Read this: Trust me, I'm a journalist

BBC sounds music Radio podcasts from BBC Radio 4 with me in the studio Dorothy Byrne head of news and current affairs Channel 4 and Shona Ghosh the UK Tech editor for Business Insider Award winners both I should declare welcome welcome back should say I see you've just been awarded the Prestigious Grace and trustees award which is the Oscars of the documentary world that obviously there's no question that your peers told you in the highest possible regard, but some people some people say that these awards ceremony backslapping festivals within Industries how much does it mean to you ready an enormous amount of the Grayson's really are the best documentary awards in the world and particularly thrilled that I want because I come from the world of current affairs and a lot of pure documentary makers look down.

Clarins Paris over yours wouldn't know the difference so it meant a huge amount to me.

I want him to do with a recognising my whole life time mate congratulations in order to as well last week at the UK Tech Awards you were crowned journalist of the year.

Please tell us what part of the the ghost they were rewarded.

I wrote a piece and several jealous right Pieces by Rosa big defensive piece about the collapse of an app called blippar and I think that was at the centre of the award went to administration has quite an interesting story behind it so that's probably but I will start showing it by asking you about yesterday launched a big big news by Google it's new video game service.

Can you tell me something about it, so Google has ventured into gaming with a game streaming service which is really unusual because gaming is usually associated with consoles with.

And theoretically Google stadia is product that lets you stream games from any device theoretically I should have the size from your PC from your phone at that turns out.

It's quite limited as to the Google Pixel and you can't stream it from other types of phone but in the future.

You should be able to stream games from any device flops.

Hey Google close Google + Google Docs and come by different degrees, but quite a long surprisingly long list of Google products that haven't totally taken off is Google so they're going to be here for the long time you think it's looking at little shaking at launched at the lack of games are only it's not out with 12 launch titles now.

There are 22.

That's still not that many are not many of them are very exciting new games.

Don't know any exciting new games actually so it's not looking promising.

It's a really interesting technology.

That's behind at the streaming technology and that's something the iterative so perhaps in a couple of years.

It could be really game-changing ok.

We'll keep you look at the definitive.

About Google stadia regulate social media or not as the case may be rebranded during the leaders to last night and also I'm going worried about political ads on social media Facebook has been heavily criticized for the role it played during the brexit campaign and the US presidential election and of course those allegations foreign interference head of this General Election the company was under pressure to completely banned political advertising from its platform other social networks such as Twitter and tiktok have done that the cost many fewer ads has made the decision that advertising is the political process and is part of the election process whether that's on posters and that often some of the most iconic part of a campaign have been the the outdoor that's wrong historical.

Pamphlets by that same email as a country we decided that that's ok part of the process and we're ok with that if that's the case.

I think I kind of two reasons why you would the first off actually is a defining what is political advertising is hard something you really have to work and now it's not a political party or for a candidate that a bit easier but adds that are inherently political that that challenge social norms that look to create change through government that's much wider are much harder to define and I just got something hard doesn't mean to say that you shouldn't go and do it particular company as well resources as Facebook is butter bad advertising to ban political advertising actually has an inherent bias in it that it helps in Trench the positions the incumbents at the cost of those that are less represented have a quieter voice today and I left.

Ok, if I'm allowed while clearly label contains factual errors, will you remove it so the decision that we've made us in this country is that we don't regulate political speech and political advert there isn't an equivalency in the UK for Political advertising as we have a commercial advertising that very well self regulated by the by the as a the rules that are established for what can and cannot be said to be set by a private company and in our believe you got tens of thousands of moderate is 30000 now.

I know it and I think that hate speech but if there are people advertising on Facebook spreading falsehood and deceit and disinformation in a tight election st.

Peter's saying that because Facebook is this why you take that stuff down and hard to really try and get this right and be consistent with the approach that that we've chosen to take in the UK that elected officials.

Electoral Commission of have chosen the way that we are praying in the UK now is a politician or political party share something that's not from another political organisation that previously proven to be misleading or false we put it right to the bottom of the new speak so that people don't see it.

We put an overlay on it saying this is proven to be misleading of patching incorrect have a link to the fact that describes why not proven to be the case of the reason for being that is wishing that rather than their way to the censorship by a private company that I think people be uncomfortable with may be particularly Facebook taking the rollers arbiter of political truth and transparency these decisions have been made by California Company is it ultimately absolutely absurd that whether or not people see millions of true or false claims online.

