind people who work in
:03:08. > :03:10.business, who have directored duty, that they do include more than
:03:11. > :03:16.simply making money in the short run.
:03:17. > :03:22.Sir Philip Green makes an almost pant mile villain, the ?100 million
:03:23. > :03:26.superyacht, the models, the massive dividend, the tax haven. Feted by
:03:27. > :03:30.some in the establishment, seen as vulgar in the eyes of others, but
:03:31. > :03:37.how much is Sir Philip Green really to blame for all this? Newsnight has
:03:38. > :03:41.heard the views from all sides in what everybody agrees is a sorry
:03:42. > :03:46.tale. So what really happened to BHS?
:03:47. > :03:51.Great value, good quality. It had all looked so hopeful. Money in one
:03:52. > :03:55.side, money out the other. Friends have told us Sir Philip Green thinks
:03:56. > :03:59.he should have sold it is a decade ago.
:04:00. > :04:04.When he did sell in 2015, it went for just a pound. But the buyer
:04:05. > :04:08.wasn't anyone you have heard of. It was a very little known businessman
:04:09. > :04:14.called Dominic Chappell. A man with no retail experience at all, but a
:04:15. > :04:18.very colourful past. So, who is he? Since his take over of BHS, it has
:04:19. > :04:23.merged that Dominic Chappell has been made bankrupt three times,
:04:24. > :04:27.although he insists that one of those bankruptcies is going to be
:04:28. > :04:30.annulled. Newsnight has discovered that 15 years ago he was charged
:04:31. > :04:35.with theft, and the handling of stolen goods in relation to the
:04:36. > :04:39.disappearance of a 47,00 pounds sports car. When we spoke to him
:04:40. > :04:44.about this, he invisited that the case had been thrown out, and that
:04:45. > :04:49.he was innocent. -- insisted. But what about those bankruptcies?
:04:50. > :04:53.Anyone wants to know about Dominic Chappell has to come here, to the
:04:54. > :04:59.Isle of Wight. We have just come off the hovercraft. He used to make this
:05:00. > :05:06.journey in his helicopter. This is island harbour, a unique and
:05:07. > :05:10.historical area, a true jewel in the Crown for the Isle of Wight. Not my
:05:11. > :05:14.words but those of this man. This is Dominic Chappell, the chief
:05:15. > :05:19.executive of island harbour holdings. At least he was. Until his
:05:20. > :05:24.development here went bust, seven years ago, owing more than ?20
:05:25. > :05:28.million. Much of it to local businesses, who were and still are
:05:29. > :05:34.absolutely furious, including the company that printed this brochure.
:05:35. > :05:40.How many did you make of these? From memory about 5,000. Tim lost out on
:05:41. > :05:46.nearly ?13,000. In this particular project we have to pay our paper
:05:47. > :05:51.suppliers who gave us the paper, ink suppliers, our people that did the
:05:52. > :05:54.Varnishing, we had to pay them as well. So a considerable amount of
:05:55. > :05:57.money other than staff that is paid out by a company, and this type of
:05:58. > :06:04.work happens. Would you say it was reckless the
:06:05. > :06:13.behaviour? Yes. Damaging and reckless? It damaged me to the tune
:06:14. > :06:18.of ?13,000. Hamilton's Fine Foods lost a similar amount If BHS phoned
:06:19. > :06:22.you and say we are thinking of selling up to this man, what would
:06:23. > :06:26.you have said? I would have been speechless they even accepted the
:06:27. > :06:32.approach. I would have say there is to way you can do this Mr Green.
:06:33. > :06:36.Well, there is a lot of prominent businessmen and women who have been
:06:37. > :06:39.through bankruptcies and administration so there is nothing
:06:40. > :06:44.wrong with selling a company to someone with a chequered financial
:06:45. > :06:48.past but this feels a bit different. BHS, such a prominent name on the
:06:49. > :06:52.high street but responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods and
:06:53. > :06:58.pension, so the questions that arrive now are is who was checking
:06:59. > :07:03.the credentialles of Dominic Chappell, and were enough questions
:07:04. > :07:08.asked at the right time. Right at the top of that list, who was
:07:09. > :07:15.vouching for Dominic Chappell? Sir Philip Green's lawyers ling laters
:07:16. > :07:31.told us they got reassurances from MrChappell's lawyers Olswang.
:07:32. > :07:41.That pels lawyers told us: -- Dominic Chappell.
