downing street confirms the prime minister has not yet received any further fines for breaking lockdown rules. supermarkets across the uk are limiting how much cooking oil customers are able to buy — as supplies are hit by the war in ukraine. tyson fury will take on dillian whyte later — in what's expected to be one of the biggest all—british heavyweight fights in boxing history. now on bbc news, the media show —piers morgan returns. hello, and welcome to the media show. our guest today is the star signing of rupert murdoch's new talktv network. it's piers morgan, of course. and he won'tjust have a show in the uk, it will also be streamed on fox nation in the us, it will be broadcast on sky news australia. as well as that, there is a column in the son, in the new york post, and there is a book deal with harpercollins, too. all of which is owned by rupert murdoch, all of which is a significant bet on one man grabbing the world's attention. let's hear why he thinks that bet is worth making. piers morgan, thank you for coming on the show. how does that happen, how does a deal get thrashed out? it was fortuitous, really. the whole good morning britain blow—up with the meghan markle thing, and the free speech debate, it was all raging in the uk, predominantly, around the world but predominantly in the uk. and rupert happened to be in the uk that summer, and he watched it all go down. and i think they had been toying with whether to do a new network, and i think he felt that if i was now available, that it was worth having a go. and so they had to get me, and i had a few suitors, as i think has been well documented. and as soon as rupert came knocking with his company, with the global tentacles it has and the ability for me to do, as you said in your intro, to do columns, to do books, to do crime documentaries i have been doing as well, you know, it seemed to me an irresistible chance to go back and work for my first big mentor, and also to do all of the things that i love doing under the umbrella of one company. so, irresistible, but you had other suitors and i am sure you negotiated hard. i'm just interested, how does that work? do you sit down with rupert murdoch at a table and go, well, all right, i will take this much for doing this, or if you throw this in, i will give you, i will take a bit more? how does it... or are your lawyers doing that? i had representatives acting on my behalf, but we had a few conversations. and i think that we were basically in agreement that the kind of show that i was proposing fitted very well with what he wanted for the wider network of talktv. it is a show that defends free speech, it is a show that i think will uphold the pillars of democracy in a time when society is, i think, under more threat to free speech and freedom of expression than i have known it in my lifetime. and you have been very critical of the way that you had to leave itv, but before that blow—up, as you called it, did you have any pressure from itv, previous to that famous walk—out, where you felt you couldn't say what you wanted to? no. in fact, the sadness for me about it, other than i was loving doing the show, and we were breaking ratings records left, right, and centre, including on the last day. i know you don't want to hear this but we finally beat the bbc, they told me that was a hill we would never climb. so, i felt the show was on fire, it was doing exactly what we set out to do, which was me leading with very with very strident opinions, suzanna reid, my co—presenter having her strong opinions, and creating a national debate about whatever the issues may be. the sad thing is that itv had always been unbelievably strong in protecting my right to express my honestly held opinions, right to the end, and suddenly they lost their bottle. hold on a minute, itv�*s chief executive says they defended you vigorously, and there was no way we would be absolutely notjust endorsing but championing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. well, why am i sitting here doing another show then? well, you chose to leave, says itv. well, i chose to leave because it turned out, they didn't tell me this at the time, it turned out meghan markle had written to dame carolyn the night before i was invited to apologise or leave, demanding my head on a plate. i was told, either you issue a public apology for effectively disbelieving meghan markle, because i had disbelieved what she told oprah winfrey, or i had to give up the show which i loved. so, if itv want to try and play semantics about this, let me be very clear, that is what happened. and what they didn't tell me, and which would have been interesting to me as part of the general debate, they didn't tell me meghan markle had personally contacted dame carolyn, and i believe, from what i was told, used phrases like, "we are both women, and we are both mothers." i mean, as if that had something to do with it. so, i felt that the way that i was handled at the end was a shame, given how supportive itv had previously been. well, they say they didn't want you to leave and they say that they defended your right to free speech. well, hang on. they didn't. let's be clear. if they defended my right to free speech, then i wouldn't have been asked to apologise or leave myjob. ofcom then later came back and defended my right to free speech. but ofcom also said, with reference to some of your statements about not believing that meghan markle had had suicidal thoughts, they said, ofcom, we were particularly concerned about mr