06/07/2017 Newsnight


With James O'Brien. Trump's warning to the west, the CBI chief defends her Brexit vision, and how close is AI? Plus Ibram X Kendi on his definitive history of racism.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



I take pride in the words ich bin eine Berliner. The fundamental


question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.


The President says the West may not survive.


Is he right, or is he part of the problem?


I think the large English speaking democracies, Britain,


and the United States, are really moving rapidly


We'll discuss how the Alliance can weather these storms.


Also tonight, for some Remainers, the cause endures,


the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.


The head of the CBI will make the case for a Brexit so soft,


And just how close is artificial intelligence?


It's literally in the past year we went from a place where it


would get it right about 80% of the time to a point where now


it's actually achieved human parody and speech recognition.


Something may have been lost in translation but Donald Trump


spent much of his Presidential campaign proudly proclaiming


that Vladimir Putin had described him as a genius.


This lofty regard was apparently mutual -


with Trump regularly expressing his admiration


Today, however, the American President seemed to place his


Russian counterpart on the other side of a purported war


During a speech in the Polish capital, Warsaw, he called on Russia


to stop destabilising Ukraine and other countries and to end


support for hostile regimes such as those in Syria and Iran.


With the pair due to meet tomorrow at the G20 summit in Hamburg,


Newsnight's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban has been exploring


the American President's apocalyptic warning.


It's the President's second visit to Europe and today's


speech was billed as a big foreign policy moment.


Given in Warsaw's Krasinski Square in front of a memorial to the 1944


uprising against the Nazis, an appreciative audience had been


It fell to the First Lady to do the warm up.


The president of the United States, Donald J Trump.


And with that, Trump set out his stall of a West


in existential crisis and his formula for success


While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values


and love our people, our borders will always


be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.


Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that


seek to test our will, undermine our confidence


To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda,


financial crimes and cyber warfare, we must adapt our alliance


to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields.


And here, having alluded to the Russian and Chinese threats,


he did at last state his commitment to Nato's mutual defence


But it was a distinctly Trumpian formula that shed little light


on the issue of how the West revives its fortunes economically.


A large part of the answer to that question depends on whether Macron


and Merkel can reignite the Franco-German motor,


rewrite Europe's fiscal rules and really generate growth again


That is where the hope lies and, if you like, the glass of champagne


is half full at the moment in Paris and in Berlin.


Today's speech owes much to White House strategy boss Steve Bannon.


You have an expansionist Islam and an expansionist China, right?


They are motivated, they are arrogant,


they are on the march and they think the Judaeo-Christian West


His view of the world revolves around hard power and the need


Even so, many more mainstream conservatives


I think the president struck the right tone on Polish soil today,


a strong reiteration, I think, of the importance


of the transatlantic alliance and a reminder of the values that


The illiberality of this message and emphasis on religious faith


worked well for this Polish audience, but it's out of kilter


It was very significant, not only that he chose Poland,


you know, which has got that law and justice government,


a right-wing government, a very Christian government that


refuses to take refugees from the Middle East


and is being sued by the EU over that, but it's very significant


that he, in his speech in Warsaw, did not use the word democracy once.


The President today claimed that billions and billions of extra


defence spending was now pouring into Nato as a result


So typical transactional Trump, having got what he wanted,


he gave the Europeans what he thought they were after.


That's all very well, but it hardly builds Western unity.


After today's Warsaw event, Hamburg looked very different this


evening as the President arrived for a G20 meeting.


Violent protests happened pre-Trump, of course,


but in tone and substance, the President's message is hardly


I'm joined now by Pulitzer prize winning historian,


Eric Foner and Susan Glasser - former Foreign Policy editor


in chief and the first editor of Politico magazine.


Susan, was it significant, D-Link, or how significant was it that the


word democracy did not appear at all in that speech? -- do you think.


