controversy around the fact that the prime minister left those commemorations early. in fact, the next day, he apologised for doing that. and when paul was recording this interview, he didn't know the controversies that would follow in the coming hours and days. so, in every general election, the tonight programme does a series of profiles of all the main party leaders in britain and so, those conversations begin pretty much as soon as the election is called. so, we start having a conversation with the conservative party, in this case, and saying, "here are the days that we could do. "is he available on any of these days? "this is the date when we'd like to broadcast "the programme. "therefore, we have this amount of time to actually put "the programme together," and the conversation goes from there. when did the date of last week come up? so, by wednesday of last week, we still didn't have a date with the prime minister. and on that wednesday, they offered the thursday and said that it was the only slot available. the thursday didn't particularly suit us, actually, as a programme, because that is almost a week before we go to air. we like to record the interview a little bit closer to air — as we've seen, elections move pretty quickly — so we'd actually prefer to do it on either the friday or the sunday, but we were told thursday was the only option and, obviously, we don't get a say in that. and when they suggested thursday, did you or one of your colleagues go, "that's the d—day commemorations"? did you register that that was perhaps an unusual time to suggest? we didn't know what his schedule was at that point, so we weren't actually aware that he was going to be cutting those commemorations short to fly back. we were given a time, which was in the afternoon on thursday, but we arrived at that interview not really, in all honesty, realising the significance of what was about to unfold. well, since doing the interview, you've released a clip of the prime minister arriving for the interview. let's just hear a little bit of that. prime minister. gosh, hello! good to see you. very nice to see you! sorry to have kept you. no, not at all. i know you've been in normandy. yeah. it alljust ran over. of course. it was incredible but itjust ran over everything... - i'm sure it was... so, apologies for keeping you. no, not at all. i'm sure it was a powerful trip. imean... tell us the decision—making process behind that because the prime minister might�*ve thought that at that stage, he was greeting you, not necessarily being recorded. so, from our point of view, we made it clear, actually, to his team that we would be recording his arrival at that interview. it's part of the colour of building a programme. so, when you're trying to profile a leader, as we do — and we like to show the more personal side of the leader as well as their policy proposals — of course, you want that kind of behind—the—scenes essence of an interview, too. so, as you'll see, for example, quite often in party conference interviews that your political editor will do and our political editor will do, often, you do set up a wide shot so you get that greeting, you get the handshake, and itjust helps the story along because you can get into that interview from that point. so, we made it abundantly clear that we were recording that moment, so there shouldn't have been any surprise. and i wonder, you have had this in the can for close to a week. has it been — you know, you've been sitting there, thinking, "i'd quite like to get this out". did you think about bringing it in earlier? no, in all honesty, because the approach that we take to these profiles is quite different. so, we do see them as much more of a personal profile of a leader. we do a much sort of broader look at the leader in a way that kind of tells their back story with vts and video. it's notjust a sit—down interview that's cut together. not that there's anything wrong with that, of course — it's just different formats for different platforms. some people might say it's a softer approach. is that fair, or...? i wouldn't say it's soft. it'sjust a more holistic approach where we try to bring back, bring together — we don't assume any knowledge that people might have about a leader. we try to bring together their whole story about their personality and their politics and their policies in the election. do you think that's something that both politicians and journalists are keener on doing now than, perhaps, they might�*ve been ten years ago or 20 years ago? maybe, but i think they also see the pitfalls of it, right? i mean, rishi sunak, this morning, the clip that we put out is talking about what he missed out on in childhood, and he says "sky tv". and some people have leapt on that as an example of him being out of touch. theresa may had the same problem when she talked about running through fields of wheat as her naughtiest moment, right? so, yes, in some instances, politicians like to be able to get across their personal backstory. and we certainly hear rishi sunak talking a lot, don't we, generally, about his mum being a pharmacist, his dad a gp and, likewise, keirstarmer — son of a toolmaker, etc. they want to do that. but i think they are also aware that there are dangers in doing that, too. now, next on the media show, we're going to talk about the netflix series baby reindeer. and if you're a regular viewer, you'll know this isn't the first time that we've talked about this. but there's a good reason we keep coming back to this story because it raises a number of issues that are relevant, whether you've watched it or not. plenty of people won't have seen the programme but there is actually a wider question for us all because there are rules for traditional broadcasters when it comes to how real people are treated. but with the advent of the streamers and the fragmentation of the media, you know, the law, the guidance is — looks like it's playing catch—up. so, you