morgan's approach to such an important and serious issue, and his apparent disregard for the seriousness of anyone expressing suicidal thoughts, we also heard from the charity mind, it was disappointed and concerned, and that people, when they share this, need to be treated with dignity, respect, and empathy. i mean, presumably, you will agree you didn't treat meghan markle with respect in that moment. i'vejust find her, i'm afraid, a witness that is not very credible. and my point is that i made very forcibly on the show was is, as she claimed, she went to two senior members of the royal household and told them she was suicidal, and they said, as she put it, that she couldn't get any help because it would be bad for the brand, let's have the names of those people and they should be fired. but here we are, over a year later, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim. nor is there a shred of evidence to support either of the two racism claims. but you could have expressed doubts about meghan markle and what she was saying in a way that was more respectful of the broader issues of people having suicidal thoughts, which ofcom and perhaps more relevantly a which ofcom and perhaps more releva ntly a leading which ofcom and perhaps more relevantly a leading mental health charities say they are concerned about. i charities say they are concerned about. . ., , ., about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have — about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire to _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire to diminish i about. i am entitled to my opinion | and i have no desire to diminish the importance of an issue like suicidal serious mental health or racism or any of the other issues that she touched on in the oprah winfrey interview. but as a journalist every instinct in me was, is it true? and i reached the conclusion pretty quickly that it wasn't. now, if she was to produce evidence that supported her allegations and we are still waiting then i may revise my position and i might be more sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, ifelt she sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, i felt she was sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, ifelt she was being sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, i felt she was being an actress, spinning yarn after yarn to cause enormous damage to our royal family and institution of the monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. �* ., , ., monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. �* ., ., ., monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. ., ., ., , it. and now you have a different show, it. and now you have a different show. you _ it. and now you have a different show. you are _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not on _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not on itv, - it. and now you have a different show, you are not on itv, you l it. and now you have a different l show, you are not on itv, you are it. and now you have a different - show, you are not on itv, you are on rupert murdoch's programme, you are rehearsing at the moment, i assume. i noticed earlier you said it was too un—cancel those who have been cancelled. so who i'll be going to hear from that cannot get in the media elsewhere?— hear from that cannot get in the media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not _ media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... _ media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... who - media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... who are - media elsewhere? cancel culture | issue is not about... who are you getting on? i am not going to tell you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are. who you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are.— you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are. who is failing to net access who my guests are. who is failing to get access to — who my guests are. who is failing to get access to high-profile _ who my guests are. who is failing to get access to high-profile media - get access to high—profile media that you would like to have on your programme? i that you would like to have on your programme?— programme? i would love to get jk rowlin: programme? i would love to get jk rowling on. _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on. for _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, - programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, the - programme? i would love to get jk i rowling on, for example, the author who has been appallingly vilified and there has been a massive attempt to cancel her, it has been unsuccessful because she is extremely wealthy and can look after herself. but the abuse that has been meted out to herfor herself. but the abuse that has been meted out to her for effectively defending women's rights, has been an absolute disgrace. you defending women's rights, has been an absolute disgrace.— an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that — an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that if _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that iij _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that iij rowling - suggesting that iij rowling wouldn't get in the mainstream media. �* , ., ., . media. but she had a lunch with women recently, _ media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many - media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many of - media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many of them | media. but she had a lunch with - women recently, many of them who have been cancelled,...