It's something you as a private company and being able to do decide on and a due date on rather regulators and lawmakers.

We would we have can we have been very clear about this that we think there is a for many years now that we can I was a clear role for Reform and regulation in the political advertising the model that we set for transparency of an ad library is the right way forward, so that's a place right now a website that We Created last year, but every single political issue by sad that runs on Facebook can be seen by anyone and everyone knows all of the Alice in one place.

It shows the Broad reach of the advertising as well as being in the library.

We set very strict rules that mean you can only advertise political Up Issue base as if you've proven for a form of national identity that you hear in this country that enabling who's who's who's paid for it.

What we have created it.

Is is I think something the most transparent approach of any medium well, that's online or offline there isn't a place where you can.

All the posters all the leaflets all the emails were there is a place where you can see all the Facebook app and that enables that the very robust free press that we have in this country and interested in the whole people account.

It's all the time.

We say the great appeal of your platform.

Is it if you want to influence politics you can give money to a group and that group without declaring it gets.

It's money can advertise aggressive your Facebook include.

My child do people you don't know do whether or not the Saudis are the Russians or some Malone actor is using your platform front organisations which expanded without actually declaring people's expectations are advised that we do everything that's directly within our power now.

I think it's it's it's certainly adding a question for future but how how weird Society how weird colour of a part of that Society want to be added to the Democratic process as a platform giving a root and an option.

Do you want to influence democracy is a way of getting to voters by allowing them to fun people who through front organisations on your platform can reach millions of people with post without their way.

They actually get them which is why we think the best route forward right now is that transparency is being able to show all about messaging.

That's there.

So people can scrutinise it and can hold them to account for saying and actually looking at the toll.

This is a report.

I read in a national newspaper last week, which describe the current campaigning as as dolly and I don't think that might not be with people that are playing that message out, but it's certainly suggests that transparent approach that showing who's paying from April from a page perspective what that messages who's being raped and how they are being targeted is enabling people to operate in the best way mostly activity that was saying is coming from the mainstream parties.

very broad and approaches to broadcast in a way using Facebook as a broadcast way of accessing communications by mobile phone so far in this election campaign has their own influence on Facebook

today we have not seen any on Instagram and this is a simile and what is a simile the what I can say is this is an area where we always have to be constantly constantly vigilant with a long way to go in a selection and we want to make sure that we are going there.

We are additive to the additive to that democratic process and that means Satan and we've invested tens of millions of pounds an hour tens of thousands of people focus on the second integrity across our platform regulation in this country is being so the business lower keeping pace with technology.

I don't think that's really a question for us to answer.

We've certainly will surprise we're going into selection without any new electoral laws, basically.

We had all the paranoia all the talk about 2016 about brexit and amazing we going to the selection with our electoral legal defences relatively weak.

Why do you think that is why I think there's clearly we've been calling for a need for new regulations as the we have waited for that regulation to come.

We think it's the right thing for also taken the proactive steps that we had and I'm glad we took them as early as we did the things that we introduce not this year not on the highest ever have an election but back in the back in last year and that had library in particular is now up to 125000 people can scrutinize and analysed so that was Steve Hatch Facebook bus for northern Europe and you can get a longer version of that in our podcast shortly available by BBC sounds, you know that when I asked.

Facebook will pay the so-called tech tax that Labour and Jeremy Corbyn proposed.

He doesn't say they wouldn't do you make a Facebook position on little advertising put themselves into a very difficult situation with their stance on political as and are now going through various contortions to justify their position to continue taking ads and to do you know the way they're trying to become more transparent and to defend against foreign interference.

I think one really positive thing is that they do publish supposedly all the ads that are labelled as in the UK I do that's a great move towards transparency for journalists and researchers, but you know I think is interesting they say the word regulation many many times we know the actually Facebook has campaigned against considered in the same vein as other media producers and now it's interesting to him to become pro regulation well.

I think it's a bit of money on lobbyists in American particular.

The cases they would put it to a lawmakers Dorothy isn't there a even find the screws with it isn't their intellectual position which one can see where Facebook says it's not our business as a private California to decide what people do and don't see in the public domain and it's up to join this the face that the journalist inside something is true or not politicians actually to work out what to do here the selection came round very quickly before there was an opportunity for politicians to introduce the legal defences that you referred to there for three years.