know, questions around can the streamers now write stories about any of us and claim that it's a true story and there's nothing we can do about it? and, of course, it throws up other ethical questions — you know, one person's right to tell their story against another person's right to privacy. and if you haven't watched the series, baby reindeer tells the story of how the scottish comedian richard gadd was stalked and harassed by a woman after serving her ina pub. his stalker — named martha in the series — allegedly sent him more than 41,000 emails and left 350 hours of voicemails on his phone. she also turns up at his home and workplace in the series. this is a clip of the programme. every day now, martha would be outside, this ticking time bomb on my life. i would leave first thing in the morning and she would be there. i love you, nipple! think of me at work today! now, in the opening sequence of the first episode of baby reindeer, we're told this is a true story. at the end of the series and the end credits of each edition, the programme says it's based on real events. however, certain characters�* names, incidents, locations and dialogue had been fictionalised for dramatic purposes. and now, katie, we have a further development in the story. we do, because fiona harvey — she's the woman who alleges that she's the inspiration for the stalker character, martha, in the netflix drama — she's suing netflix for defamation, negligence and privacy violations, and that court document was filed just at the end of last week. she claims that she was falsely depicted as a convicted criminal who spent her time in prison for stalking and she's calling the claims that the story is true the "biggest lie in tv history" — that's in the court filing and it's definitely — it's got an american spin to it, that filing. there's no understatement in that whatsoever, in its many pages. her lawsuit was filed in california and she is seeking $170 million in damages. and netflix — it's important to say — first of all has never said that fiona harvey is, indeed, the inspiration for martha but it's also said it will defend this matter vigorously and will stand by the right of the show�*s creator, richard gadd, to tell his story. so, i suppose the question we want to ask today is does fiona harvey have a case? and i want to look at that first from a us law perspective, and we're joined by stuart benjamin, who is professor of law at duke university. stuart, thank you so much for coming on the media show. i wonder if you could just start with what fiona harvey is actually alleging in this lawsuit. so, herfirst and most important claim is a defamation claim — that they made false statements about her that injured her reputation. she made additional claims that might be less likely to win — intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and violation of her right of publicity. i think my assumption — most people's assumption — is that the claim that she would be most likely to win on, as i suggested, is the defamation claim. and why is that? i mean, does she have a greater chance of winning a defamation case in the us than she does in the uk? cos, as i said, this was filed in the us. no. oh, no, no. uk law is much tougher on defamation plaintiffs. so, in particular, in the us, she has to prove the falsity of the factual claims made about her. in the uk, netflix would have to prove the truth of the claims about her. that's important because some of the claims are going to be hard to prove either way. how is anybody going to prove that she sat outside 16 hours a day, watching him walk in and walk out of his place of work? she has to prove that's false in the us and so, that is a higher burden for her. you might wonder, then, why is she bringing the lawsuit? well... that's exactly what i was going to ask — why is she not doing it in the uk? so, as we note in the — it's about deeper pockets. so, richard gadd, probably, there's a limited amount — she can't sue him for $170 million and she can sue netflix and so, she needs to sue netflix in the us — that's where they're located — in order to get, frankly, the bigger outcome for her. and if that disclaimer that ros was talking about that is at the end of the programme, does that help netflix�*s case at all, do you think? absolutely, it helps. having said that, because they said at the beginning, "this is a true story" — and not just there but also, on their website, repeatedly they say it's a true story, an snp mpjohn nicolson was told by a netflix executive, "this is a true story," a jury might easily say, "we think that disclaimer doesn't fully undercut "the degree to which you are making a factual claim". it's also worth saying that disclaimer comes up right at the end, after all the credits, and i'm not sure how many people stick to the very end of that. right. and just more generally, you know, you could imagine a situation in which i say repeatedly, "what i'm "about to tell you is true. "what i'm about to tell you is true", and then i say something, and then at the end, isay, "well, maybe "it's not true". you can imagine a jury saying, "well, those opening statements "are so strong, we think you're, in fact, making "a factual claim." and what about if there's some truth in it? if she didn't send 41,000 emails but they proved she sent 10,000, does that — does magnitude matter? does it have to be wholly true? so, interestingly — so, the answer is if it's false, then she still can claim it's false. but she doesn't mention any of that in her complaint. her complaint is focused in particular that she was a convicted stalker who served a 4.5—year sentence and that she then pled guilty in the richard gadd case and was sentenced to a nine—month sentence. so, she's really focused on those factual claims. she has actually not talked about all of the things that got all the press — the many hours of voicemails, etc. she doesn't have to. and what about — i mean, i've