— have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen _ have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, - have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, we - have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, we can i professor kathleen stott, we can discuss how she was treated at her university, but in the context of the media...— university, but in the context of the media... �* . , ., the media... but that is the wrong context. the media... but that is the wrong context- let _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let me _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let me clarify - the media... but that is the wrong | context. let me let me clarify what i mean by cancel culture. it is not about whether they can get interviews, it is about whether do people like kathleen stott lose theirjobs were holding an opinion,? although theirjobs were holding an opinion,? althouthk rowling isn't wealthy enough to sustain the barrage, we have to ask ourselves is this what we want in a democracy? do we want to see university professors who hold honest views which are not remotely contentious, do we want to see them driven out of theirjobs by a bunch of students? but see them driven out of their “obs by a bunch of students?* a bunch of students? but there are limits to free _ a bunch of students? but there are limits to free speech, _ a bunch of students? but there are limits to free speech, mainly - limits to free speech, mainly around, i could have a quote of yours here, you shouldn't be cancelled for having an opinion, i'm less you are genuinely spewing hateful stuff. on your programme, where is a line drawn? would you have guessed to suggest vaccines against covid—i9 don't work? have guessed to suggest vaccines against covid-19 don't work? because i would against covid-19 don't work? because i would want — against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose that _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose that thought l i would want to expose that thought process which i think has been extremely dangerous, i would want to expose them with facts, i would want to let these people who, by the way, there are a lot of people who think this, and they have been encouraged to think it by nonsense on the internet, i would want to hear whether they heard it, why they believe it, and damn them with facts. that is how a democracy should function. if you let these kind of debates purely operate online, that is where the trouble starts. i do believe in shining a light on some of these views like that. but when i get someone on who preached racial hatred towards people and wanted to cause violent conduct towards any minority group, no i wouldn't. so there are obvious limitations that where free speech would lead. in america, you can't run into theatres and shout fire, for example. we know there are logical limits to this.— logical limits to this. let's take the dru: logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, _ logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, which - logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, which we| logical limits to this. let's take i the drug ivermectin, which we are well aware of, which some people have been treating as a treatment for covid, despite there not being studies to back it up, would you put them on a to challenge people? yes. joe roan them on a to challenge people? yes. joe rogan did — them on a to challenge people? yes. joe rogan did that _ them on a to challenge people? yes joe rogan did that and it was a really interesting debate about which of these theories, which have huge followings now around the world, during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not. at world, during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not.- them have any merit or not. at which oint does them have any merit or not. at which point does it — them have any merit or not. at which point does it become _ them have any merit or not. at which point does it become an _ point does it become an irresponsible act? i point does it become an irresponsible act? point does it become an irresonsible act? ~ ., ., ., irresponsible act? i think a lot of --eole irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would — irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise _ irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise the - irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise the bbc i irresponsible act? i think a lot of| people would criticise the bbc for refusing to ever go down these rows of debate they have the truth. and yet we know in the pandemic that scientists have changed their own mind many times, whether it be about the efficacy of masks, whether it be about the ability of vaccines to present transmission. i myself have changed my view about coronavirus many times in this pandemic. isn’t many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about joe _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern aboutjoe rogan many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about joe rogan and many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern aboutjoe rogan and in the concern aboutjoe rogan and in the case of misinformation about covid but more broadly that if those pieces of information which aren't factually true are given a platform and are not adequately challenged, they then just get the platform without any of their downside. but i intend to challenge _ without any of their downside. but i intend to challenge them from a position of fact and truth. your programme — position of fact and truth. your programme is _ position of fact and truth. your programme is also _ position of fact and truth. your programme is also going - position of fact and truth. your programme is also going to . position of fact and truth. your programme is also going to be on sky news australia and fox nation, the sister network fox news, do you think sky news australia and fox news always counter claims, theories, . .. news always counter claims, theories,... i news always counter claims, theories.