Читать книгу A Day Like Today - John Humphrys - Страница 6

In which I answer the questions in the way I choose …

JH: Good morning. It’s ten past eight and I’m John Humphrys. With me live in the studio is … John Humphrys. It’s just been announced that he’s finally decided to leave Today after thirty-three years. Mr Humphrys, why leave it so long?

JH: Well, as you said it’s been thirty-three years and that’s—

JH: I know how long it’s been … far too long for the taste of many listeners, some might say. It’s because your style of interviewing has long passed its sell-by date, isn’t it?

JH: Well I suppose some people might say that but—

JH: You suppose some people might say that? Is it true or not?

JH: I’m not sure it’s really up to me to pass judgement on that because—

JH: What d’you mean you’re ‘not sure’! You either have a view on it or you don’t.

JH: Well I do but you keep interrupting me and—

JH: Ha! I keep interrupting you! That’s a bit rich. Isn’t that exactly what you’ve been doing to your guests on this programme for the past thirty-three years and isn’t that one of the reasons why the audience has finally had enough of you … not to mention your own bosses?

JH: I really don’t think that’s fair. After all it was only politicians I ever interrupted and only then if they weren’t answering the question.

JH: You mean if they didn’t answer YOUR questions in the way YOU chose—

JH: Again that’s not fair because—

JH: Are you seriously suggesting that you didn’t approach every political interview with your own views and if the politician didn’t happen to share those views they were toast? You did your best to cut them off at the knees.

JH: That’s nonsense. The job of the interviewer is to act as devil’s advocate … to test the politician’s argument and—

JH: And to make them look like fools and to make you look clever. It’s just an ego trip, isn’t it?

JH: No … and if that were really the case the politician would refuse to appear on Today. And mostly they don’t—

JH: Ah! You say ‘mostly’, which is a weasel word if ever I heard one. Isn’t it the case that when they do refuse it’s because they know you will deny them the chance to get their message across because all you want is a shouting match?

JH: Not at all. They’re a pretty robust bunch and I’d like to think they hide from the live microphone because they don’t want to be faced with questions that might very well embarrass them if they answer frankly and honestly.

JH: I’m sure that’s what you’d like to think but the facts suggest otherwise don’t they? And when they do try to answer frankly, you either snort with disbelief or try to ridicule them.

JH: Look, I wouldn’t deny that I get frustrated when the politician is simply refusing to answer the question, and I’m sure the listeners feel the same. It’s my job to ask the questions they want answered and if the politician refuses to engage or pulls the ‘I think what people really want to know …’ trick, then it’s true that occasionally I do let my irritation show.

JH: Nonsense! The fact is you have often been downright rude and that is simply not acceptable.

JH: Well … we agree on something at last! You’re absolutely right when you say being rude is unacceptable and I admit that I’ve been guilty of it – but not often. In my own defence I can think of only a tiny number of occasions when it’s happened and I regret it enormously – not least because it really does upset the audience. One of the biggest postbags I’ve ever had (in the days before email which shows you how long ago it happened) was for an interview in which I really did lose my temper. The audience ripped me apart afterwards and they were quite right to do so. If we invite people onto the programme we have to treat them in a civilised manner.

JH: So we’ve established that you’re not some saintly figure who always occupies the moral high ground. I suppose that’s a concession of sorts. But what I’m accusing you of goes much wider than that. Of course you have a responsibility to the audience and to the interviewee but you also have a wider responsibility. Let me suggest that when people like you treat politicians with contempt you invite us, the listeners, to do the same. And that’s bad for the whole democratic process.

JH: Once again, I agree with you. Not that we treat them with contempt, but that programmes like Today might contribute to the growing cynicism society has for politicians and the whole political process. But which would you prefer: a society in which politicians are regarded with awe and deference, or a society in which they are publicly held to account for their actions by people like me who question them when things go wrong or when we suspect they might be misleading us?

JH: Not for me to say: I’m the one who’s asking the questions this time remember! But what I’m asking you to deal with is a rather different accusation. If people like you, who’ve never been elected to so much as a seat on the local parish council, don’t show any respect to the people the nation has elected to run the country … why should anyone else?

JH: But that’s not what I’m saying. Quite the opposite. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but I have huge respect for the men and women who choose to go into politics. I hate the idea that for so many people politics has become a dirty word. Henry Kissinger once said ninety per cent of politicians give the other ten per cent a bad reputation. The wonderful American comedian Lily Tomlin put it like this: ‘Ninety-eight per cent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It’s the other lousy two per cent who get all the publicity. But then – we elected them.’ Yes, that’s funny, but it’s wrong. One of the greatest broadcasters of the last century, Edward R. Murrow, got closer to it when he chastised politicians who complained that broadcasters had turned politics into a circus. He said the circus was already there and all the broadcasters had done was show the people that not all the performers were well trained.

