The long line of newspaper editors appearing before the Leveson Inquiry continued today, as representatives from Private Eye, the Times and the Guardian took to the stand.First up was Private Eye editor Ian Hislop, also known as a team captain on Have I Got News For You. He was strongly opposed to regulation and said the press should be accountable to the public and the law.Hislop said he may “reconsider” joining a changed regulatory body but was against being forced into arbitration, and told the inquiry Private Eye worked in line with the PCC code.He admitted it was “embarrassing” to be outside the PCC in the company of Richard Desmond’s publications and did not want to be “tarred with the same brush”.The editor was asked about public interest and gave the example of Sir Fred Goodwin, who took out an injunction to censor details of an affair with a senior colleague, as a “grey area” that should be judged by editors. He said that any “reasonable editor” would not have thought it acceptable to “hack into a murdered girl’s phone”, in reference to Miller Dowler.He added: "I do hope you'll call some members of the public, and ask them why they bought the News of the World."Tom Mockridge, chief executive of News International, told Lord Justice Leveson that state intervention “diminishes a free press” and did not accept a distinction between direct regulation and independent regulation. He described self-regulation in New Zealand and Australia as effective, adding many international journalists are “jealous” of the competition and choice of media within the UK.He said: “Everything might not be perfect, but if we look at the great array of the newspaper stories published in this country in last decade there's only a minute fraction that are of interest to this inquiry”.His witness statement referred to the mysterious case of computer hacking at the Times in 2009, which was also mentioned in the written evidence of editor James Harding and Simon Toms, the interim legal director of News International who appeared before the inquiry last week.Rupert Pennant-Rea, chairman of Times Newspapers Limited, called the Times and Sunday Times coverage of the phone-hacking scandal “comprehensive, objective and fearless” and said a board of trustees could form an effective part of regulation.Susan Panuccio, finance director at News International, took to the stand briefly. She said a “couple” of payments made by her titles had been the in range of £30,000 to £40,000, but there had been a general reduction in cash payments since summer 2011.Editor James Harding said he had been “coming round” to a statutory backstop for regulation, but had become “uncomfortable” with the idea. He said allowing politicians to “loom over” newspapers could have a “chilling effect” on the industry.He added: "We don't want the Prime Minister deciding what can go in or out of newspapers”.When Lord Justice Leveson challenged him, Harding said he recognised the need for a “muscular” independent regulator in order to “bind” newspaper publishers and asked the judge whether he would advocate a compulsory system resulting in “the licensing of newspapers”.The editor said he wished the Times had reported the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone sooner, but he wanted to “get to grips” with the story before publishing any material. He said the Murdochs “never raised a finger” to stop stories being printed but admitted: “The reality is that both the police and News International poured cold water on the story”.Harding was followed by John Witherow, editor of the Sunday Times. He said he would have “serious doubts” about a statutory body set up by Parliament.He cited a report by Reporters Without Borders, which showed 21 of the top 25 countries with a free press were self-regulated, and offered “tougher” self-regulation as an option.Witherow said he was concerned about an unregulated media “based offshore” circumventing regulation, and the internet must be taken into account in the debate over regulation.Witherow was asked about blagging at the Sunday Times, and admitted a party working on behalf of the paper had impersonated Gordon Brown on the phone to obtain information his mortgage. He said the story had been in the public interest.He added the Sunday Times would need a “formal agreement” with any private investigators used in the future.Robert Jay QC referred to an article by AA Gill using the used the term “dyke” in reference to presenter Clare Balding. Witherow said it was not regarded as pejorative in context and regarded it as freedom of speech.The second witness to take the stand in the afternoon, Chris Elliott, readers’ editor at the Guardian, told the inquiry he had been employed by the Scott Trust, owner of the paper, and was independent of the editor “to do as I see fit”. He said the pair “occasionally had differences of opinion” but he had the final say on apologies.Elliott said the Guardian received 26,700 emailed complaints and queries in 2011, and three to four corrections and clarifications are printed in the paper six days a week. He said the corrections and “Open door” column demonstrated a “culture of discussing journalism and what goes wrong” at the paper.He gave the examples of identifying children without parental permission and the misrepresentation of statics as “serious” complaints, and said members of the public wanted mistakes fixed “as soon as possible” and were not as concerned over the prominence of corrections.Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, was the last witness of the day. He described the Guardian’s agenda as “liberal with a small ‘l’”.He told the inquiry he could not think of an example under his editorship where the paper had set out to expose someone’s private life.His witness statement said: “It is a matter of fact that the Guardian and The Observer carry little by way of celebrity ’private life’ journalism beyond interviews where celebrities may choose to disclose private material about themselves or coverage of what is already publicly known”.Rusbridger said the use of subterfuge “was a serious matter” that would only be justified in exceptional cases, and reporters would need permission from him to use a private investigator.He told the inquiry it would be a “shame” if politicians could not talk to editors without meetings going on the public record but that he had met David Cameron only once as Prime Minster.The editor was asked about his decision to resign from the PCC code committee and said its investigation into phone-hacking was “worse than a whitewash”.He added: “It could have done a better job than it did with the powers it had”.Rusbridger said he was not against giving a new regulation powers under the law, and said editors would be encouraged to join if adjudication could be recognised as part of the law of libel.He said: “The blunt truth of our industry is we’ve been under-regulated and over-legislated”.Leveson asked Rusbridger if he wanted to say anything on the Milly Dowler deletions. He said it was “not a simple question” and “all the evidence” needed to be looked at in detail.The witness statements of Pia Sarma, Andrew Miller, Phil Boardman, Dame Elizabeth Forgan, John Mulholland, Gillian Phillips, James Robinson and Darren Singer are to be taken as read.