With Evan Davis. An in-depth look at Hillary Clinton by Joe Klein. Plus sex scams and webcams, France's farm minister and 80 years of British TV.
Browse content similar to 26/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Gabby Logan will be back next week, Big Apple.
She has been bruised, emotionally Wednesday at
She has been bruised, emotionally battered anti-militated by a raft of
enemies, and sometimes even by her husband. All that scar tissue
renders her stiff, sometimes embarrassingly awkward. And we will
also be talking to the editor of the new York Times.
Also tonight: Online blackmail, webcams and shame in the Arab world.
Vision and sound are on. The station goes on the air.
It's exactly 80 years since TV started in Britain.
John Logie Baird's assistant at the time - yes,
this is really him - tells us about the early days of TV.
The year of Donald Trump dominating our headlines,
breaking the rules and conventions of democratic politics
with everything including the ludicrous and the lascivious,
and a year of him surprising us by how far he has got, will be over.
He will either be President of the US - in which case,
we'll have a lot to talk about - or Hillary Clinton will be President
and Donald Trump will revert to being a TV star.
Right now, the smart money is on Hillary, so let's spend a bit
of time on her personality and politics, and her chances.
Hillary has perhaps been getting less than the usual scrutiny, what,
But here's some interesting testimony about her
I think that she's a little bit misunderstood.
You know, Hillary's a very smart woman, very tough woman -
that's fine - but she's also a very nice person.
With an endorsement like that, her performance in the debates
and all the other stuff, is there any way that
The answer is yes, but it's pretty unlikely.
The latest polling average puts her about six points ahead of Mr Trump.
The uncannily accurate FiveThreeEight political blog,
which analyses all polls state-by-state, says she has an 85%
In fact, one might think of there being three possible outcomes.
A Clinton landslide - leading the popular vote by more
than 10%, a narrower Clinton win, or a Trump victory either
in the popular vote or at least in the electoral college.
Have a look at the chances put on each of these.
The landslide, at 19%, has a bigger chance than any kind
A more modest Clinton victory remains the most likely outcome.
There are potential reasons that Mrs Clinton may not clinch it
Is there more to come out e-mails hacked from her
Also, there are more than the usual undecided voters this year.
But there's no reason to think they will go to Trump.
But the real question mark over a Hillary victory there
is raised by the Brexit factor here.
Believe me, this is Brexit times five.
Maybe Trump can prove the polls and experts wrong.
Now, the truth is, UK polls are often wrong, but we should
never have been that surprised by a Brexit win.
Two weeks before referendum day, two polls put Brexit ahead, one by 10%.
Donald Trump may have the backing of one famous Brexiteer,
but Hillary can probably take heart from the Brexit polling story.
She's in a stronger position than Remain was, or Donald Trump is.
Ariel Edwards-Levy, Director of Polling at the Huffington Post,
commissions three polls a week in conjunction with YouGov
and analyses the results for their readers.