JH: In other words you regard political interviewing as a branch of showbiz rather than your high-flown pretension to be serving democracy!

JH: Look, I’m not going to pretend that we don’t want our listeners to keep listening and if that means we want to make the interviews entertaining as well as informative I’m not going to apologise for that. After all, the BBC’s founder Lord Reith said nearly a century ago that its purpose was to ‘inform, educate and entertain’. But you’ll note that he made ‘entertain’ the last in that list. Ask yourself: what’s the point of doing long, worthy and boring interviews if nobody is listening?

JH: Ah … so now we get to the nub of it don’t we? It’s all about ratings!

JH: Of course it’s not ‘all about ratings’ but obviously they matter …

JH: … because the higher they are the more you can get away with charging the BBC a king’s ransom to present the programme!

JH: Ah … I wondered how long it would take you to get onto this because—

JH: I trust you’re not going to deny that you’ve been paid outrageous sums of money over the years for sitting in a comfy studio asking a few questions when somebody else has probably briefed you up to the eyeballs anyway?

JH: That’s not entirely fair is it? You know perfectly well I spent years as a reporter and foreign correspondent in some very dangerous parts of the world. And anyway are you really saying the amount a presenter gets paid shouldn’t be related to the size of his or her audience? That’s rubbish!

JH: Ooh … touchy aren’t we when it comes to your own greed! Have you forgotten it’s the licence payer who foots the bill and the vast majority of them earn a tiny percentage of what you take home?

JH: Yes, I am a bit touchy on this subject and that’s partly because for various reasons I got a bit of a bum rap when BBC salaries were first disclosed back in the summer of 2017. And anyway I volunteered several pay cuts as you well know …

JH: Yes yes yes … we all know you’re a saint but I’m afraid we’ve run out of time. John Humphrys … thank you.

JH: And thank you too. And now I’m going to tell my own story without all those impertinent questions …

One year after I left Today …

JH: So … we meet again. A whole year without hearing your truculent tones on Today. They seem to have managed perfectly well without you.

JH: Of course. There was never any doubt about that. I’ve always said that a programme is much more than the sum of its parts. I was one presenter among many.

JH: Very noble but I bet even if they’re not missing you, you’re missing them.

JH: Quite the opposite. I’m amazed at how little I’ve missed presenting Today. I won’t pretend that I haven’t screamed at the radio from time to time, but I’ve made the incredible discovery that there may be more to life than arguing with politicians.

JH: Sixty years as a journalist, fifty of them with the BBC, and you’re honestly telling me you were able to pack it in without so much as a backward glance? I don’t believe it!

JH: That’s because you never believe anything. But I’m still broadcasting and—

JH: Oh sure … Classic FM! Not exactly the Today programme is it?

JH: No, thank God! If you had a straight choice between listening to Mozart at ten past eight in the morning and listening to the Minister For Never Answering a Straight Question I’m prepared to bet—

JH: As you well know that’s a silly comparison. They fulfil different functions. But you’ll seize on any excuse to attack the BBC even though it gave you a bloody good living.

JH: That really is nonsense. I was critical of certain managers but I am as loyal to the BBC as I have ever been. I still believe it is the most important cultural and democratic institution this country has ever produced and—

JH: Oh really? If that’s true how do you explain the front-page headline in the Daily Mail the day after you left New Broadcasting House? Let me remind you what it said: ‘BBC ICON SAVAGES BIAS … AT THE BEEB’!

JH: No need to remind me. I remember it well and I stand by every word of what I wrote. The BBC has had problems with bias in many areas even though it has an absolute obligation – legal and moral – to remain impartial.

JH: So why didn’t you make a fuss at the time?

JH: I did. I just didn’t go public. You cannot continue to work for an organisation if you’re publicly attacking it at the same time.

JH: So now we have it! If it’s a choice between speaking out publicly for what matters and clinging on to your fat pay cheque you will take the money and stay shtum.

JH: I concede that’s how it might look but if every senior figure at the BBC who had misgivings about its conduct in one way or another were to walk out there’d be many empty chairs on the News Board.

JH: All the better for that …

JH: Quite possibly. But my worry is that, in the year since I left, BBC News has been under assault from activists determined to impose their own political agenda.