I mean since president of the job, but let's think positively that by the time we have the next election assuming that come about to quickly we will have proper legal defences there.

There is a reason that we don't have political advertising on television here.

I think we all would see that our democratic system works better than that it doesn't the us because we don't have political advertising pieces that Facebook have thought long and hard or sorry Facebook we need our politicians and our Society to think long and hard but not too long about what is best for us, and I am not sure that British people and British politicians would come to the conclusion that advert are a good idea that I think it would be interesting to bring Facebook into parity with other types of Media or I could see Facebook campaign against her on you know supposed of freedom it seems to have you know that involvement in political advertising get seems to muddy the waters substantially in a way that doesn't seem very beneficial to democracy at least you know talking about.

Democracy I mention that the couple of couple the kerfuffle on Twitter last night during the leaders debate on ITV press office temporarily renamed its Twitter account as fact check UK and took on the appearance of an independent fact checking service it then proceeded to tweet Boris Johnson Commons conservators.

Insisted wasn't a misleading thing to do Twitter disagrees and says it will decisive corrective action if the stunt is repeated a bit that's got the quaking in Their Boots to Tory central office Dorothy Byrne Channel 4 has the official fact check Twitter handle.

What's your taken last night? I believe it really to suddenly see something called fact check UK which two most people sounds like that check the award-winning actually reliable Channel 4 servers.

I mean it was extraordinary, but it didn't work for them.

Did it whoever in the Conservative Party thought that was a good idea.

Should have thought through the thousands and thousands of people would immediately spot it wasn't that check and they would be found out and I used to be a teacher and I would say to my people's don't do anything wrong but in particular.

Don't do something where I will find you out really easily and they got within seconds really and instead of people talking about their message today.

They're talking about the way in which they tried to put their message across and is never a good place for somebody to end up doing this thing isn't there a profound danger.

I know I keep going on about it on the journalists and lots of politicians are addicted to Twitter it is real world is not representative of wider public opinion and is there a danger that we inflate the importance of Twitter by making totally? It's you know Twitter is Alicia platform.

Anything like as popular as Facebook among Uno non Media non-celebrities essentially the bulk of Twitter's power users and people who is the most frequently.

Are you know figures from the media and the danger it creates a sense of groupthink among donors who will follow each other see what everyone else is saying and maybe you know I have influenced the way that each other things and that's not a way that news agendas.

Should be decided so I do wonder how much the average voter would have really realised you know the cchq Twitter songs.

I do think it was a bad idea that backfired spectacularly.

I really don't know what they were thinking.

I don't know why they can have gone about the same thing a different way, but yeah, I agree.

I don't think it will have necessarily penetrators.

You know I'm on the people who are watching that even people who don't Twitter at all will have heard in News programmes today about it and seeing it in newspapers, and it will have said to them.

There is a political.

Being less than transparent and does one little thing but it's another little step in undermining trust less and less than truthful your new book by the trust me.

I'm not a politician is partly based on your mactaggart lecture your the keynote speech at the Edinburgh television festival she gave in August you call that politicians as you didn't reach the line but a lot of people in this country that the only people less trustworthy than politicians are journalists.

What do you say to that? They're speaking about newspaper journalist and broadcaster maybe even the BBC they would be wrong because we know from the most recent EBU survey that British newspaper journal came out as the lowest in Europe but we also know and the latest Ofcom figures have just come out that 71%

The British Public television journalist but only 9% according to a recent survey of 2000 voters only 9% of the British public trust politicians and that figure 9% is has fallen from what was 20 about 21% before the EU referendum campaign to my big argument would be to politicians if you want to be trusted more be seen with trustworthy people and I would say look for the photo of Prince Andrew and extended for Prince Andrew reputation.

Don't be seen with bad people be seen with good people who are trusted by the public and I'm pleased to see the last night.

We had a debate.

TV when we didn't have to be before which was very well by very close attention to how many people in the industry because your lecture went down very well what you're saying my location is not explicitly is coming to programs that Channel 4 News which you have control over its social media allows politicians to communicate directly to voters without this intermediate level of genus their point of view from the politicians point of view rather summarise current affairs and News Channel 4.