been covering this story a lot, so i'm slightly in the weeds on this, but people might remember fiona harvey did an interview on the piers morgan show and told her side of the story. does that make a difference to the court case? was that a mistake, do you think? so, we have — our laws are guided by the first amendment and the supreme court has held that if you are a public figure, if you have injected yourself into some controversy, then the standard for you is higher in order to win a defamation case. you have to prove that the person who said the false statement either knew that it was false or was reckless about its falsity. i think that she has a strong argument here that she has not injected herself into any debate, that she was brought into this by many people on the internet who discovered who she was, and that the interview wasjust part and parcel of the lawsuit that she is bringing. if it was decided otherwise, then it's not clear who would be a private figure. i mean, does it mean any time that you bring a lawsuit and you do an interview about the lawsuit, you become a public figure? then we'd all be public figures. and we're talking about eye—watering sums — she's wanting $170 million. how realistic is that? is that a typical amount asked for in a defamation case in california ? in the us, the answer is, yes, sure. why not ask for a lot of money? let me just tell you — these cases generally settle and so, you are trying to anchor with a high opening bid, in effect, on the settlement negotiations. having said that, netflix would not be likely to settle if they thought she had no case whatsoever but they did say repeatedly, "this is a true story" and that does give her additional ammunition. professor benjamin, thank you very much indeed for giving us that us legal perspective. now, let's get a uk legal perspective. persephone bridgman baker is partner at the law firm carter—ruck. thank you very much indeed forjoining us here in the studio. if this had been brought in the uk, do you think a case could've been made? i think the most important- thing, from the uk perspective in comparison to the us i perspective, is the amount of damages which onel would be able to seek. i mean, this is way over- and above what you would even be able to put down on your claim for — i in a claim for this sort - in the uk, and i think that's probably driven the decision to bring it in the us. - so, what could you put in the uk? so, in the uk, damages. for defamation are pinned to the damages that| you would expect for personal injury claims. so, you might expect in the low. hundreds of thousands maximum, really, for a defamation claim in the uk courts — and, of course, our defamation claims are now overseen - by a judge alone. i think that possibly may have been an influencing factor - here because juries are known to be more sympathetic- to human stories. having said that, that could go either way in this case, - of course, because you have two individuals, both - of whom have their— idiosyncrasies, and who knows which way a jury. might turn on that. but in relation to the - differences in our standards of proof, for example, i as referenced by stuart, i think the points - that he makes all stand. here, you would havej to show that the story was substantially true —j and you referred to that when you asked about - whether or not you have to get the exact numbersl of the emails right. i think here, it would be difficult to say that - if you are — if you have - stalked somebody, if that can be demonstrated that she has, in fact, done that — _ whether it's in exactly the way |that's replicated in the show — i still think that there - would be a possibility that netflix would be able - to defend the claim here. are there precedents for this kind of defamation case, where someone feels like a drama or a series which is based on a true story is clearly referencing them and not referencing them in an accurate way? so, there are a few such claims against netflix, l dating back to sort of, i suppose, the time i during which this true genre of series has i become more popular. so, in 2020, there was a claim against netflix in the us over. the central park five drama, - which was called when they see us. that was settled. in 2022, there was a claim about the queen's gambitj against netflix, - and that was settled. and currently, netflix are defending a claimj about the show inventing anna, and my understanding is that i netflix have applied i to strike that claim out as being groundless, - and a decision hasjust been made by the us courts - that the claimant can continue with that case, so netflix has lost that interim hearing. - and, stuart, if i could bring you in on these previous cases that persephone is referencing, is it the case that a jury considering one claim such as this would be asked to consider previous claims which have been brought? so, they could. netflix's lawyers will clearly try to argue that that's irrelevant — it's "more prejudicial than probative" is the term that's often used — but, yes, absolutely. you would want to say this is a consistent pattern with netflix. they lie without remorse. and this is related to her claim for punitive damages — so, again, a difference between us and the uk. she is asking for more than $40 million in punitive damages. that would be designed to stop a wrongdoer who has done something that — a pattern of behaviour that is so egregious that the system needs to punish that person to stop that pattern. persephone, do we have punitive damages in the uk? so, you can obtain i aggravated damages. i think the doubling - down by netflix on this, i think, is potentially problematic. - so, the fact that they have i repeated that it's a true story — and, indeed, one of their. senior executives was before a parliamentary select - committee repeating that this is not only a true story but also, that she is l a convicted stalker — i and so, that might play into an