JH: I could almost hear the sneer in your voice when you used the word ‘activists’! I assume you’re referring to people from the black and ethnic minority community who’ve been seriously discriminated against for generations. Not to mention the LGBTQ community.

JH: No ‘sneer’ but, yes, it’s true that I’m deeply uneasy with that word ‘community’ in this context. I know many black and gay people who are insulted by the notion that they are members of a specific ‘community’. It suggests that they have no individual opinions or experiences of their own and must all see themselves as victims. They’re not and they don’t.

JH: So you’d be happy for the BBC to have carried on as it was when you joined fifty years ago? I suspect the only black people you ever saw then were cleaners and all the bosses were straight white men. And institutional racism wasn’t challenged because it wasn’t even recognised.

JH: Of course I wouldn’t. God forbid! They were indeed bad days in so many ways. But the BBC was hardly unique in racially discriminating. It was reflecting the nation. As I describe later in this book, I was brought up in what would certainly be regarded now as a ‘racist’ household. My parents had not a single neighbour, let alone friend, who was black. Jews were regarded with profound suspicion. People of mixed race were ‘half castes’. I can’t recall there being a single black child in my school or even a black teacher. The idea of being served in the post office, let alone the bank, by a black man or woman was literally unimaginable. And as for a black woman or even a white woman reading the news on the wireless, let alone the telly … dream on!

JH: In which case why have you been attacking the BBC for trying to put right those terrible wrongs? Why have you been sceptical about its coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement or its attempts to meet the demands of black and ethnic minorities, let alone transgender people?

JH: I’m afraid you simply don’t understand what the BBC is for. It is legally and morally bound to be unbiased. What I attack in the book is the way the BBC has failed too often in its duty to be totally objective in its coverage of controversial issues such as immigration and the EU. It is not the BBC’s job to transform society in ways that will meet the approval of certain pressure groups.

JH: Not even if those pressure groups are on the side of the angels and want to change society for the better?

JH: Not even then. No. And let’s not forget that Black Lives Matter in this country is a political movement with objectives many people regard as profoundly disturbing – such as ‘defunding’ the police and closing the prisons.

JH: So you’d be happy if we still had laws, for instance, making it illegal for a man to sleep with another man? It was right to send Oscar Wilde to jail was it?

JH: Don’t be ridiculous. It was an obscenity. And do you know why that law changed?

JH: I’m sure you’re going to tell me.

JH: It was changed because the men and women we sent to Parliament voted for the change. And, yes, they came under pressure, but it was not pressure from the BBC. It was pressure from the victims of that iniquitous law and their supporters who marched in the streets and demanded reform and won the support of the majority of British citizens. It’s called the democratic process. And the BBC reported that great campaign because that was its duty. And is still its duty.

JH: You can bang on about impartiality as much as you like but the fact is that Lord Reith himself, the man who created the BBC, said it was not impartial as between good and evil, and racism is evil.

JH: Tell me about it. I lived for years in South Africa. I saw the evil of apartheid at first hand and I reported what I saw. That’s what journalists do. And when the authorities tried to get the BBC to pull me out because I was ‘hostile’ to the apartheid regime, my boss told their ambassador in London to sling his hook. He was concerned only that I reported the facts.

JH: And one fact is that there is still racism in this country and the BBC has an obligation to report it.

JH: True, but there are now laws that make racism illegal and when those laws are broken the BBC does indeed report it. The same applies to sexuality. It’s illegal to discriminate against gays or lesbians or transgender people and the BBC’s reporting must reflect that.

JH: In which case why did you attack the BBC for appointing an LGBT correspondent?

JH: I didn’t. I attacked it for giving him a platform on which he said he regarded himself as a ‘mouthpiece’ for LGBT people. That’s simply outrageous. Journalists aren’t ‘mouthpieces’ for anyone.

JH: Even if their cause is just?

JH: Look … PR people are mouthpieces. They say what their clients want them to say. That’s what they get paid for. Journalists must question everyone and everything. They must accept almost nothing on trust.

JH: One single example of some loose language is hardly evidence of the BBC allowing its reporters and correspondents to set their own agenda.

JH: You want another? Since I wrote the book the BBC has also appointed a ‘gender and identity’ correspondent. She became involved in a massive row when she questioned the decision of a television news reporter to use the N-word in a report about a serious racist attack on a young black man.

JH: Quite right too. Everyone knows that word is simply unacceptable in this day and age.