Why should I bother going on your programs because firstly we know from another survey done by reuters that only 10% of voters Trust social media and also very small numbers of people will be listening to your particular message on social media and you will only be preaching to the converted what politicians need to do is reach voters particularly who have not

Read up their mind and the best way to do that is to get a mass audience millions of people watch ITV last night and a lot of them one.

Previously had known who to vote for and they will have been influenced by some of what they heard.

They're one of the central arguments of your electricity your book is about the absence of big ideas in public Life television really intellectually ambitious programming.

What do you mean? Why is it happened you been in the trade for 40 years? Where's it gone? I think television and radio has stopped being so self confident about daring to put forward big ideas and maybe it's partly because they're worried about be politically correct and everything can't have a person put forward one big idea in 6 films because other people might be.

Me with that so if you look at Kenneth Clark civilisation for Jacob bronowski the ascent of Man brilliant brilliant programme play influence me I learnt an incredible amount from them.

I would say I gained my loving are from our from civilization now wouldn't dare to have one white man tell you what civilisation was I understand that but it's made people to fear of pushing any big ideas at all and so I would say that broadcasters should trust us as the public to teleport which ideas we want to take in which we don't want to take the don't have to be afraid of Us hearing things.

When you look online if you go down there a wormhole on YouTube there is a huge public appetite for really into this conversation conversation between two scientists in about three quite arcane subjects and tens of millions of people watching stuff.

Is there a false idea that some commissioners have that if you do really brain stuff it went really well, I think I think there are several issues that I say one is the issue of instant feedback which is what I think you're referring to it's much easier for people to generate backlash and to whip up some feedback at the same time.

There's a massive fragmentation in the media landscape if you can choose to watch your brain programming on Channel 4 or you can go to YouTube you can possibly go to Netflix as a much greater choice of channels for an audience to turn to a gas the difficulty is capturing that audience and keeping them with you and ensuring.

They don't save bleed after these other channels particularly the younger generation who are much more useless of on-demand programming.

YouTube celebrities you know people who are not necessarily establishment academics or figures you know explaining things to them on YouTube so I think it's as much the fragmentation of the Landscape designer, but not too young people are so clever.

Is there a false idea that you love it if you have to appeal to young people who go into actually down Market is not as a cliched hackneyed idea that circulating and we know because we survey young people that they both want to have knowledge and they want to appear to be clever and participate in the conversation about yes, but there is a specific thing.

They really want to know bit complicated things to they can show to other people that they are very knowledgeable.

So they do actually have that day and I think TV can give it to the more I get quite a lot of ideas that are almost content free we were talking.

Let's talk about something a lot list at home.

I did you tell some sickening stories of sexual harassment at work.

What sort of things did you experience over the last 40 years that people listen to show may not know actually happened and have things got better.

I think things to starting a positive note.

I think things have got better particularly and big companies, but I think in smaller companies it still happening new woman of my age would be shocked by what I describe.

I describe my first day.

How my female boss told me that I would be taken out by director who would show me the basics of filmmaking and he would sexually assault but I wasn't to take it personally because he sexually assaulted all women and he digital me but I'll tell you I didn't take it personally and on that same day very

Man in the company tried to get in a taxi and come home with me which was also totally inappropriate so I don't think that would happen now at Channel 4 and I think people speak about it a lot more and I think you know if that happened now as a female boss.

Just called the police.

I mean talking about criminal offences here and so yeah things of God better way to go until recently was sort of thing happening will it still is happening? It's still is happening.

I think it's less flagrant and I are the what we experienced when we started out as women and TV of men really miss using their position.

I think that has got less.

You know men seem to women you can I can get you on screen if you agreed to sleep with me.

You don't really frequent things like that Currys don't even talk about this last time you or resend a new one.

That's why I think so yeah, it does actually and I think it is much less common although definitely not unheard of but I think the balance of power now has shifted grown up in a time where you know largely women have been seen as equals professionally and so it's horrible to think that you know only relatively recently actually women were still being treated this way in the work.

We didn't tell each other sufficiently since I gave the took a woman who I work with wrote to me and she told me a man had a Salter and he was the same man who had assaulted me and yeah at the time.

We never told you that.

Is gone from us.

That's all you got time for today might say something on PC which I'm glad I didn't my thanks to Dorothy Byrne and Shona Ghosh really good to see you both and also earlier to Facebook's Steve patch with the same time next week.

Thanks for listening and goodbye.