aggravated i damages—type claim. and i'm interested in the words the producers — netflix, in this case — put on screen. we've mentioned at the beginning of baby reindeer, it says, "this is a true story". every inventing anna episode began with these words — "this whole story is completely true, except for the parts "that are completely made up". persephone, does that help, if you put words like that at the front? i think that that being - at the forefront does help. and it's unusual, baby. reindeer, in that regard. saying "this is a true story" upfront, i think might be i the death nail for. netflix in this case. i'd like to bring in scott bryan here, tv critic, host of the must watch podcast on bbc 5 live and bbc sounds. hello, scott. hi. what's your take on the baby reindeer saga? i mean, when i first saw this drama, i thought it was incredibly compelling and it continues the sort of trend we've seen when it's been, like, sort of someone's story but they are in front of the camera as well as behind the camera. of course, we've had, like, fleabag, we've had michaela coel's i may destroy you as well, and there's an added edge when you see these sort of dramas because you really feel that there is a message that's clear from the creator that radiates through. but, i mean, as we've seen, it's felt like this has been a runaway train. no—one knows where it's going to end up. and it also, i think, at times, risks the sort of — the media buzz around the show eclipsing the initial success of the show to maybe netflix's detriment. because netflix wants the conversation to be about the tv programme and it's just not really ending up like that any more. thank you very much, indeed, scott, for your thoughts on baby reindeer. we're going to leave baby reindeer for one moment because between now and the end of the programme, we're going to turn to the evolution of reality tv — both talking about the kinds of formats that are getting made but also, where we watch reality tv. in the case of youtube, for example, the hugely popular british creators the sidemen have now launched their own reality tv show where ten influencers are locked in a house for a week to battle for a prize worth up to £1 million. let's hear a little bit of it. welcome to inside. the sidemen's first ever reality show. i 0ne house. seven days. ten contestants. # please step aside so they can see me in the... all battling it out for £1 million. i the only catch? we've taken absolutely everything from them. scott, do you like the sound of that? i mean, i think being trapped in a house full of influencers is not really my bag! what about watching people trapped in a house with a lot of influencers? well, i have seen this show and i think it's got merits — they are sort of a set of friends who have, just over the course of ten years, has built a big online sort of following byjust being themselves, doing challenges, reaction videos and knowing exactly how to market themselves. i think it's — there are certainly a generation of creators who don't really need tv now to be famous. i mean, we're talking here about reality tv. i mean, one new format is the bbc reality show i kissed a girl, which finished its series recently and has just been sold to the us. and sophie wilkinson is a freelance journalist and i think, sophie, a fan of i kissed a girl. yes, yes, absolutely. i'm so pleased we've come to this. - just tell me, you know, as ros was talking about, love island began its 11th series last monday but lesbian viewers, like you, have been singing the praises of this show — it's a dating show for queer women. yes. is that actually more radical than it sounds? i think what's so radical about it is the bbc take on the love island format is so much more kind. . there's a lot of care - around the contestants. i'm sure there were plenty. of opportunities to bait them and to put them in situations i that could've been exploitative but instead, it's a lot more kind and soft and gentle i and there's clearly some - moments where they've been prompted to talk about issues — you know, "let's all talk - "about, you know, why the l is at the front of lgbt. - "let's all talk about, i you know, homophobia "in the community. "let's all talk about what it's like to be bisexual." - you know, there's these clear moments that are really - designed, you know, to fulfil the education portion- of what the bbc is out to do, and itjust made it— so much more fun. now, i am in a bubble - of lesbians who are absolutely obsessed with this show. we're very, very interested i as well in, like, the aftershow as well. after the reunion show, - a few bombshells were dropped — and i don't want to give any spoilers, but a huge set - of bombshells were dropped — yeah, and now watching that i all play out on social media, i now they're all allowed to talk about what happened in the six months or the eight months. since filming is very, very intriguing. - but the bubble that i'm. in is very, very obsessed with it and as much as i can't — you know, we haven't - necessarily seen the viewing figures yet, i think they're . coming out in a few weeks' time — but although we can't see - the impact in that way, - what i know is that it gives a lot of lesbians a lot. of confidence just to see ourselves represented - on screen, to have a laugh about it, to talk about it - with each other on whatsapp. it's a really, really wonderful. way of us all coming together. cos i was going to say sometimes, tv programmes feel revolutionary and you think, "how can it be revolutionary "now to make this programme?," and yet it is. do you put that programme in that category? i mean, there's only. a couple of characters who i would — characters! they're real people. but there's only a few people that i think are living quite i radically queer lives. and i think, like, amy and thea, in particular, - are very, very kind of engaging in that way. and a lot of the other stories that kind of play out — - as