:07:42. > :07:45.What is clear, is that everybody involved in the sale of BHS knew
:07:46. > :07:48.about Dominic Chappell 's bankruptcies but nobody thought they
:07:49. > :07:53.were a deal breaker. So a very rich Mansells his shops to
:07:54. > :07:58.another man, who has no retail experience. On paper that looks odd.
:07:59. > :08:03.Is there anything legally wrong with what happened? If you want to sell
:08:04. > :08:10.the asset and you own this company, you are entitled to dispose of it as
:08:11. > :08:17.you wish, and you don't have to ensure that the person purchasing
:08:18. > :08:20.the asset can comply with his or her own obligations to the company, that
:08:21. > :08:25.is after the event. You are entitled to dispose of your shares as you
:08:26. > :08:30.wish. The single most controversial part of the collapse was the hole in
:08:31. > :08:34.the staff pension scheme, valued at of ?570 million. Controversial
:08:35. > :08:38.because those pensions are being paid out of a rescue fund, that
:08:39. > :08:42.millions of workers have paid into. And not by Sir Philip Green, by
:08:43. > :08:47.Dominic Chappell, or by anyone else who has made money out of BHS.
:08:48. > :08:53.What has never before been revealed, is that two years ago, Sir Philip
:08:54. > :08:58.Green planned a massive restructuring of BHS called Project
:08:59. > :09:03.Thaw. One of the main things it would have achieved was putting more
:09:04. > :09:07.money into the pension fund including 80 million from Sir Philip
:09:08. > :09:12.Green himself. It needed approval and that is something the regulator
:09:13. > :09:15.wasn't prepared to give. At months of discussion the global economy had
:09:16. > :09:24.changed and project thaw was shelved. Could the regulator have
:09:25. > :09:29.saved the scheme? On Monday the boss suggest it had kept in the dark
:09:30. > :09:33.about plans to sell to Dominic Chappell 's group. They discussed
:09:34. > :09:39.propositions with us and the next we heard that there was a specific
:09:40. > :09:43.development, was the sale. Not so says the man who oversees the BHS
:09:44. > :09:45.pension fund. My recollection is clear, that all of the key
:09:46. > :09:49.stakeholders were involved in that sale process and we were all
:09:50. > :09:54.involved in regular dialogue and discussions Once it learned of the
:09:55. > :09:58.sale the pension regulator launched an immediate inquiry known as an
:09:59. > :10:02.anti-avoidance case, I spoke to Dominic Chappell at lent today and
:10:03. > :10:06.he said that inquiry had a huge impact on his ability to borrow
:10:07. > :10:12.money from banks at a competitive rate. He said the inquiry was, in
:10:13. > :10:16.his opinion, one of the main reasons that BHS had gone into
:10:17. > :10:20.administration. But others say there was one very
:10:21. > :10:28.simple option available to Sir Philip Green, but he failed to take
:10:29. > :10:32.it. It. John Ralph has been asked to provide specialist briefing on
:10:33. > :10:36.pensions to their inquiry If you are thinking about selling, and that
:10:37. > :10:40.could you know, that could increase the risk of the pension scheme,
:10:41. > :10:44.there is a very straightforward mechanism you can use, it is called
:10:45. > :10:47.preclearance, you go to the regulator you fill in a form, it is
:10:48. > :10:52.on the website, it is straightforward. You explain what
:10:53. > :10:55.the facts you are doing are, you explain the impact on pension scheme
:10:56. > :10:59.and what you are doing to mitigate that impact. That might involve
:11:00. > :11:03.putting in an amount of money, you then can get a sign off from the
:11:04. > :11:08.regulator, that they will not pursue you, and I think I would like to ask
:11:09. > :11:11.however strong your legal advice was, what was the commercial reason
:11:12. > :11:16.for not taking a bit of time and effort and trouble, and getting that
:11:17. > :11:19.preclearance. There are senior executives within
:11:20. > :11:23.BHS who believe the brand can be saved, but even if it is, the
:11:24. > :11:28.pension scheme won't be. That lifeboat fund will now prop it up.
