Thank you for inviting me. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah. This was just from my own reading of the code. It looked as if there were only two degrees of normativity in the code. Either you had a star and exceptions could be made on public interest grounds for exceptional cases where you can violate the code's requirements ...

Yes, I think it's true and maybe that's because it doesn't tell us much. I had a worry about it, which was the fact that freedom of expression is in the public interest -- and it clearly is -- it doesn't follow that every instance of expression is ...

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

So I think I had in mind the following thoughts. Suppose that most of us are interested in some grubby detail of some politician's private life. In some sense, you might think that's therefore a matter of public interest but I think that would be wrong. You might ...

Yes, no, no, I completely agree, I completely agree. I think the reason I'm stressing this is out of an attempt to avoid the kind of muddled thinking which I -- where I think you think: "This is going to make this person happier so I have a duty to ...

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Yes, that's right. No, that is right, and I think that's definitely -- I believe that, but I think we then need to notice that the benefit we're talking about here might not be benefit in any obvious sense of wellbeing or happiness. So I might benefit by ...

Indeed, yes.

Yes. I don't think it should be limited to readers, actually. I think it was -- I was thinking about readers in that paragraph of the submission and I was thinking about section 1, which is the point I think where they talk about respect for the truth, and it ...

Yes.

No, indeed. That's specifically financial journalism. That just struck me -- for political interests -- yes, I'm not sure. I think it depends whether a requirement could be found that was workable without being too restrictive, and you're right, we certainly wouldn't want to require -- we wouldn't ...

Yes.

That seems really insufficient.

Mm. I think by declaring political interests, what I had in mind was something like a declaration that this newspaper is going to support this party, if it is, and these sorts of things. I mean, newspapers often do that anyway, but -- but that was the sort of thing -- I ...

That's right.

Mm-hm.

I think so. I think so. That was my sense, looking at the code, that it's not there to create a diverse press. That's for someone else -- some other aspect of (inaudible).

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I do. I think this relates to the point I mentioned about the diversity of the press. If the press is going to play this role of giving a voice to people in the public sphere, then it's important it can represent the diversity ...

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Indeed. No, indeed, indeed. As a philosopher, I'm tempted just to say "indeed" and duck the difficult issue and leave that respectfully for you, but I don't know, and I think -- let me think. I suppose the idea I had in mind by "promoting" would be things like ...

Okay. There were two paragraphs to question 8 and the first paragraph just restates what I see as the fundamental principles underlying the importance of freedom of the press. So on the one hand the press' role in constituting a public sphere in which we can take part as equals ...

Yes certainly.

Yes.

That's why I thought it may not be the relevant thing here.

I was thinking -- sorry, just one more point on that, that last thing, which just occurred to me. I'm not sure this is actually so relevant to you, but I think it's worth mentioning, is I think the level of pay for directors is relevant to this too ...

This is one of those cases where it seemed pretty clear to me that there are ethical duties here that aren't being respected. Whether we should use law to enforce them -- here I'm suggesting we do -- again, I think we need to be tentative. But the thought was ...

That is a fair analysis, but there's a "but", I'm afraid, as well. It's a fair analysis but I don't think we can draw these lines very sharply, so I think there will be private businesses that don't have as overtly a public role as ...

Of course not.

One is simply the same qualifier about tentativeness, the same thought that I don't think you can take the philosophical principles and crank a handle and get out a policy proposal from it. I think a lot depends on the particular symbolic importance of thinking we live in a ...

I think the philosophical underpinning is the thought that the press is one of the main determinants of the formal structure of the public sphere, the sphere in which we all can have our say about how we live together, and in this way it's not that unlike government ...

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I think that would be -- that would be problematic. On the other hand, I think you'd want -- my sense is you want at least some of them in there to stop it seeming too adversarial, but you also want the public in there and you want it to ...

No, indeed, indeed. I just wanted to stress I think it needs to involve both parties. It needs to involve people from inside the press as well as from the public, but it needs to be visibly answerable to the public.

Yes. Though I suppose -- something I'd add is it shouldn't only be by the public. I would be suspicious of something that was too adversarial, in the sense that you have the regulators by the public and then you have the press and the two were separate. I ...

Yes. I assume it is. I think you need to make it clear that it's answerability here to the public. So in my view, that involves lay involvement at some level, either in the body that assesses self-regulatory mechanisms or somewhere else.

Sorry, yes.

The little I can say is that my own view is that because of the importance of a free press and the cultural importance of thinking we live in a nation with a free press, moving too quickly to something that looks like legal enforcement of these duties would be ...

Yes. Yes. I can say a little. I have to confess I don't know if it will assist you very much, I'm afraid, but I can say a little.

Yes.

Yes.