---_ news always counter claims, theories,... . ., ., , , .,~ theories,... i am not here to speak for them- — theories,... i am not here to speak for them- i— theories,... i am not here to speak for them- i am _ theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible - theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible for - theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible for my. for them. i am responsible for my show and i have had no pressure from any of my various employers to have any of my various employers to have any stance about anything. i can only speakfor any stance about anything. i can only speak for my show. that would be like getting due to defend every show at the bbc, every present when the bbc, i think that is a different —— ridiculous thing for me to do. all of them, in my opinion, have a right to their opinions, and is right to their opinions, and is right that people like you and others challenge those opinions. but don't we get into a problematic space? you have talked about the importance of your show to democracy, upholding certain values, but doesn't democracy in some ways rest on us all having facts, on us all having good information. so on fox nation, tucker carlson also has a programme, a documentary series which floated the idea that the storming of capital was potentially an insidejob organised by the fbi and police insiders. no evidence was offered, is that a helpful contribution? i offered, is that a helpful contribution?— offered, is that a helpful contribution? ., �* ., contribution? i don't agree with him about that. contribution? i don't agree with him about that- at _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point do - contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point do you - contribution? i don't agree with him | about that. at what point do you get to the stage — about that. at what point do you get to the stage where _ about that. at what point do you get to the stage where someone - about that. at what point do you get to the stage where someone is - about that. at what point do you get| to the stage where someone is doing something that you don't agree with but i don't know... i something that you don't agree with but i don't know. . ._ but i don't know... i thinki can find a hunt _ but i don't know... i thinki can find a hunt appeal _ but i don't know... i thinki can find a hunt appeal at _ but i don't know... i thinki can find a hunt appeal at the - but i don't know... i thinki can find a hunt appeal at the bbc l but i don't know... i think i can i find a hunt appeal at the bbc who say things that are apparent. i can ask ou if say things that are apparent. i can ask you if you _ say things that are apparent. i can ask you if you are _ say things that are apparent. i can ask you if you are responsible or accountable for everything that your colleagues say? in accountable for everything that your colleagues say?— colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case. i watch _ colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i watch his— colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i watch his show... _ colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i watch his show... you - colleagues say? in tucker carlson's case, i watch his show... you go i colleagues say? in tucker carlson's| case, i watch his show... you go on his show. i like his show, i agree with 75% of the stuff he says. last time i checked, that is fine. in a democracy, you are allowed to not agree with he will let you work with. tucker, he and i have had spirited debates about gun control in america, he has a very strong view about guns and i have an equally different strong view about guns. if you are saying i can only go and work somewhere and i can already check that i agree with every view, that it is what my show is going to be tackling. what every view, that it is what my show is going to be tackling.