:11:29. > :11:33.That raises bigger questions, some see this as an corporate equivalent
:11:34. > :11:38.of a get out of jail free card. Let us be clear, setting up the
:11:39. > :11:43.Pension Protection Fund was a progressive step forward, because it
:11:44. > :11:48.was wrong that if somebody lost their job in a company failure they
:11:49. > :11:52.should lose their pension. It is right to underwrite pensions in
:11:53. > :11:57.those situations but clearly it is open to abuse, by employers, taking
:11:58. > :12:02.money out of a company and then dumping responsibility on the
:12:03. > :12:05.taxpayer. There is every chance Sir Philip Green hasn't broken any rules
:12:06. > :12:09.at all to do with the sale of BHS, he stuck to the letter of the law,
:12:10. > :12:13.that he followed advisers' recommendation but there is a chance
:12:14. > :12:17.he will still have to write a big fat cheque to the pension fund? Why?
:12:18. > :12:22.Because his reputation really is at stake here. This whole complex story
:12:23. > :12:26.is about more than who is legally or technically right, it is about
:12:27. > :12:34.perceptions of fairness, about what we as a society think of as fair.
:12:35. > :12:37.At the marine that it was a new develop ever who pecked up the
:12:38. > :12:42.recommend napts of the failed venture, with BHS, it is now down to
:12:43. > :12:50.the Pension Protection Fund to help pensioners and the administrator to
:12:51. > :12:54.try to sell the company. He is analysing five or six separated by,
:12:55. > :12:56.one of which involves Dominic Chappell.
:12:57. > :12:59.Joining me now, the Labour MP Frank Field, who chairs the Work
:13:00. > :13:03.He has suggested Philip Green should hand back his knighthood
:13:04. > :13:06.if he doesn't cough up the money to cover the pensions scheme.
:13:07. > :13:10.Thank you for coming in. Let me ask you to help us unpack this, first,
:13:11. > :13:15.did you know that Sir Philip Green tried to plough back the profits,
:13:16. > :13:22.from BHS into the pensions fund, and that he was stopped from doing that?
:13:23. > :13:27.No. But quite a lot is emerging, and one of the roles of both business
:13:28. > :13:32.Select Committee and Work and Pensions Select Committee, coming
:13:33. > :13:36.together, is be able do a number of audits, so those audits, we hope
:13:37. > :13:41.will be tested but published by Parliament. There is some obvious
:13:42. > :13:47.questions that we need answering, first of all when was as Adam was
:13:48. > :13:51.suggesting there, when were the profits generated? And was it by
:13:52. > :13:57.book-keeping or by other arrangements? Real improvements in
:13:58. > :14:02.the firm? And to whom did they go? Let me go back on this one, if it
:14:03. > :14:06.turns out that he did in fact try and plough those profits back, from
:14:07. > :14:12.BHS, into the pensions fund, including that 80 million of his own
:14:13. > :14:15.money and he was stopped by the regulator, would that concern you
:14:16. > :14:20.and if so, where would you be looking now? Well, we are looking in
:14:21. > :14:23.lots of places, Would you question the regulator? Is the pensions
:14:24. > :14:35.regulator in your perview. We have questioned the regulator
:14:36. > :14:39.without knowing this and immediately companies on behalf of Sir Philip
:14:40. > :14:43.Green came back to disputing many of the key thing she said and again
:14:44. > :14:51.another audit which we will be doing to publish is, was this a failure of
:14:52. > :14:57.the existing law, or is the law adequate, but people trusted with
:14:58. > :15:03.enforcing it did not match up to the job? Are you clear what Philip Green
:15:04. > :15:09.has done wrong? No, that is the point of our inquiry. Do you think
:15:10. > :15:14.he has done anything illegal? We are not starting from a basis of
:15:15. > :15:18.anything illegal. Do you think he has been a moral? I am answering the
:15:19. > :15:24.first question. That side of whether nor has been broken is being looked
:15:25. > :15:31.at by the Serious Fraud Office. We have been in contact with them. I do
:15:32. > :15:35.not want to do anything that would allow inadvertently somebody to
:15:36. > :15:40.shout they cannot get a fair trial. Why would you say so clearly that
:15:41. > :15:43.Philip Green has a moral duty to make good the pension scheme, or I
:15:44. > :15:49.would personally recommend he should lose his knighthood? Why would you
:15:50. > :15:55.go back far if you do not know he has done anything wrong? He was in
:15:56. > :15:59.charge of the stewardship over a period where considerable dividends
:16:00. > :16:06.were paid. We want to look at to whom they went and also he was
:16:07. > :16:12.Stuart ineffective the pension fund. You know now he may have tried to
:16:13. > :16:16.put into that fund and been stopped. Why would you come out with a phrase
:16:17. > :16:22.that sounds like you are prejudging him? When you asked me on here you
:16:23. > :16:26.said you would mention this and we would pass on because there are
:16:27. > :16:31.important issues I would like to discuss. Let me have another go at
:16:32. > :16:42.answering. I think there is one in moral case. Those who are developing
:16:43. > :16:47.unacceptable face of capitalism. If you are a Steward, take the rewards
:16:48. > :16:54.and then walk away and find there is a mega some of money, that people
:16:55. > :16:59.will not get in full. Did he do bronchi think by selling it to Vista
:17:00. > :17:07.Chappel? He has not sold it to Dominic Chappell. I'm sorry, he did
:17:08. > :17:16.for ?1. Mr Chappell is up for buying it again. He is a businessman who is
:17:17. > :17:20.trying to make good. What was the thing that you think he actually did
:17:21. > :17:26.wrong that would lead you to say maybe we should rescind his
:17:27. > :17:29.knighthood? You do not have to rely on your lawyers whatever they are
:17:30. > :17:35.paid and that is part of the business inquiry. Who does advise
:17:36. > :17:40.for these deals and what are they paid, what do they take out of it?