it is a, you know, a reality show, it's, i you know, there are some confected elements... - but the fact it's a lesbian dating show... yeah. ..is that revolutionary in itself? it's a shame but, yeah, it is. i mean, there was tila tequila, a shot at love, which was - a bisexual dating show but that, you know, i that was considered this weird, strange thing - that was at a remove - from what normal people did. and, actually, what's. so engaging about this is that there are so many- normal—seeming couples in it — just really normal, average people. . and it is worth saying it's pride month next week. yes. it's pride month now. right now. last weekend, there was also a milestone on doctor who — the first gay kiss featuring the doctor, ncuti gatwa. scott, ijust wonder if you could reflect on both i kissed a girl and what's happened in doctor who in terms of how you see these programmes? i mean, ijust think it has such an impact on particularly young viewers who are watching because i think of myself when i was younger, watching these programmes. i remember 20 years ago, in corrie, there was a same—sex kiss between two characters — which happened to be the very first day i came out — but that, in the media, they had a headline "night of shame", and that made me feel that my life was somehow debatable and controversial and i didn't have any public affection with a guy for the next five years. no hand—holding, no kissing. and i think if you have this everyday experience of lgbtq+ lives — which are, by the way, made by a lot of lgbtq+ people trying to represent their lives behind the camera, too — it has such an impact. you won't see it straight away. you'll see it in about five, ten, 15 years, when the next generation comes through. trust me, it will have a big impact. well, that's it for this edition of the media show. thank you very much, indeed, for watching. and it's interesting how themes keep coming around in the subjects that we talk about. it won't be the last time we're discussing media and politicians and how they interact. and i don't think it's going to be the last time we're talking about baby reindeer, either, with this court case in the offing. no, definitely not. but that's it for this week. thanks so much for watching. goodbye. bye. and if you'd like to hear a longer version of today's show, search "bbc the media show" wherever you get your bbc podcasts. hello. saturday brought more than ourfairshare of heavy, thundery downpours. for some of us on sunday, there probably won't be quite as many showers, particularly across england and wales, whereas for scotland and northern ireland, we'll see cloud and outbreaks of rain sinking southwards. 0n the earlier satellite picture from saturday, you can see clumps of cloud all rotating around the centre of an area of low pressure. this low still with us for sunday but loosening its grip a little bit, so the winds will be easing, especially down towards the south. some showery rain first thing across some central and eastern parts of england. that should clear. then, we will see some spells of sunshine, a scattering of showers, but not as many as we had during the first half of the weekend. conversely, for scotland and northern ireland, cloud will sink its way southwards with some outbreaks of showery rain. quite breezy across the western side of scotland, down into the north coast of northern ireland. lighter winds down towards the south. temperature—wise, well, 13, 14 degrees in the north of scotland, 19 or 20 in parts of south wales and southern england. now, as we head through sunday night, we'll see this band of increasingly light and patchy rain sinking into northern england, parts of north wales. a lot of cloud filtering into western scotland and northern ireland. that'll hold the temperatures up — 11 degrees there in belfast, a little bit chillier where we do see any lengthy, clear spells. we will see some spells of sunshine on monday — perhaps the best of those across parts of wales, the midlands, down towards the south of england. the channel islands could just see one or two showers and then, we will see some showers breaking out once again through the day, always with a fair amount of cloud across the western side of scotland and northern ireland. temperatures north to south 13—21 degrees, so not far off the average for the time of year. this clump of showers likely to move across the channel islands, perhaps clipping into south east england on tuesday. some showers popping up elsewhere. a decent amount of dry weather. temperatures still in that range between 12, 13 in the north, 21 degrees down towards the south of the uk. now, this ridge of high pressure is going to try to settle things down through the middle part of the week but there's still a bit of uncertainty about how long it will hold on. this frontal system trying to push in from the south, this one trying to push in from the west — either or both of those could bring the return of some rain later in the week. there are some tentative signs that things could turn a little bit warmer later next weekend. live from washington, this is bbc news. world leaders gather with ukraine's president volodymyr zelensky to discuss how to bring peace to the country. israel says eight of its soldiers were killed in an explosion during an operation in gaza's southern city, rafah. and south african lawmakers put together a new coalition—government, which faces some of the country's biggest challenges in decades. hello. the g7 summit of the world's richest nations came to a close saturday with leaders gathered in italy signing off a communique covering a range of pressing issues. the document covers migration, artificial intelligence, chinese trade policy and the us�*s proposed israel—gaza ceasefire deal. but the main focus was on the war in ukraine, with leaders pledging $50 billion of loans to ukraine secured on the interest of assets seized from russia. the final communique says: