[Amanpour:] Welcome back to the program. And as we digest the implications of another slew of U.S. spying allegations and revelations, the practices of the press and its relationship with the government is in the spotlight here in Britain. Just down the road from us in the famous Old Bailey criminal courthouse a trial is now underway of two former newspaper editors from the Rupert Murdoch empire. Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson face charges that include conspiring to hack mobile phones at the now-defunct tabloid newspaper, the "News of the World." Among the victims, the missing school girl, Milly Dowler, who was later found murdered. That scandal sparked the Leveson inquiry, which examined the culture, the practice and the ethics of the press. And it heard from more than 180 witnesses, including the former prime minister, Tony Blair. Brooks, who is also charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice, is a former chief executive of News International, and she arrived at the Old Bailey with Coulson, who is a former "News of the World" editor and also the former communications chief for Prime Minister David Cameron. They, along with six other defendants, deny all the charges. The accusations have reverberated through the top levels of British politics and journalism. And despite a number of press regulations recommended by the Leveson inquiry, ministers and journalists are still at odds over just how or whether to do that. Sir Harold Evans is the former editor of "The Times" and "The Sunday Times" in the U.K., part of the Murdoch empire. He says that voluntarily self-regulation by the press is required and he believes that nobody is suggesting the state should interfere with the freedom of the press. Harold Evans, welcome to the program.
[Harold Evans, Journalist:] Thank you.
[Amanpour:] You know, we are not allowed to talk about the specifics of the trial underway because of British laws regarding trials. But can I ask you, as a former "Sunday Times" editor, what do you think is the implication of two editors on trial, two former big-time newspaper editors on trial? What would that mean for the British press?
[Evans:] I do think the British system is right to have respect for the individuals on trial. And it's much looser in the United States, but you very often get trial by newspaper in the U.S., which I don't approve of.
[Amanpour:] Let's talk about further implications, as I said, because a lot of what's going on is also about is there going to be some kind of regulation of the British press? You know, to be clear, the United States has the First Amendment. There's almost blanket freedom in the U.S. to publish just about anything. There are stricter laws here in Britain. But a huge hubbub over whether there should be some formal regulatory process, where do you come down on that?
[Evans:] Oh, quite clear. I've always thought the First Amendment was a pretty good idea, actually. And what Leveson proposed, in effect, was to create a kind of British First Amendment. But I think the press is making a big mistake at the moment, at least large sections of the press are making a big mistake in caricaturing what Leveson said.
[Amanpour:] Well, what do you mean by that? Harry, what do you mean by caricaturing and why do you think, if it's so good for the press, as you point out, why are they so resistant?
[Evans:] Some of the circulation efforts of the British press, many of which I deplore, are actually the kind of thing that a regulator would make punishable by law. Now everybody keeps saying, oh, they could have prosecuted or stopped this by the ordinary criminal law. Not so. A lot of the harassment, surveillance and following people that went on in this odious period in the British press would not have been easy to prosecute. And asking an ordinary individual who's like the Milly Dowler case, for instance, who's took a murdered girl, is suddenly the subject of intrusive press inquiries, tapping her cell phone. Can you imagine that family going to law about that? Of course not. So Leveson provided a remedy for the most heinous offenses.
[Amanpour:] So you think there should be some kind of regulation?
[Evans:] Oh, I tell you what I do think. I think there should be what Leveson proposed, a First Amendment, and there should be voluntarily self- regulation by the press. Nobody is suggesting, nobody except some people in the press the state should never interfere with the freedom of the press. I've spent most of my career fighting for the freedom of the press. I've been involved more often than most editors in fighting governments, to suppress things. And I see nothing in Leveson that needs to stop really good investigative journalism and exposure journalism. And by the way, I've joined in this regard by the real hero of exposing hacking, Nick Davies of "The Guardian." And "The Guardian" was about the only paper which took it seriously.
[Amanpour:] Let's talk then about another issue that's exploded into the public and the politicians don't like this at all. The whole Snowden NSA cascading leaks, it seems like every day we open another newspaper to find yet another revelation. You've just heard what Glenn Greenwald has been talking about. Is there a responsibility by the press to be careful about what they publish as the British prime minister is saying?
[Evans:] Well, I tell you, that is certainly true. And I don't think Alan Rusbridger is a reckless, careful terrorist saboteur, anything of the kind. In all the cases I was involved in, where national security was inveighed against "The Sunday Times," and there are at least about four or five occasions, Northern Ireland being a particular example, there wasn't any real national security, when we exposed the real evil betrayals of Philby, the spy, the betrayals of him were outrageous. But they were covered up and when we tried to do expose the cover- up, we were told that's national security. It wasn't. It was a national embarrassment to the people in power. Having said that, I do not go along with the idea that an editor should publish anything that falls into his hands. That is not right. And we have many murderous enemies out there. And I would personally and I don't think Alan I'm sure Alan Rusbridger would not do anything to lead to the murder and killing of innocent people.
[Amanpour:] I hear you loud and clear. Of course, Alan Rusbridger's the editor of "The Guardian," but do you think that the leaks are being just spewed out into the press? Or do you see that there's any kind of culling, any kind of sort of, I don't know, care being taken over what's printed and what's not?
[Evans:] I tell you, I think there is in responsible papers. Now "The Guardian" is a responsible paper. My understanding and it's only my understanding is that what has been published so far is not so much the real anxiety and the governments are entitled to feel anxious because they have the duty to protect us. And we'd yell like hell if they neglected it out of some, you know, libertarian idea, which I do not go along with. But the I'm told that what's most concerning them is what has not yet been published but what has been downloaded by Snowden. So we can't judge it. We always have to be very, very careful of what's called the Stasi principle my friend, Clive Irving, a great investigative journalist said, he said, "The technical means expands to surveil the soul of the governments making use of it." However, having said that, we do live in an age of particular threats from terrorism and anybody who takes that casually is betraying the principles of human decency and dignity, just as much as those who try to suppress embarrassing details coming out.
[Amanpour:] What do you make of the hullabaloo created over the alleged spying on Angela Merkel's mobile phone?
[Evans:] I think it if I might put it this way, it's most unfortunate if tapping the phone or listening to Angela Merkel, we've better things to do. I tell you one better thing we might do, government should the United States and Britain and the European should do something about cyber security where thousands of commercial secrets are stolen every day. I'm not by name other countries, you know, China's the leader in this. But everybody does it. So we the cyber security, ability to shut down airports and power lines and cause absolute chaos is a real threat to national security and I think much more serious a threat to national security than some sleuth trying to listen to Angela Merkel saying "Danke Schoen, mein freund. Wie geht es ihnen?"
[Amanpour:] Harry Evans, on that note, thank you for joining me. And someone who's had his own adversarial relationship with the press was the late, great Lou Reed. He died yesterday at the age of 71. The legendary and pioneering rocker was a famously fearsome interviewee turning more than one journalist into jelly with his spiky and confrontational style. When we come back, we'll remember another world figure who's left the stage. But first, we'll leave you with a bit of Lou Reed's signature sound, always a "Walk on the Wild Side."