JH: Fair enough, but in this case the young man’s mother wanted the word to be used because it proved the attack really was racially motivated. The police changed the charge from ‘hit and run’ to ‘racially motivated attack’. And the reporter warned the audience she was going to use an offensive word. So did the presenters.

JH: But I bet the audience was massively offended.

JH: That’s what was so interesting. When the report was shown on Points West there were a handful of complaints. But by the time it was repeated the following morning on the BBC’s national news the Twitter mob and the lobby groups were on the case. They screamed blue murder. There were more than 18,000 ‘complaints’ and the BBC started to panic. A week later the director general Lord Hall called a meeting of the top bosses on a Sunday and the position he’d originally taken was reversed. The BBC apologised.

JH: And so he should have. You can’t go around offending thousands of people without saying sorry – even if you are the almighty BBC.

JH: Rubbish! Thousands of people are offended every day by stuff the BBC reports. There’d be something wrong if they were not. The founding principle of the great New York Times was that it would report ‘without fear or favour’ and that’s as true today as it was back in 1896.

JH: But only if what you’re reporting is important …

JH: … which is precisely what Lord Hall said this was. I quote: ‘This is important journalism which the BBC should be reporting on and we will continue to do so.’ But then he said something which flatly undermined that: ‘Yet despite these good intentions, I recognise that we have ended up creating distress among many people.’ And then he apologised. So in other words the BBC will continue to do ‘important journalism’ just so long as it doesn’t ‘cause distress’. That is simply not rational or logical. How do they deal with, say, some low-life scum who deface a Holocaust memorial? Reporting it will cause distress among vast numbers of people (not just Jews) so should it be ignored?

JH: Of course not. But the BBC must take into account people’s feelings.

JH: Really? Which people specifically? And who makes the ultimate decision?

JH: Well … BBC editors following the guidelines.

JH: Ah … we can agree on something. My real concern is that those guidelines are at risk of being hijacked by, among others, an organisation called Embrace, which the BBC recognises as the voice of black and ethnic minority staff and which is represented at high-level management meetings. In an internal document to senior figures in the BBC, Embrace said it ‘understands there is not necessarily a consensus on the use of the N-word, however we believe this to be a matter for debate within Black communities, and not one for the BBC’. That is simply outrageous.

JH: Because?

JH: Because the BBC is responsible for ALL its editorial decisions. It cannot be excluded from the ‘debate’ by any special interest group.

JH: So you’re saying the N-word should be treated like any other. Really?

JH: Of course I’m not. There’s no question about it being highly offensive in a way that very few words are. But the BBC simply cannot ban a word. Any word. The very notion should send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in the sanctity of free speech. The next step is banning thoughts. Ask Orwell about that.

JH: I wondered how long it would take you to trot out that old cliché. The fact is that the BBC took note of what its critics were saying and changed its mind. Maybe it should have done it more often in the past. It’s a publicly funded organisation dammit!

JH: Except that in my fifty years with the organisation there was never the sense that its senior management was being effectively held to ransom by people on its own staff in self-appointed ‘advisory’ groups who tell the bosses how things should be done. They themselves have largely no editorial responsibility and they all have much the same agenda. They are, in the modern sense of the word, about as ‘woke’ as it gets. I have spoken to editors and very senior bosses who admit they feel intimidated. It has a chilling effect.

JH: You exaggerate again. There have always been pressure groups telling the BBC how it should report stories. What’s different now?

JH: Everything is different in this digital age. Older people like me had precious little choice in what we watched and listened to, and the broadcasters had to meet standards set by the regulator. If they didn’t they could lose their licence to broadcast. But young people have always known a multi-channel, multi-platform, social media universe, most of which is impossible to regulate. So pretty much anything goes. And Twitter is a malign force in this universe where battles have to be fought and won, where forces can be mobilised, pressure applied and arguments are cheapened. The BBC top management have allowed – or even actively encouraged – the rise of the woke warriors and are now allowing them to frame the argument. They are the real power in BBC News today. And that is profoundly worrying.

JH: So if we have the dubious pleasure of meeting again in another year or two are you seriously telling me BBC News will have become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the equivalent of what Harold Wilson once memorably called a ‘tightly knit group of politically motivated men’? Except, obviously, it would be ‘people’ rather than ‘men’ and Wilson was talking about striking dockers.

JH: No. Because there are still many good and brave people inside the BBC who share my fears. And, I believe, many more outside. So let me end with a quote of my own – from a poet rather than a politician. He was G.K. Chesterton. His poem was called ‘The Secret People’:

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,

For we are the people of England … that have not spoken yet.