— every view, that it is what my show is going to be tackling. what i want to understand _ is going to be tackling. what i want to understand is _ is going to be tackling. what i want to understand is not _ is going to be tackling. what i want to understand is not that _ is going to be tackling. what i want to understand is not that you - is going to be tackling. what i want | to understand is not that you should not go on to a network with someone you don't agree with, no one is suggesting that, what i'm trying to understand is that you are positioning your programme is part of every assertion of what democratic society should have, free speech, and yet you are going to work, the tiddely with reference to fox news, with a network with a long track record that are saying things that are not rooted in fact. i would think that would make you... do you feel as uncomfortable _ think that would make you... do you feel as uncomfortable at _ think that would make you... do you feel as uncomfortable at the - think that would make you... do you feel as uncomfortable at the time i feel as uncomfortable at the time that i spend at cnn, given the way cnn has gone at the last few years? given their session with russian collusion? i can throw it back and say cnn is the bbc of the states, in many ways, it is a network people look at and say everything they say must be truthful and factual. for two years, they spun an old baloney about donald trump being in cahoots with the russians to fix the 2016 election. it turned out to be nonsense. i understand why they went that road, i think they were chasing ratings with trump, but i look at that and i think, well, i didn't support that either, i thought that was wrong. but support that either, i thought that was wronu. �* y-�* support that either, i thought that waswronu. �* �* ., ., support that either, i thought that was wronu. �* �* ., ., ., was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn — was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop _ was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop but _ was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop but i _ was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop but i do - was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop but i do work. was wrong. but you're not going to work for cnn stop but i do work at| work for cnn stop but i do work at cnn, and i point is that all these networks get things wrong, all of these networks have anchored and presented i don't agree with. ida these networks have anchored and presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly _ presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly to _ presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly to go _ presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly to go in _ presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly to go in with _ presented i don't agree with. no one at fox exactly to go in with my - at fox exactly to go in with my slightly liberal tendencies and suddenly be a hardcore right wing conservative. you suddenly be a hardcore right wing conservative.— suddenly be a hardcore right wing conservative. ., ~ , , , ., conservative. you keep flipping from talk about facts _ conservative. you keep flipping from talk about facts to _ conservative. you keep flipping from talk about facts to talk _ conservative. you keep flipping from talk about facts to talk about - talk about facts to talk about opinions, is there no dividing line for you on that? i'm not asking you about your opinions.— about your opinions. everyone is entitled to _ about your opinions. everyone is entitled to an _ about your opinions. everyone is entitled to an opinion, _ about your opinions. everyone is entitled to an opinion, what - about your opinions. everyone is j entitled to an opinion, what they are not entitled to do is invent fats. that is my point. and that is what i will be defending on my show. —— facts. james murdoch, rupert murdoch mac fun, said a great news organisation, the mission should be to introduce fat, not to sow doubt. he is entitled to his opinion. everybody is. but you don't share those concerns, that there are some... i those concerns, that there are some... ., �* those concerns, that there are some... , . those concerns, that there are some... , some... i don't share your concerns, no, i am some... i don't share your concerns, no. i am very — some... i don't share your concerns, no. i am very happy _ some... i don't share your concerns, no. i am very happy to _ some... i don't share your concerns, no, i am very happy to be _ some... i don't share your concerns, no, i am very happy to be working i no, i am very happy to be working for fox nation, i am happy my show will air every night in america and i medically happy that nobody at fox has tried to tell me what i should put on my show and what opinions i should be happening. i spent a week in america ten days ago, i went on eight or nine fox shows in the week and i expressed my honestly held opinions the entire time and i lapped it up. there was no pressure to be conservative or right wing but know was there the pressure from me to play the you are all the devil. i don't think that, i have always liked rupert murdoch, i had him as a swashbuckling median rate —— media visionary. that is not a view you will hear at the bbc but the bbc has its own problems, so much as you like to put your halos on, look around the bbc sometimes and i think, martin bashir, that is a bit awkward for everybody.- think, martin bashir, that is a bit awkward for everybody. believe me, ou are a awkward for everybody. believe me, you are a bit — awkward for everybody. believe me, you are a bit coming _ awkward for everybody. believe me, you are a bit coming with _ awkward for everybody. believe me, you are a bit coming with a - awkward for everybody. believe me, you are a bit coming with a halo, - you are a bit coming with a halo, you are a bit coming with a halo, you are a little bit like saying, look, we are the bbc, you are going to work for people which don't have our kind of standards.— to work for people which don't have our kind of standards. when i worked at fox last week, _ our kind of standards. when i worked at fox last week, i _ our kind of standards. when i worked at fox last week, i thought _ our kind of standards. when i worked at fox last week, i thought there - at fox last week, i thought there stands were pretty high and i was happy to work there. fine stands were pretty high and i was happy to work there.— happy to work there. one of the reason that _ happy to work there. one of the reason that fox _ happy to work there. one of the reason that fox and _ happy to work there. one of the reason that fox and cnn - happy to work there. one of the reason that fox and cnn and i happy to work there. one of the i reason that fox and cnn and others are stripping in to that streaming arena is that the original business model under 24—hour cable news is under pressure, not since... it is under pressure, not since... it is under a lot _ under pressure, not since... it is under a lot more _ under pressure, not since... it 3 under a lot more pressure if you are at cnn are one of those who put all their money on tramp bashing, 99% of their money on tramp bashing, 99% of their programme was trump bashing, which i felt as that at the time, having worked at cnn when it didn't do that, when it was very nonpartisan and non—biased in its coverage, and ifelt that nonpartisan and non—biased in its coverage, and i felt that was what is business model should be, they went into full on tramp bashing to the extent that some got hysterical about it, and i think that it was killing the golden goose and the ratings of cnn has really gone through the for wear as the ratings for fox news are gigantic by comparison. it reminds me when i ran the news of the world and the mirror, they would always be this charge that we are only doing this for ratings and circulation, yes, thatis for ratings and circulation, yes, that is myjob, literally myjob. yourjob is to serve people who want to listen to the bbc and pay a licence fee for a privilege, i am happy to do that, by the way, but i think your own business model will have to be reviewed going forward. what do you think about the really super mac niss model? i what do you think about the really super mac niss model?— what do you think about the really super mac niss model? i don't think the licence — super mac niss model? i don't think the licence fee _ super mac niss model? i don't think the licence fee is _ super mac niss model? i don't think the licence fee is sustainable, i super mac niss model? i don't think the licence fee is sustainable, and l the licence fee is sustainable, and i think what you did was the over 75s was a total disgrace and i said that loudly and clearly on good morning britain regularly. ifeel that was a betrayal of pensioners in this country. the bbc is facing unprecedented threat, not going to get it from me because i'm a huge supporter of the bbc, i think it produces amazing programming, i recently watched jeremy bowen in ukraine, standing, clive myrie, again, astounding. brilliant journalism, the bbc at the very best, as it has been at cnn, some of my colleagues risking their lives to bring reports to people, that is these great corporations at their best, but can these people —— bbc continue to charge a licence fee when they already make their own personal choice about whether to pay a fee for netflix or where ever it may be, i don't think that is sustainable. i think eventually, the bbc will have to go down that road. some sort prescription model? i think it is inevitable, yes. and i | think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think— think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it— think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will _ think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will be _ think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will be the - think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will be the end i think it is inevitable, yes. and i don't think it will be the end of| don't think it will be the end of the bbc. i think you willjust have to get more competitive, and you will have to stop relying on people be compelled to pay for a licence fee when we are now in a complete different world. talk fee when we are now in a complete different world.— different world. talk about different world. talk about different types _ different world. talk about different types of - different world. talk about different types of models, | different world. talk about i different types of models, here different world. talk about - different types of models, here in the us, you have major reservations about the cnn. you the us, you have ma'or reservations about the curl.— the us, you have ma'or reservations about the curt.— about the cnn. you are critical about the cnn. you are critical about the _ about the cnn. you are critical about the us _ about the cnn. you are critical about the us media, _ about the cnn. you are critical about the us media, i- about the cnn. you are critical about the us media, i wonderl about the cnn. you are criticall about the us media, i wonder if about the cnn. you are critical- about the us media, i wonder if you reflect how you handled donald trump. you had high—profile interviews, when you look back at those and you know some of the things that donald trump did later in his presidency around covid, around the election result... ito in his presidency around covid, around the election result... no one was more critical _ around the election result... no one was more critical of _ around the election result... no one was more critical of donald - around the election result... no one was more critical of donald trump i was more critical