:17:41. > :17:46.We have to go on the internet and find the man is three times
:17:47. > :17:50.bankrupt. To think he is a serious player with no retail experience, to
:17:51. > :17:56.whom you entrust the livelihood of a large workforce, the destiny of the
:17:57. > :18:02.foregone wages and salaries in the pension scheme, I would have
:18:03. > :18:05.thought, if the BBC was run like that, do you think it would have
:18:06. > :18:09.such an easy run from the government this week? Frank field, thank you
:18:10. > :18:11.very much. To those that live there,
:18:12. > :18:13.and those that don't, London often feels like a different
:18:14. > :18:16.country to the rest of the UK. Londoners seem to dress
:18:17. > :18:19.differently, live differently, think differently and -
:18:20. > :18:35.increasingly - vote differently. Polling suggests Londoners are more
:18:36. > :18:35.for the EU then the rest of the country.
:18:36. > :18:38.But what does that mean for the future of the capital?
:18:39. > :18:40.And more importantly, you'll no doubt be shouting at
:18:41. > :18:48.David Grossman offers us his thoughts.
:18:49. > :18:52.London has always been a bit different.
:18:53. > :18:54.It's not just its scale that makes it unique, but demography too.
:18:55. > :18:59.It's younger, better qualified and richer.
:19:00. > :19:02.Londoners are more likely to rent, more likely to live
:19:03. > :19:05.in a flat, and more likely to use public transport.
:19:06. > :19:10.And London politics has diverged from the UK as well.
:19:11. > :19:14.My name is Sadiq Khan, and I'm the Mayor of London.
:19:15. > :19:17.Sadiq Khan's victory in London was as emphatic as it was welcome
:19:18. > :19:25.It's been building since the late '90s.
:19:26. > :19:30.1997 was the first general election when Labour pulled substantially
:19:31. > :19:34.ahead of their national average voting figures -
:19:35. > :19:38.at least in London, compared with the rest of the country.
:19:39. > :19:42.It has continued since then, and in 2015, further ahead again.
:19:43. > :19:48.Now, whether this is because of changing Labour politics in the '90s
:19:49. > :19:50.and 2000s, the late '90s and 2000s under Tony Blair,
:19:51. > :19:54.or a change in the make-up of the London population -
:19:55. > :19:58.to be honest, nobody really knows, but the effect is obvious.
:19:59. > :20:01.It's not that the Conservatives are doing worse, it's that Labour
:20:02. > :20:04.is doing better at the expense of lots of smaller parties.
:20:05. > :20:07.One reason is that London has expanded well beyond its formal
:20:08. > :20:21.Early morning commuters crowd on to packed trains.
:20:22. > :20:23.As London has grown, many of the Conservative-voting
:20:24. > :20:25.middle classes have moved to the surrounding counties,
:20:26. > :20:27.driven by the search for affordable housing.
:20:28. > :20:29.The people who used to vote Conservative in places
:20:30. > :20:31.like Greenwich and Lewisham, they haven't stopped
:20:32. > :20:32.voting Conservative, they just don't live
:20:33. > :20:41.They are now voting Conservative out in Essex and Kent.
