It was the turn of the broadsheets at the Leveson today, as the inquiry heard from editors and employees from the Independent, Financial Times and the Telegraph.First to the stand was Financial Times editor Lionel Barber, who has worked for the paper for 26 years. Barber gave his views on the FT’s internal code of practice, as well as the PCC. He emphasised the need for a “credible and robust” system of press regulation and said the PCC code should be “enforced before it is substantially amended”.He told inquiry counsel that he is quoted on “we don’t want to be first and get it wrong’ at the FT to “the point of being boring” and said in his witness statement:“The aim of a journalist must be to supply the public with solid, reliable information and to gather that information in a professional manner.”Next up was the Independent’s managing editor Andrew Mullins, who addressed the inquiry briefly on the separation of commercial and editorial sides of the paper.Manish Malhotra, Independent finance director and company secretary for IPL also gave succinct evidence on drafting the company’s new code of conduct in 2011.The editor of the Independent, Chris Blackhurst, gave a long sigh before tackling questions on Johann Hari. Blackhurst, who replaced Simon Kelner in the role, had only been editing the paper for two days when allegations of Hari’s plagiarism entered the public domain.He revealed that the journalist would return to the Independent in “four or five weeks” after and unpaid absence. Hari has been in New York completing ethics training at prestigious universities Columbia and NYU and will resume his job as columnist but not conduct interviews.Blackhurst described the “shock” felt by Independent staff over the plagiarism, and the revelation that Hari had assumed an online pseudonym in order to edit the Wikipedia profiles of his rivals. He went on to defend Hari, saying:“He should have known what he was doing was wrong but nobody told him. In terms of plagiarism it wasn’t as stark and severe as the Jayson Blair case. He wasn’t fabricating hard news as far as I was aware.”The inquiry heard from Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group, who told the inquiry that Telegraph journalists “live” by the PCC code and that he was astonished by the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. When discussing regulation with MacLennan, Lord Justice Leveson revealed his feelings over press reform, which he had hinted at over the course of the day, saying:“I would be surprised if government regulation ever even entered my mind.”Leveson also repeated an earlier that the final report from the inquiry must be useful to the press and the public rather than something that everybody “likes or rubbishes and then “sits on a shelf”.Telegraph finance director Finbarr Ronayne’s written statement revealed the cost of the MPs’ expenses computer disk to be £110,000. He spoke briefly on his role at the paper.Will Lewis, former editor of the Telegraph, defended the story in his evidence, telling the inquiry:“Ultimately I was obliged… to bring this profound wrongdoing at the heart of the House of Commons into the public domain…”Lewis’s witness statement elaborated on the transaction between the paper and a private investigator:“A sum in the order of £150,000 (the precise figure can no doubt be obtained from TMG) was paid to John Wick in connection with the DT’s investigation into MPs’ expenses. Mr Wick could be described as a private investigator, although I believe he prefers to describe himself as an intelligence expert and security consultant (he has a background in the armed forces).”Last to give evidence was Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher. He commented on the nature of public interest when in conflict with the private lives of MPs, giving the example of Chris Huhne’s wife allegedly taking driving penalty points for her husband. He also commented on the “chilling effect” of libel, and discussed with Leveson whether and “arbitral” system for resolving complaints would be suitable – and that future press regulation was likely to be independent.Several read-only witness statements will be available on the inquiry website, bar a submission from Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne who is likely to be called to give evidence at a later date.