Good evening. What chance are you putting on a Hillary win at the
moment? We have her in the high 90% chance of winning. There are a
couple of forecasts, and the worst has her in the high 80s. The
forecasts are confident that the polls are right. There is pretty
much a consensus right now that the polls have her head, and if
something doesn't go catastrophically wrong with the
polls, or she doesn't do something catastrophic with her campaign in
the next two weeks, she will win. Any time we have an election, we
hear about shy Tories, people who don't admit to being on a particular
side. What makes you so sure that there are not shied Trump
supporters? People who think it is socially unhelpful to admit to
supporting him and want tell a pollster? Aside from the fact that
saying you have many supporters who are too embarrassed to support you
not really being a winning message, one of the great things about modern
polling technology is we have a way of testing this, because there are
two kinds of polls, online polls where you don't have to admit to
anyone who you are supporting, and the kind where somebody calls you
up. And what we have seen is that all Trump's level of support in both
of those polls is identical, so you have this mode effect, where polls
online for Brexit were getting a different response, and you are not
seeing any of those warning signs here right now. Is the Brexit result
here and the fact that it seemed to take a lot of people by surprise, it
probably shouldn't have quite so much, but is that to some extent
haunting the American elections here? I think the parallel for
Brexit is maybe not one that Donald Trump supporters should embrace,
because there is a parallel, and it is that if you look at the polls and
dismiss them, and you prefer to stay with the narrative that is not
supported by those numbers, you are going to be surprise when the
results end up looking a lot like those numbers are not what you were
telling yourself in the run-up to the election. What would it take to
stop Hillary Clinton now? You are putting 90 something percent chance
of her winning. There is still news to occur. Maybe an e-mail or
something to come out. What would you say is the most likely scenario
that could see Donald Trump get it on the day? In order for him to win,
he would have to regain his footing in all of the red states that have
started looking close, states like Arizona that you wouldn't ever
expect to go democratic but have trended that way. There are a couple
of state polls that have indicated he might be close to hanging on
there. He would have to win over states like Nevada, Florida, Ohio,
and he would have to win over states like Pennsylvania that he has never
had popularity in before. It could be that all of the polls have
somehow missed something terribly, terribly wrong. The other thing
could be that something in the next two weeks to stories Hillary's
support. But it is difficult to think what that would be, but never
say never until the votes are cast. What do the polls tell us is the
reason for Hillary Clinton having such a negative perception? Many
people say they will vote for her, but there is still a strong negative
perception of her? Yes, there is, and if you look back a couple of
years, when she was Secretary of State, she was one of the most
popular politicians in the United States, and then she started running
again and people remembered everything they didn't like about
her, so it is a combination of two things. One is partisanship.
Republicans are not going to like the Democratic nominee, pretty much
no matter who they are. And she has gotten this persona of being not
trustworthy, of being power hungry, and the e-mails, no matter what role
they play in the campaign, which may not be a significant one, they have
tired her opinion among many rank-and-file Americans who don't
see her as an entirely upstanding figure. Thank you very much indeed.
So what is the appeal of Hillary Clinton?
We asked a long-time associate of the Clintons and the writer
of the novel Primary Colors, which fictionalised
President Bill Clinton's first campaign in 1992,
the political columnist for Time Magazine Joe Klein
to explain why she has his backing for the White House.
I wanna be the president for every American.
Who says I don't have the stamina to be President?
Who or what is Hillary Clinton aside from probably the next president
She isn't really a regulation human being, not any more.
Her life has been ridiculously public for the 30 years
She's been bruised, emotionally battered and humiliated by a raft
of enemies and sometimes even by her husband.
As a result, she is cloaked in a thick crust of celebrity armour.
She protects herself with scar tissue from 10,000 cuts.
I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies,
Her first instinct in public, therefore, is to play defence,
I am not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man
All that scar tissue renders her stiff,
She seems secretive, shifty, the least known
My personal e-mails are my personal business, right?
The natural assumption is that she must be
If you asked her out for a beer, would she order
There have been so many scandals around nothing very scandalous.
In the 1990s, there was a seven-year Whitewater investigation
into her family's personal finances, which found nothing illegal.
There have been seven separate investigations into her behaviour
as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attack
Again, her behaviour was found perfectly proper.
And now there's the investigation into the personal e-mail
server that she used while she was Secretary of State
which found that she did behave carelessly in handling some
classified information, but she had done nothing illegal.
But she is hated, she is reviled, she is considered untrustworthy,
she is considered J Lovell by some people.
she is considered jailable by some people.
In fact Barack Obama once said to her, famously,
you are likeable enough, Hillary.
Her vote to support the war in Iraq was dreadful,
and I think was a political vote, a vote to prove her toughness.
Too often, her votes are too political.
She may be too close to Wall Street, but it's
important to remember that
most of the accusations against her involve her private
They don't involve violations of the public trust.
For too long, our leaders have viewed politics is the art
of the possible, and the challenge now is to practice politics
as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible.
The truth is, Clinton is a solid public servant.
She's the girl, the young woman who sat in front of class
She is the sober designated driver driving her mates home after a night
When we'd see each other back in the 1990s when she was First
Lady, her first question to me always was, what
Have you seen any exciting social programmes or schools
After 9/11, which happened right here, the question changed.
She joined the Senate armed services committee.
I was learning the military, too, and the new question now was,
In 2007, I spent time embedded in Iraq with General David Petraeus.
I asked him is there any potential president of the Democratic party
And he said, you mean aside from Hillary?
And I guess we have to say this, given
We are at a very perilous moment in American politics,
just as you are in Britain, and that is so un-American.
We are supposed to be a pillar of stability.
Clean elections, two parties, civility.
But the Republicans are in the midst of an unprecedented bloody
civil war, and both sides will try to prove their toughness
by stomping all over President Hillary Clinton.
The Democrats will be impatient, too.
Bernie Sanders and his young supporters will be just
Leading America in the world would be a hard enough job for anyone,
and harder still for an awkward, defensive woman who will always be
compared unfavourably to her husband and Barack Obama,
even though she is bound to follow their policies
The next four years will be far more difficult than her
But one thing I know about Hillary Clinton.
I am not Hillary Clinton but I think she would approve of that message,
that is from Joe Klein. Dean Baquet is the Executive Editor
of the New York Times. The paper has endorsed Hillary
Clinton. The editorial page. Is that because she's a stronger candidate
or not Donald Trump? No, I run the news pages and not the editorial
pages and I think the argument was she is a strong candidate. There was
a very powerful anti-Donald Trump part of it. But the New York Times
has endorsed Hillary Clinton in the past, she was the US senator for New
York, so it was a pro Hillary Clinton endorsement. In a strange
way, this election has been challenging and testing for
everybody and for her, but has she come through it and tested on issues
like policy? There has not been much chance to have that debate. I think
that is true. One of the biggest downside of this sometimes, campaign
we have had with Donald Trump as sort of a, book figure is that not
only have we tried to write about policy, but the debates have not
focused so much on policy and I think people have not got to test
them on everything from what would they do about Syria, on health care
in the United States? There has been so much, relief that we have not
heard enough about. What does Hillary stand for? I am hard pressed
to answer and we have barely spoken about her! If you look at, I have
covered the Clintons a bit as a reporter, and she is a moderate
Democrat, she is strong on national defence, she may even be stronger on
national defence than Barack Obama and more likely to intervene broad
than Barack Obama -- abroad. She did vote to intervene in Iraq. She is
moderate on social issues, she is a moderate Democrat who by the way is
going to have the struggle to hold onto that because she defeated an
extraordinary Liberal opponent. As Jo pointed out and he's right, the
supporters of Bernie Sanders will not be happy if Hillary Clinton
introduces your standard American Cabinet middle-aged guys who work
for think tanks in Washington. A lot of people think she is corrupt and
she takes money for this and that. The e-mail scandal has had an
enormous amounts to play and she has apologised and she has been taken to
task on that. The one that perhaps is more questionable is the
foundation. She is Secretary of State and running for President and
running around the foreign leaders and taking their money for her
charity, not for her own benefit, is that a bit weird? I think the e-mail
scandal was more indicative of the questions people have about Hillary
Clinton. I don't think she did anything corrupt or illegal, but she
is a very secretive person and the Clintons in the White house were
very secretive and suspicious of those around them. I think that was
part of the calculation when she wanted her own e-mail server. I
don't think much has been proven about the Clinton Foundation, unlike
Donald Trump's, it is a large gift-giving foundation. I do think
there is evidence she used her position to help raise money for the
foundation but in a weird way, the e-mail scandal is worth chewing over
four people, it is not one... Have you been soft on her at the New York
Times because she is against Donald Trump? No, we broke the e-mail
scandal. And we were roundly criticised by her and her people. We
have written very provocative stories about the relationship she
played years ago when Bill Clinton had to deal with the allegations
about women when he was running for office. If she was running against a
normal candidate, people would think we were extraordinarily tough on
her. In fact, she thinks we are. Let's talk about how this election
has shaped coverage. The New York Times tries to be relatively
impartial in its news pages. Trump has challenged that. We have never
seen anybody like him. I mean, we did something extraordinary a couple
of months ago and we accused him of telling a lie in a headline and used
the word, live. And I decided to do it because I found that he is so
persistently lying. He so persistently and overtly lied.
Politicians lie, they exaggerate, they say things that will be later
disproven, but Trump was doing this extraordinary thing and the turning
point was the allegation that Barack Obama was not born in the United
States. He literally lied and said he had never made a big deal of it
and he also said he hired a private detective. I thought that was beyond
the pale and we owed it to our leaders to not obfuscate and said
that was not a lie. You have done it for Trump, he told a lie and you
called it out in a headline and used the word lie, very unlike the New
York Times. Let's suppose a candidate like Hillary tells a verb,
do you go back to the normal treatment of that which is you
probably question it in the article and say no evidence was offered, how
ever you put it, or do you say, it is a lie? I think Trump did
something different and I think we have changed and we will do it for
future politicians. His was not a fib. He said vocally one thing
Monday and something else different Tuesday and it was a lie he
stretched over time. I think to be Frankie change does. I think it took
us a little bit of time to call him out. And I think the next time it
happens, we will do it more quickly and I think we are different as a
result of Donald Trump. Not sure what that looks like five years from
now. You will say, we are only doing it for clear lies. Then there will
be people who say, this is a clear lie and you have to make a judgment,
do we call this out as they clear lie or a fib which we do not? When
we use the word lie in a headline, I have a standards editor who reports
to me and he called me the next day and said, I agree with that, that
was great, I hope you are not going to do it everyday! U2 FactCheck
Donald Trump, well, everybody. Which -- we do FactCheck them both. To
some extent, is the problem for everybody that Donald Trump's
politics are not about facts, people are not listening to the facts out
of his head and judging him on those, they are reading the
subtitles about, I support you, these people are not on your side, I
am on the side. I don't know what it is, they will do things for you
rather than for the people who benefit. To an extent, that is true,
but he is behind in the polls sub some people, some Americans, they
are fact checking him. But I think most of what you say is true. I
think Donald Trump has cast himself in this remarkable role. This is a
guy who says he is a billionaire, but he is running against, and he
has done this is whole life, he is running against elite, but the
leaders of the Republican party. The New York Times! This is a guy who
made his fortune building apartment buildings for people who probably
could not have gotten into old money exclusive buildings. He was born in
Queen's. His father made his fortune in Queen's, he went to the big city
Manhattan and has been running against elite in his entire business
and now political career and that includes others. Did you, the
newspaper, like a lot of others, did you miss the story that there were
going to be so many people who were receptive to that anti-elite
message? Yes, I don't think we missed the story and I disagree with
those who say we missed the story of Donald Trump, I do not think so.
People know a lot of Out one. The story we messed and the press was
just how much anger there was in the country over the economic crisis and
disparity between the middle-class and extremely wealthy in the United
States. Although I have to say, it was easy to miss and it may have
taken a Donald Trump to put his finger on it and the light that up
but we did miss that story and I come away with lessons about how to
cover the country going forward. We're trying to talk about Hillary
Clinton today and we have ended up talking about Donald Trump!
Finishing on Hillary Clinton, do you think is a President she can unite
the nation? At this bitter campaign, can America be healed within a year
under Hillary? I do not think it is just on her. I think like Barack
Obama, she will try. I think a lot of it is on whether or not the
Republican party can take back the percentage of voters Donald Trump
took away from them. I think a lot of it depends on whether Democrats
are willing to let's -- to let go of their dreams of Bernie Sanders and a
left-leaning party. She has to try, I don't think it is up to her. A lot
of factions have to come together and I think it is going to be tough.
Dean Baquet, thank you. Shame is one of our
most basic emotions. It's been ruining lives for as long
as humans can remember, and it's also been used as a form
of traditional social control. But in the modern era,
technology has offered new ways A problem in our relatively
permissive society, but with far bigger human consequences
in the more conservative The BBC Arabic Service
is behind a fascinating It's called Shame, Sex, Honour
and Blackmail in an online world. We thought we'd bring you two films
from that project - Women, of course, are particularly
vulnerable to blackmail, Today, though, we thought we'd show
you that it can affect men, too. It happened when I was home alone.
This girl added me on Facebook. That night, she starts
chatting on Skype. And after a while, she asks
if I have a So I turned on my video and said,
can I see you, too? She lies on her bed
and starts masturbating. With a girl like this,
you lose your head. I'm a man, and I recorded
you masturbating. I have a list of your
family from Facebook. You have only one week
to send me 2000 euros, or I'll
send them the video. I'd have thrown myself out
of the window from the We'll have more from the Shame
season tomorrow, with the story And we'll also be discussing
the issues raised by France and Britain have a lot
to talk about right now, not least the jungle in Calais,
and of course Brexit. The Jungle has been cleared,
the form Brexit takes It happened that the French
agriculture minister, Stephane Le Foll, was in London
today in talks relating to COP22, the next round of UN
climate change discussions He also has a job as a Government
spokesman, so I caught up with him in the lavish surroundings
of Lancaster House. I began by asking him
whether he knows who's responsible for the chaotic scenes
in the Calais Jungle. Are you going to have 5000 police
guarding the dunes around Calais, the empty warehouses in Calais, the
beach around Calais. Because if you don't, presumably the migrants will
return. There is a debate in France, it
seems, about whether the treaty was the right treaty. Maybe the border
should move back to Dover? Maybe it is easier for Calais. You can put
the migrants on a boat, send them to Britain.
Do you think in retrospect the European Union, if it had known that
Britain was going to vote this way would not have made more effort to
keep the United Kingdom in? Let's just talk about why you are
here, which is for a pre-meeting of the next climate change talks. The
last talks were in Paris, of course. Are you happy that the legacy of the
Paris talks is being carried through?
Stephane Le Foll, thank you very much.
This is the erection of the TV tower at Alexandra Palace in North London.
Famous for being the point from which the first regular,
proper television service was broadcast by the BBC.
For a while, there were two competing services, in fact,
one based on a picture technology of 405 lines, the other using
a system devised by John Logie Baird which had 240 lines.
The Logie Baird system was quickly dropped.
But both were high definition at the time.
Back then, the technology meant the picture took 58 seconds to be
New technology needed custom-built studios.
And guess what - next Wednesday, is the 80th anniversary
Here is some of the Baird apparatus. The transmitting valves, the
spotlight scanner, the spotlight studio in which photocells take the
place of lights and the projection room with the projector.
And guess what - next Wednesday, is the 80th anniversary
# # Mighty mystic, magic raise
# All about us in the gloom # Living pictures out of space
# To bring a new wonder to you Well, I spoke to Paul Reveley
earlier this evening. He is now aged 104, but he worked
as the personal technical assistant of John Logie Baird back
then in 1936. He told me the man most people think
invented television wasn't even a VIP guest on the night.
He wasn't even invited to a set on the platform at the opening
Well, look, his system didn't make it.
It was the one that was dropped, wasn't it?
And the EMI Marconi system was accepted.
Did the right decision get made in the end, do you think?
There's not really much between the systems in television.
It was a question of the implementation.
Did you think, back then, when you were working
for John Logie Baird, did you know how big
and influential television would be in the 20th century?
So the huge irony in the history of television is that
John Logie Baird was the first to do it, and his was
He was the first to make it, make something work.
It was what the patent office call obvious to those versed in the art.
All you had to do was code the mosaic of light and shade,
which a transmissible scene is composed of.
You have to code that in some way, which is called scanning.
And then transmit that like a Morse code down a single
When did you buy your first television?
I didn't buy a television in the UK at all.
I bought a television much later on in life when I was working
for the Post Office engineering department of the Hong
How was John Logie Baird as a man to work for?
You must feel very proud, he has a very big history to him,
and you must feel proud to have had a very close relationship to him?
He was very considerate of his staff.
And of course, he was working at the forefront of his technology,
but he didn't do any practical work himself once he'd formed the Baird
He delegated all work, all actual, physical work
You weren't at Alexandra Palace on that night.
What were you doing on the night of those first broadcast,
I expect I was having dinner with my wife.
I have to say, Paul, it is a great privilege
Thank you very much for coming on, thank you.
Coming up on BBC Two, No Such Thing As The News.
We leave you with Chris Horsely, who's just been visiting
the Marum Volcano in Vanuatu in an unconscious bid to reconstruct
the Mount Doom scene in The Lord Of The Rings.