Significant but not a surprise. Me doesn't use the word democracy


often. Some people here were likening his speech to a European


version of his American carnage and inauguration speech. -- Trump


doesn't you do a clash of civilisations, harking


back to Samuel Huntington's 1993 work where is spam replaces Russia


as the enemy of Western domination in the world. Does that tally with


what you heard today? What was interesting was Trump was laying out


this apocalyptic vision of the world divided into the forces of light,


darkness, and it gives you an insight into what you might call the


intellectual origins of Trump's outlook. It may seem absurd to put


intellectual and Trump in the same sentence, because he doesn't read


books, he has no literature curiosity. But with people like


Steve Bannon around him, this is their view of the world, that it has


always been these clashes of civilisations. That our whole


civilisation is under assault from either Isis or radical Islam, as


they call it, maybe the Chinese in the future rising. This is a view


which isn't particularly conducive to compromise, to negotiation. Steve


Bannon steams to think we are living back in the age of the Crusades


where Christianity and Islam are at war. -- seems to think. And for the


future of the world. If you look at Isis, it is ridiculous, it is a


small group of violent criminal people but they don't pose a threat


to the US or the UK. I mean, the Cold War, the existence of these


countries was under threat, you know? From nuclear warfare. But, you


know, this apocalyptic vision is not really an accurate representation of


the way the world is today. Yet the rhetoric, Susan, of an assault on


Western values, it puts bums on seats, doesn't it? What value is


mighty realistically be able to persuade Americans are being


threatened by a resurgent China, or and expansionist Islam? It is murky.


What exactly is the clash of civilisations here? That is why


Trump's speech today is probably really unlikely to amount to much in


terms of policy. I was struck by the fact that you know who it reminds me


of? Vladimir Putin's rhetoric. You captured earlier in the programme


the tension of this on the one hand critical language towards Russia you


haven't always seen Trump used. He suggested that they stopped shoring


Assad. But that is different to the full throated, bombastic even common


rhetorical nature of this speech. It is actually Vladimir Putin who often


talks in terms very much like this. He says the number one threat Russia


and Europe faces is from terrorism. He said that from the beginning of


his tenure as Russia's leader. And he talks about restoring


conservative values in a vague way. I think Trump was unclear exactly


what the existential threat is right now. Do you think he knows himself


what the existential threat is? Or are you casting him in the role of


Steve Bannon's glove puppet? It's Steve Bannon, what we call the


alternative right in the US. There is another forebear of Trump. You


didn't mention this. But in his speech he started denouncing


bureaucracy. Nobody likes to defend bureaucracy, but this goes back to


an obscure radical, James Burnham, who wrote a book in the early 1940s,


which has been picked up again in these obscure right-wing website to


argue that the threat today is not from a standard from the


administrative state. Trump attacks what they call regulation, or that


kind of thing. That is a trope extreme writers are fond of using,


that it is the state itself which is the danger to Western freedoms.


Burnham contended that communism and capitalism were essentially two


sides of the same undesirable coin. What word would you employ to


describe whatever alternative it is that they want to replace the old


world order with? Would you did not mention is that beneath this is an


exclusive vision of what American civilisation or Western civilisation


is. It is fundamentally Christian. It is fundamentally white. Other


peoples don't have a role in it according to them. You could call it


a white nationalism. That is what we often call it in the US. It is


explicit now. Not in this speech but in the right-wing website and


call-in radio. The racial element here. And the religious element is


very strong. That goes all the way against the traditions of American


values of separation of church and state and pluralism, and tolerance.


Those are threats to our civilisation right now. They are


coming from within. Susan, the meeting with Vladimir Putin


tomorrow, do you speculate on what a positive outcome might be? I would


caution people against thinking this is a definitive moment of


confrontation when we will find out once and for all just what is the


deal between Trump and Putin, or even find out what our policy is.


We've just heard there is only going to be Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson


and their translators in the meeting with Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign


Minister, and President Putin himself. It is going to be an hour


or less. Once you add the translation in, it amounts to a


short chat between two countries. Even if they are talking, has been


reported, and I terrorism moves, can you imagine any major significant


arrangement being agreed to in half an hour? -- anti-terrorism moves.


Forgive me, I need to move on. Thank you both so much for your time this


evening. Staying with Trump, Russia -


and, indeed, Ukraine - the Hungarian foreign


minister, Peter Sijarto, about being positioned both


politically and geographically right in the middle of the changing


political landscape. We also discussed Brexit, of course,


but I began by asking him about his government's perceived


proximity to the Kremlin and possible problems this poses


for Hungarian citizens in Ukraine. I don't like this kind


of stigmatisation. And I don't like this kind


of simplification of things. It was fair to say it is


a friendly relationship. And if you live in Central Europe


you know that you can't afford Because it's not just


European countries that I'd love to know, where do


you think, from what he said since becoming President,


Donald Trump sits on that scale? Well, you know, actually,


we cross fingers for And we cross fingers for him to be


able to build a balanced relationship with Russia


because you know, as I told you, we are living in Central Europe


and we have a very clear Which says that whenever


there was a conflict between East and West,


Central Europe always lost. And we don't want to


be losers any more. So, when we argue, or when we hope


for a better relationship between the US and Russia,


it's not because we are pro-Russia or pro-US,


it's because we are pro-Hungarian. Did you agree with him


when he said earlier today I totally agree with the position


that the civilised world The better the relationship between


the US and Russia is better for us. The worst relationship between US


and Russia is the worst for us. You know, we are living


in central Europe, OK? Is it fair to describe


Viktor Orban's government as being one of the more Eurosceptic


in the European Union? No, Hungarian people,


including the Hungarian government, But what I can tell


you is the following, that we are absolutely pro-European,


we want strong European Union because Hungary can be really strong


in a strong European Union. 80% of our trade goes


on with the EU countries. So we are interested


in a strong European Union. But we have a serious


debate with Brussels, with some other member states,


about how to get there. So we say that the federalist


approach will not work out. So we are rather on a sovereignty


path, saying that strong European Union must be based


on strong member states. You know, to be very honest,


we regretted the decision. Because it's a big


political and economic loss for the European Union,


because you had a very strong voice in the debate


about the future of Europe. So this debate will now be


unbalanced because the leader of one camp, or the strongest voice of one


camp, falls out. In the meantime, here


we have a nightmare scenario, If there is no deal,


if there is no comprehensive economic trade and investment


agreement, then we will be in big trouble in Europe,


because the last time we were able to implement a free trade


agreement was in 2011. So the problem is that the EU is


very slow on free trade agreements. And if Britain gets free hands,


then you will be able to sign free trade agreements with India,


with Turkey, with the US, with Australia, with


which we do not have. I mean, the European Union doesn't


have free trade agreements. So if this is the case, then it


will harm our competitiveness, harm the competitiveness


of European Union furthermore. So that's why we are pushing


for a fair, I don't like this Do you understand the


categorisation, because I don't. You don't understand, OK,


so that's a common point. We want fair Brexit,


that's for sure. Balanced, fair Brexit,


which will end up in mutual benefits But we want the most comprehensive


economic trade and investment partnership with the UK


in the future. But I think that we are


on the right track. I hope European institutions


are ready to negotiate in a, Because what we don't


want is the following, that you look back to the time


of your referendum. Then some of the reactions come


on behalf of European institutions, where,


like, as those people took it And we don't want any


European institutions to sit at the negotiating table as a group


of insulted people. And we don't want the European


negotiators or EU negotiators What we want is to have a good


deal at the end, a fair deal, Earlier this evening,


the director-general of the CBI Carolyn Fairbairn warned


in a lecture at the LSE that Brexit uncertainty is starting


to damage the UK economy. She cited companies changing plans


and slowing investment in anticipation of what she called


the "serious disruption" that would ensue if the UK were to leave


the EU without a deal. Her comments came as International


Trade Minister Liam Fox appeared to add his weight to his Cabinet


colleague Andrea Leadsom's recent contention that reporting unwelcome


statistics about Brexit He claimed in the Commons that some


elements of the media would rather see Britain fail


than Brexit succeed. It speaks perhaps too difficult


truth to you, which is when you describe an environment you consider


less than conducive to business, you run the risk of making that


environment even less conducive to business, talking the country down,


if you like? One of the things that is really important to have now is a


realistic debate. When we hear from firms across the country large and


small about the way uncertainty is beginning to affect investment


decisions, I think it is very important that we say that but also


that we put ideas on the table so what were doing today is putting an


idea on the table which is not about the weather of Brexit, is about the


how. Whether with an H. It is about a Brexit that protects jobs and


investment, that is what we are tabling and a proposal that means


the UK would stay in the customs union and the single market as a


bridge to a future deal, it has the added advantage that there will be


only one transition. How long is the bridge? As short as is possible. It


is very difficult to tell. It depends on the final point is, the


final point is very different from today. Win over Canada free trade


deal took seven years, we hope it would be very much shorter than


that. It is very important to say this has no interest in anything


that is open-ended and more uncertainty, so a short as


practically possible but something that gives businesses the time to


adapt. You say it is important to have the debate now, why now and not


a year ago after the Lancaster house speech? There is something very


important about that because we are heading into the time when companies


plan their investment and every sector, every company, has a


different point at which they start planning things. So a bakery in


Northern Ireland, we know it would take them 20 months if they wanted


to relocate to the Republic because of tariffs, so they are starting to


think now about what they are having to do. Airlines, it is a year before


because they are thinking about passenger reservations. So every


company has a tipping point and we are heading into that period and


that is why we are beginning to hear more concern from our members about


those cliff edges. You did mention the election but you wouldn't be


making the speech of Theresa May had secured a three figure majority. I


think we would have done. Word for word? I think so because we have an


important role to play at the moment, talking about what grassroot


businesses, large and small, across the country are saying and they are


saying it is beginning to bite and it is important that we are able to


say that but also that we have a simple solution on the table. But it


is not a solution in the strictest sense of the word, it is holding


tactic, a postponement of either pain the unknown. I think the


questionnaire dancers is how you give more confidence to business now


to invest for the future -- I think the question it and so. The economy


is a flywheel, so investment today is jobs in the future and I think


our priority today is that, it is so important for growth in the future


so let's deal with that problem first. The almost irresistible


subtext of all of this is when we reached the end of the bridge,


things at that end can't be as good as they were at this end. I think


that is an area where we should be optimistic. I think we can still say


that we need to get to an in principle agreement by March 2019.


One of the important benefits of the proposal we put on the table today


is that you can focus all the effort on that final deal, you are not


talking about some interim other transitional arrangement which would


take up a lot of time, so we think it would make it more likely to get


to that outline deal by March 20 19. Except of course March 2019 is the


date on which an awful lot of people would be expecting freedom of


movement to end immediately and your proposal would well, continue at


indefinitely. Not indefinitely. Indefinitely as in you can't tell me


how long your bridge is. Firms accept that freedom of movement well


and and again, this is about trade-offs and about timing. Firms


are committed to, we know we are going to need to increase training


and we are going to need to scale up to fill the gaps that are created.


That is going to take time, so the other thing that the bridge to the


future will give us is the chance to prepare, the chance to get ready, so


I think that is a transition as well. I think a lot of people


watching may be thinking that you would quite like to stay on the


bridge for ever, and see you as one of these on crushed saboteurs.


Really clear that that is not the case. I will go back to the point


that business is one certainty, not some open-ended period of


uncertainty, so as short as practically possible but long enough


for the Government, for firms, for people to adapt. Businesses do think


in years and they will need time to get ready, so it is a practical


proposal that gives the certainty now and that bridge to the future.


It is practical but it is almost completely unpolitical. Is that the


definition of your role, you represent the interests of your


members and don't worry about the difficulty that a Prime Minister may


have in delivering the plan you describe? Well, I think everybody


has an interest in the success of the economy and jobs and prosperity


and I think one of the things we have seen since the election that is


very welcome is the economy back centrestage, people are talking


about it and how we will pay the public services, about the way we


have jobs for our children, so I think that is where this comes


together. That is why I do think we have a responsibility as businesses


to talk about investment today, jobs in the future. So I'm hoping


politics and economics can come together in this. Fingers crossed.


Carolyn Fairbairn, many thanks indeed.


There is always an element of chance in predicting the future, obviously,


but the broad consensus among tech watchers is the biggest of all next


big things will be AI, or artificial intelligence. Machines will be able


to do things that for millennia, we have blithely presumed would always


be the exclusive domain of humanity. Reasoning, recognising speech, text,


images, collaboration. The impact from jobs to healthcare ,


from transport to education is likely to be as profound


as the industrial and information Our technology editor David Grossman


has been given exclusive access to Microsoft's AI labs in Seattle


to see how this There's nothing perhaps that


looks quite so dated Seattle's salute to science


in the century to come. See how man will live and work


and play in the year 2000. Seattle's Space Needle and monorail,


built for the '62 World's Fair, probably tell us more


about the assumptions of that time Most often, predictions miss


the really profound shifts. What Eve will look like in A.D.


2000. Like this pre-war assumption


that the 21st century woman of fashion would still have a lady's


maid to help her dress. Shoes will have cantilever heels


and an electric belt will adapt Pity then the people that work here,


this is Building 99 In here, the predictions


that they make determine the future of the company and perhaps,


if they are right, We are betting the company


on advances in AI. I've been given exclusive access


to meet the people and see the projects that Microsoft believe


will shape the future. It reached the point now


where people can have, you know, very natural conversations


with software and software can I look at how they were


actually walking... Eric Horvitz is head


of Microsoft's AI programme. Even the lifts here run


on this new technology. So much of our civilisation,


what we think is special about humans, is based


on our intellects, on our ability to see and understand reason,


inverse and collaborate to see and understand reason,


converse and collaborate and for the first time in history,


we are getting close to building machines that have some


of that intellect. We went from a place


where we would get it right about 80% of the time to a point


where, now, it's actually achieved human parity in speech recognition


and that's something that just You could probably make sense


of the jumble of colours and shapes in this photograph almost instantly,


even though chances are you've But consider what it would take


for a machine to do that. We've taken natural language


processing research, computer vision research and had


people from those to field work computer vision research and had


people from those two fields work together to be able to generate


sentences about pictures. Here, the sentence that we generated


with no context other than the contents


of the image here is "A man swimming


in a pool of water." You know, it used to be the case


that it took thousands and thousands of images and hours


and hours to train. Now we are down to dozens


and minutes and seconds So the building blocks for an AI


world are almost complete. Computers can now not only recognise


pictures and objects, but gestures and video and speech


and text, faces and even emotion. All of these skills can be used


by developers in an almost infinite variety of combinations


to create new applications. There's been research that


Microsoft's been doing Only recently are we seeing these


services at the level of quality at a developer can actually build


on and have reliable experiences from, because,


you know, prior to that, the amount of data required to truly


make high, confident predictions from artificial intelligence wasn't


there and the computing But a world of super intelligent


computers understanding everything isn't everyone's idea


of technological perfection. Does any part of this


future terrify you at all? I'm concerned with potential


misuse of this technology by malevolent forces,


by people with ill will. By state and non-state actors


who can gain strong powers I haven't also think that the answer


to some of that is the AI itself, because there is no better defence


and no better detector of And very soon, we might forget


we are talking to computers at all. AI systems can have human facing


front ends known as bots For example, Xiaoice has been


developed by Microsoft to interact with people on Chinese social media


and with every conversation, Xiaoice learns both


about the individual and humanity. Absolutely, that is what they


call me around here. More efficiently, Dan Driscoll


is Development Manager and Principal Architect


of the Microsoft bot framework. They form emotional connections


with some of these chatbots and have I think the average for Xiaoice


is 23 turns per conversation, so people will chat, will say,


"Hey, how are you doing?" "I am having a good day,


how are you doing?" They form a kind of emotional


relationship and that is one So many bots have both


a sort of like a factual, an IQ component and an emotional


or personality EQ component. AI will not only be able


to know and recognise everything and everyone,


it will know how to charm us, It will know how to reassure us


and how to frighten us. Instead of us operating


the computers, the computers will be Whoever controls the AI probably


controls the future. There's already disquiet about using


Big Data to target voters. Well, imagine what an all seeing,


all knowing AI could do. Are you concerned at all,


for example, about AI elections, AI systems can be designed


to persuade, to... In an algorithmic view to optimise


goals of changing someone's believes or enhancing the beliefs about one


thing or another. The prospect that some day,


data mining, data analysis, very close targeting a particular


demographics can be used in elections to influence


elections is a very, On the one hand, we can see


and we can imagine how authoritarian regimes can use these technologies


through tracking, surveillance, persuasion, that would


strengthen this authoritarian On the other hand, these


techniques of AI also open up the world for pluralism,


for discussion and collaboration, understanding and tracking,


you know, understanding the sources of persuasion and signalling


coming into one's life. So we see this prospect of who is


going in different directions. So we shouldn't ignore


the huge potential benefits. About 30 miles outside Seattle,


I saw Microsoft's AI form. Data driven farming


could revolutionise how However, measuring precise moisture


and nutrient levels for each part of the field would require thousands


of sensors and the Instead, an AI model of the farm can


be built with just a few sensors in the ground and a few photographs


from the air. This is going to help


the farmers reduce costs, use much less water,


use much less lime, use less fertiliser,


use less nutrients and stuff. So this is definitely


going to have an impact on reducing the cost as well as less harm


on the environment. And the early indications


are that yields will rise Using cheap cameras


and tethered helium balloons, AI could revolutionise subsistence


farming in the developing world. Artificial intelligence is growing


fast, getting smarter all the time. While some fear it could end


of our species, others believe it Very soon, AI will take off


and we will find out if we control It's a mighty tome but when you


consider that its author Ibram X Kendi aspires to provide


the definitive history of racist ideas in America,


it's perhaps surprising that Stamped From The Beginning only runs


to just north of 500 pages. The title comes from a speech


given to Congress in 1860 by Jefferson Davis, the Mississipi


senator who went on to serve as president of the Confederate


states of America. He argued that so-called 'black


inferiority' had been stamped from the beginning on the bodies


of Africans at the Ibram X Kendi joins me down


the line from Florida. It is a history book obviously, but


it's motivation seems very of the moment. It is because I think I


wanted to show readers that we have been engaged in a racial debate, the


same racial debate we are engaged in right now, really for hundreds of


years. That racial debate seeks to answer the question, why does racial


inequality exist? Why do racial disparities exist in our societies?


