It is, yes, the impartiality bit. And of course, you know, other requirements such as you must have more than one absolutely key source before you break a story, which I had difficulty with, because as a newspaper journalist, if I had a really good source, if I had the Home Secretary talking off the record, I would go with that, and the sense of having to go around and find another source wouldn't have -- so it was an odd transition into the world of broadcasting.
In terms of holding the powerful to account, the worlds are so different. The only way that I could claim to do that either as political editor -- well, as political editor the way of doing that was by breaking stories, and I didn't feel that I was -- it was harder for me to break stories on the BBC, maybe because I got more access, actually, because you're slightly higher up the food chain as a political editor, you meet more people, you do get the chance to break stories. And now holding power to account just means asking people questions.
What I would say is I think that the two ecologies are so different. If one took a Ofcom-style regulatory system and put it on top of the press at this stage, you would be introducing something that they'd never experienced before and would feel, I suspect, more oppressive and difficult than -- broadcasters have grown up in a different world.
The other thing I'd say is that it seems to me that newspapers are in a very, very parlous state in this country now. Most of them are hollowed out, they are very short of money, they're losing large amounts of money, and none of them yet has found a plausible answer to the challenges, revenue brought by the Internet. A new system of regulation placed on top of that, you know, might be like taking away the feeding tube right at the end, or the oxygen mask.
So those would be my worries.