:20:42. > :20:43.In place of the middle classes have come migrants, from all
:20:44. > :20:48.Nearly 40% of Londoners were born overseas.
:20:49. > :20:54.It is totally different from anywhere else in the UK.
:20:55. > :20:57.No other region has anything like it, and that does make it look
:20:58. > :21:05.It has links to all sorts of parts of the world, not only personal
:21:06. > :21:07.links, but business links, and it simply and inevitably means
:21:08. > :21:11.that the way people think in London is always going to be a little
:21:12. > :21:13.different from middle England or middle Britain.
:21:14. > :21:15.We can see that difference in polling.
:21:16. > :21:19.In the UK as a whole, 60% put immigration and asylum
:21:20. > :21:22.in their top three issues facing the country.
:21:23. > :21:31.Housing is the most important issue, on 44%.
:21:32. > :21:34.But housing only rates 20% in the UK as a whole.
:21:35. > :21:38.Not only that, but when Londoners say they are concerned about asylum
:21:39. > :21:42.and immigration, they can mean something very different.
:21:43. > :21:45.Because an awful lot of people in London,
:21:46. > :21:51.immigration is important because they have come here to live,
:21:52. > :21:55.and they want to have the freedom to work and to live in London.
:21:56. > :21:57.If they are from elsewhere in the world they may
:21:58. > :22:00.want to have the right to bring their extended family
:22:01. > :22:02.here and come and live here, London works very different,
:22:03. > :22:04.immigration works differently in London because a lot
:22:05. > :22:08.And this different view of course feeds into the debate
:22:09. > :22:14.In the UK as a whole, one recent poll found
:22:15. > :22:17.that the Remain side was just two points ahead of the Leave side,
:22:18. > :22:23.whereas in London the Remain side was ahead by 12 points.
:22:24. > :22:31.It may be that Labour's dominance over the capital is shortlived.
:22:32. > :22:37.As the new luxury investment apartments go up, poorer Londoners
:22:38. > :22:39.may follow the struggling Conservative-voting middle classes
:22:40. > :22:46.The Boris boom created this sort of Dubai on Thames landscape we can
:22:47. > :22:53.If we see the sort of policies we have in London at
:22:54. > :23:01.the moment continuing, where you have on the one hand,
:23:02. > :23:04.up to 100 council estates are up for demolition, and on the other
:23:05. > :23:07.hand, you have 300 towers being built of predominantly luxury
:23:08. > :23:11.apartments all over the city, you have that twin track process.
:23:12. > :23:14.If that continues, what we are going to see is this
:23:15. > :23:21.hollowing out of the city, where it really is going to become
:23:22. > :23:22.a very, very different sort of environment,
:23:23. > :23:25.and in five to ten years' time you will have a very
:23:26. > :23:31.different population, and a very different demographic.
:23:32. > :23:35.Part of London's abrasive charm is it doesn't seem to care
:23:36. > :23:43.It is always been slightly detached from the UK as a whole,
:23:44. > :23:45.but there is perhaps a danger this remoteness turns into isolation -
:23:46. > :23:51.Mark Zuckerberg has today announced plans to invite
:23:52. > :23:58.from across the political spectrum to discuss accusations
:23:59. > :24:03.The Facebook founder and CEO has always denied allegations that
:24:04. > :24:05.Facebook routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative
:24:06. > :24:08.readers and that the company would artificially inject stories
:24:09. > :24:12.into what appeared to be user-generated trending topics.
:24:13. > :24:15.Launched in 2014, the topics appear for the right of the news feed
:24:16. > :24:21.The question is, has Facebook deceived its users by chosing
:24:22. > :24:28.And crucially, have they played to a left-leaning
:24:29. > :24:34.audience's preference for news in their choice of story?
:24:35. > :24:38.the head of social and trending content for the Independent.
:24:39. > :24:45.And Louise Mensch, the editor of Heat Street, who is in New York.