This book really takes the reader through hundreds of years of


different people answering that question. And those that have


expressed racist ideas have stated racial inequalities, because black


people are inferior, and those have expressed anti-racist ideas have


been suffering as a result of racial discrimination. Many people would


point to the double election of Barack Obama as perhaps the


beginning of the end of the history of racism. The one you describe. Yet


you describe him as a following in the racist footsteps of every


president since Richard Nixon. One of the things I wanted to do is


state a very clear definition of a racist idea. And then apply that


definition to many different thinkers. And I ended up before


applying it to anyone. I ended up applying it to myself and realising


that I had even expressed racist ideas. And people I admire like


Frederick Douglass, and even Barack Obama, expressed racist ideas,


suggesting there was something wrong and inferior about black people. I


think that's how powerful and how widespread and how believable these


ideas have been throughout American history. You also address the issue


of why people in power choose to invoke the fear of a black man, of


the black person, in the minds of white people, what answers did you


arrive at? I think the underlying, sort of, thesis of the text is


showing the ways of which racist ideas are merging and people are


consuming those ideas and becoming fearful, becoming hateful, becoming


ignorant, that these people are creating and producing these racist


ideas to justify racist policies. I think people can understand if you


are a slave owner and you make money from owning slaves, black slaves,


you are going to create racist ideas to convince others that black people


should be enslaved. That black people are so barbaric that if they


are not enslaved they will just ravage society. Then you have people


who consume those and then begin believing those ideas. That anecdote


is indicative of the way racist ideas have function throughout


American history. Do you worry you may have unwittingly created a


compendium of inspirational racists? You site so much verbatim evidence


from historical American political giants, from Abraham Lincoln to even


Theodore Roosevelt, expressing, well, an explicit fear so that


people on the right can say, we are right, even Abraham Lincoln agrees.


Unfortunately, as a scholar, I didn't have the opportunity to think


of the effect of this definition. I wanted to create a definition of a


racist idea which is very simple, any idea that suggests a racial


group is superior or inferior to another racial group in anyway. That


definition ended up becoming applied to people I didn't realise it was


going to be. But again I think that has been one of the problems. That


we... So many people have tried to define their ideas outside of


racism. And it has left us with a nearer -- and it has left us with an


inaccurate idea of it. INAUDIBLE


If we actually look at American history. During the enslavement era,


by the time of the end of slavery, 4 million, 5 million poor whites,


largely kept in poverty due to the riches of slave holders. Then you


have the Reconstruction era which was a boon for many working class


and poor whites, as it was for pre-blacks. But then that era was of


course undermined by the rise of Jim Crow. Ben White poverty rose just as


black poverty rose. The civil rights movement was great for black people


and also great for many Americans. -- then white poverty rose just as


black poverty rose. In this order to this spiralling inequality in white


America. Ultimately you see this history of not only racism being bad


for black people, but bad for almost everyone. Many thanks for your time


this evening. Before we go, it has


been ordained that today Yet by whom, and for what purpose,


other than to assist news producers in their quest to fill the gaping


void marked "content", Marking International Kissing Day


will no doubt become Remember to tune in tomorrow,


when Evan will be in the chair. That's what's wrong with you -


you should be kissed and often. # Woah Baby


# (Kiss me Baby) # Woah Baby


# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby


#(Kiss me baby) # Woah Baby


# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby


# (Kiss me Baby) # Woah Baby


# (Love to hold you) # Woah Baby


# (Kiss me baby) # Woah Baby


# (Love to hold you) Maybe we should kiss just


to break the tension? Friday promises to be a quieter day.


A damp start with the weather front drifting across Scotland, dragging




In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines. With James O'Brien.

Trump's warning to the west, the CBI chief defends her Brexit vision, and how close is AI? Plus Ibram X Kendi on his definitive history of racism.

Download Subtitles