of donald trump and covid and the election denial and covid and the election denial and about january the six than may. if you read the columns i wrote, they were incendiary columns, attacking him head on and directly. in the interviews i did, i would say to people, go back and watch them in full, don't believe what people told you on twitter about those interviews. frankly, ifi you on twitter about those interviews. frankly, if i didn't take the club into the room and smashing around ahead for half an hour, it was always going to be, softball. i challenged donald trump a lot in those interviews, much more than narrative has been out of sight. having said that, he was a friend of mine, and i have known him since 2008, i won his celebrity apprentice show, i got to know him and his family, this was a friend of mine who then became an oak readily divisive president of the united states. i was lucky that he gave me interviews on the challenge for me was to then try and park the friendship and do an interview as i do with anybody else. i think i did that. ., ., . , that. hold on a minute, but the toint that. hold on a minute, but the oint i that. hold on a minute, but the point i am _ that. hold on a minute, but the point i am trying _ that. hold on a minute, but the point i am trying to _ that. hold on a minute, but the point i am trying to make i that. hold on a minute, but the point i am trying to make herel that. hold on a minute, but the l point i am trying to make here is that you approach that as you would an interview with any world leader, i assume, you treated him like a normal politician. i i assume, you treated him like a normal politician.— normal politician. i gave a time than i normal politician. i gave a time than i have _ normal politician. i gave a time than i have seen _ normal politician. i gave a time than i have seen other - normal politician. i gave a time i than i have seen otherjournalists give other presidents, so when you go back and watch the obama interviews, look at those. that is what i would say in return. i haven't said anything yet,... i know what you are about to say. you don't. the way that donald trump spoke about covid and the fact that he didn't accept defeat an election, they were not out of the blue, they were completely in line with how he had behaved in the campaign, they were completely in line with how he purveyed in the early years of his presidency and yet you treated him like normal politician. i presidency and yet you treated him like normal politician.— like normal politician. i wrote over 120 columns _ like normal politician. i wrote over 120 columns that _ like normal politician. i wrote over 120 columns that donald - like normal politician. i wrote over 120 columns that donald trump. l like normal politician. i wrote over. 120 columns that donald trump. but in his presidency, you said, i know drum for 12 years and generally like him, why did you feel warmly towards a man who had already spoken with great prejudice during the campaign, who had already shown a scant regard for the truth during the campaign and in many appeared to be undermining the tenets of democracy. you are falling into the slight trap of being the donald trump is the darryl narrative. i read 100 plus columns about trump. about half are positive, and half were critical. i felt there was a fair analysis and assessment, until his last year, other donald trump presidency. at the start of 2020, he was heading for a comfortable reaction. forget what he said on twitter, of it was ludicrous. ~ ., ., what he said on twitter, of it was ludicrous. . . ., ., ludicrous. wait a minute, how can ou ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget — ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget what — ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget what a _ ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget what a politician - ludicrous. wait a minute, how can you forget what a politician says? | you forget what a politician says? if you park the twitter rhetoric, which was unique to donald trump and very polarising, and you either love it or hate it, there was no middle ground, but you simply focused on what trump achieved and his actions, i would argue that when you look at the totality with the exception of the totality with the exception of the final year, where i felt he was a catastrophe on covid, i felt he showed no empathy over the george floyd murder, which i thought was a disgrace. ifelt his refusal to accept the election was disgrace, and ifelt accept the election was disgrace, and i felt the january six capital riots were a direct confident —— prior to that behaviour. i said that very vehemently. what you're asking to go is guess what was going to happen. i am saying i don't think that the first three years was either the devil or the site you would like you to think he was. you are making — would like you to think he was. you are making a _ would like you to think he was. you are making a show for a uk audience, us audience an australian audience, they don't all care about the same thing, how do you factor that in? everyone is fascinated by trump, i think every day there are lots of stories which resonate around the world. twitter in particular has made the world a small place in terms of debate, you see the trending topics are the same in almost every country, and everyday i look at the stuff in the news and i think that will resonate all around the world. most things do now, whether it is ukraine, megan and harry's antics, whether it is donald trump, whether it is the health of joe biden, all these things work in all these countries.— all these countries. what is your definition of _ all these countries. what is your definition of success? _ all these countries. what is your definition of success? if - all these countries. what is your definition of success? if i - all these countries. what is your definition of success? if i am i all these countries. what is your| definition of success? if i am still on air. definition of success? if i am still on air- that _ definition of success? if i am still on air. that will— definition of success? if i am still on air. that will do? _ definition of success? if i am still on air. that will do? yes, - definition of success? if i am still on air. that will do? yes, rupert| on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesnt on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesn't muck— on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesn't muck around. _ on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesn't muck around. by - on air. that will do? yes, rupert doesn't muck around. by which l on air. that will do? yes, rupert i doesn't muck around. by which you mean, the numbers aren't right... it will take time to grow it because the different calibrations and ways that are assessed around the world. but i think that we are all going to know whether we have a hit show on our hands, within a few months, if people are tuning in in bigger numbers. if we are becoming the centre of debate in three continents, then i think i will have done myjob and it will be very exciting. if not, then it will be back to the bits for a while. i would love to be watching but i am going to be on air on bbc news. i am ttoin to going to be on air on bbc news. i am going to destroy _ going to be on air on bbc news. i —n going to destroy you. going to be on air on bbc news. i am going to destroy you. with _ going to be on air on bbc news. i am going to destroy you. with that, i going to destroy you. with that, thank ou going to destroy you. with that, thank you very _ going to destroy you. with that, thank you very much _ going to destroy you. with that, thank you very much indeed. i hello, again. well, the weekend's got off to a pretty decent start weather—wise. for the vast majority, it's been a dry day. there've just been one or two showers dotted around here and there. but some sunshine for most of us — that was edinburgh castle, overlooking the blossoms there in the gardens below. now, the satellite picture. to the north of the uk and the north atlantic we've got a big bank of low cloud, and that is going to be coming towards the uk into next week, but before we get there, today we have had some cloud, particularly across wales and western areas of england, and that cloud has produced one 01’ two showers. now, they'll fade away but we could see another batch just running into the south of england for a time overnight. away from that, cloudy again for northern scotland, but for most it's a dry night with clear skies. temperatures getting down to between 3 and 7 celsius, perhaps a few areas of frost in some of the deeper valleys in scotland. now, for the second half of the weekend, it's another fine—looking day. lots of sunshine around, both morning and afternoon, and i think overall there'll be fewer showers, so that the vast majority of you will have a dry day. still pretty cloudy across the far north of scotland, but otherwise sunny spells. now, again, we've got these east—north—easterly winds working across the chilly waters out in the north sea where the sea temperatures are onlyjust coming up from their wintertime lows, and that does have an effect on the temperatures. for eastern areas, 11 to 1a degrees. the highest temperatures, again, across the south and west — we're looking at highs of 18 in cardiff and for london. for monday, still a fair bit of dry weather but we are going to see some showers across central and eastern england. some of those could turn out to be quite heavy for a time during the afternoon. away from that, though, a fair bit of dry weather, but it's starting to turn cloudy and cool across northern areas of scotland. 10 degrees in stornoway, 11 in aberdeen. in the sunshine further south, 14s and 15s. for the most part, tuesday is where we see that big area of low cloud i showed you on the satellite picture. well, that works down the north sea and then starts to spread inland, so quite a bit of dry weather still around, but quite a lot of cloud, as well, and given the cloudy skies, just 9 degrees in aberdeen and newcastle, highest temperatures 15—16 for cardiff and for london, but, really, the rest of the week does look pretty cloudy at times. temperatures not as high as they have been. the best of any limited sunshine will be across western areas. that's the latest. this is bbc news, welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. our top stories... the ukrainian port city of odesa has been struck by a volley of russian cruise missiles, killing at least five people and leaving many more injured. i'm in paris where campaigning has ended in france's hard —fought presidential election, with emmanuel macron and his far—right rival marine le pen urging people to turn out and vote on sunday. 26 passengers and crew are missing injapan after a tourist boat reportedly sinks off the northern island of hokkaido. downing street confirms britain's prime minister, borisjohnson, has not yet received any further fines for