:24:46. > :24:53.Gina Rik Mayall, many people I think would be surprised to know Facebook
:24:54. > :24:58.is in the news game and it is such a big player. I would not say it was
:24:59. > :25:04.in the news game traditionally, in the way you and I understand it, but
:25:05. > :25:08.what people need to realise is that many people get their news via
:25:09. > :25:13.Facebook and that would be the Facebook news feed rather than what
:25:14. > :25:19.is generated in trending topics that only appear on desktops. Most people
:25:20. > :25:25.who use Facebook do it on mobile. Louise, do they have that much
:25:26. > :25:30.influence, does it make such a difference? Of course it makes an
:25:31. > :25:36.enormous difference. Facebook brings the world together and brings the
:25:37. > :25:41.world it's news. I think we have seen Facebook admit and Mark
:25:42. > :25:47.Zuckerberg admit that they have been suppressing conservative news. They
:25:48. > :25:52.issued a statement from a PR firm, a non-denial denial, saying we allow
:25:53. > :26:01.Facebook trending topics that are well supported. The question is,
:26:02. > :26:05.what is well supported? . We had a list yesterday. One right wing news
:26:06. > :26:09.source which was Fox News, the others were left wing including the
:26:10. > :26:15.Guardian, the BBC and New York Times. To be fair, Facebook says it
:26:16. > :26:24.monitors thousands of websites per week. There were right wing
:26:25. > :26:31.publications. It is not saying it feels it is left-leaning, it is
:26:32. > :26:36.saying it will invite Conservatives. It acknowledges it has relied for
:26:37. > :26:42.what is good enough to support a trending topic. If you are not
:26:43. > :26:45.supported by these sources, including the BBC, Guardian and New
:26:46. > :26:54.York Times, your trending topic is not good enough. I think you are
:26:55. > :26:58.being deliberately disingenuous. You are running a right wing leaning
:26:59. > :27:03.website and it looks good for you to say you are suppressed. I have not
:27:04. > :27:17.seen evidence of right or left-wing contents doing better or worse
:27:18. > :27:23.online. These are trending topics. Not news publications. The basic
:27:24. > :27:27.technological... We are not discovering which news publications
:27:28. > :27:32.are suppressed by Facebook and my publication only launched in the
:27:33. > :27:36.last couple of weeks. They are talking about trending topics, not
:27:37. > :27:44.news publications. Can we step back from this? Right wing sites, if they
:27:45. > :27:49.are suppressed, why are they successful on Facebook? The question
:27:50. > :27:54.is trending topics, not news sites. It is amazing you have a basic lack
:27:55. > :28:00.of knowledge on the issue at hand, it is topics, not news sites. Is it
:28:01. > :28:05.the political bias allegations that concern you all the idea that anyone
:28:06. > :28:12.is editing what we think of as a trending topic? Does that worry you?
:28:13. > :28:20.You have to have an element of human duration otherwise it would be easy
:28:21. > :28:24.for Isis to make a trending topic out of an execution video. The
:28:25. > :28:30.sources on which they rely are far too left wing. And that is why, and
:28:31. > :28:35.to give Mark Zuckerberg credit, he is willing to meet with conservative
:28:36. > :28:39.leaders and changes ways, which has to be a good thing. Did you hear
:28:40. > :28:45.that as an admission, that they think they have been biased? No. In
:28:46. > :28:49.the same statement he said he did not think the allegations were true.
:28:50. > :28:53.When you look at where they came from coming they came from one
:28:54. > :29:00.contract working with Facebook. They said that certain sites were not
:29:01. > :29:15.trusted. Like the one we mentioned before. What do you define as a
:29:16. > :29:22.right wing topic? Let's take all lives matter. They would promote
:29:23. > :29:25.black lives matter and the socially conservative response all lives
:29:26. > :29:33.matter would be suppressed. You think that is wrong? Yes, as long as
:29:34. > :29:37.something is not completely it... It is not child abuse, something like
:29:38. > :29:44.that, you have to treat topics equally. Your guest is confused.
:29:45. > :29:50.Should they treat all lives matter, a rival campaign setup in the wake
:29:51. > :29:56.of black lives matter, equally? I have no evidence Facebook have been
:29:57. > :30:02.treating all lives matter, black lives matter, unequally. When I look
:30:03. > :30:06.at the trending topics and what is there, I do not have a look and
:30:07. > :30:15.think, there is something that is not there or artificially. We have
:30:16. > :30:17.run out of time. I am sorry we have to end it there but thanks to both.
:30:18. > :30:20.I'll be back on BBC Two with This Week's World,
:30:21. > :30:26.Next on Artsnight, in a crisis-ridden world,
:30:27. > :30:28.with our national economy on the ropes, Tate director
:30:29. > :30:33.Nicholas Serota dares to ask, does contemporary art really matter?
:30:34. > :30:35.He visits Los Angeles and Middlesbrough, and talks
:30:36. > :30:37.to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne.