And there are still no weapons of mass destruction
Posted in General on 04. Sep, 2010
And there are still no weapons of mass destruction.
There will be those in the BBC who will suggest Marsh has been pushed upstairs, or sideways, and holding a senior position in training and education is a move from “real” journalism.You would not expect me to take such a view. I am intrigued by the title of editor-in-chief at this end of the business; this juxtaposition of journalistic and academic titles may have possibilities. But there is no doubt the BBC takes this aspect of the post-Hutton era very seriously. And rightly so.I heard Marsh speak at a Society of Editors conference in 2004 on the subject of “What makes a good editor”. He had clearly reflected on the Hutton experience, and had expanded his definition of good journalism beyond the skills needed to do the job.Worried about the lack of trust in journalists and the consequences of that for the “health of our public life and institutions”, he called for four additional qualities: “toughness to resist the hypocrisy of so much of the press that wants a scalp, while at the same time denying the press should be concerned about its effect on public life; belief that finding the truth and telling it is a public good; individual and collective sense of responsibility for journalism’s purpose in making government and institutions work better; and accountability, the realisation that journalism isn’t something you just do and walk away from”.Marsh’s retention of the Today editorship post-Hutton was probably as poisoned a chalice as walking away.
Others carried the can for Gilligan’s journalistic lapses, but remaining in charge of the programme put him under the spotlight of those looking for evidence that Today was cowed, losing its edge, or otherwise intimidated by the Hutton report.There were many – I was one – who felt although Hutton could not be disregarded, its stark characterisation of “the BBC bad, the Government good” was an unfair simplification. We must remember how many questions were being asked, pre-Iraq war, how many the Government ducked, and the answers that have emerged. Today played a major role in all that probing.The programme has retained all its best qualities. John Humphrys has refused to trim his cussed interviewing technique, his professional bloody-mindedness. Jim Naughtie – he of the overlong question, great political knowledge and cultural dimension – has also worried away, and both remain an impressive team who continue to hold government to account on our behalf. Ed Stourton and Sarah Montague give powerful support to the lead actors.The Radio 4 audience, and Today’s in particular, is not a small band of the incensed of Tunbridge Wells More than six million a week tune in.
Today is an institution within an institution, Radio 4, within an institution, the BBC. Its listeners may moan about Thought for the Day, but in a world they see as dumbing down, Today provides hope.It may have been the programme that broadcast the item that caused the trouble. Marsh and the members of the BBC’s ruling elite would dearly have loved that not to have happened. But it is a measure of the programme’s ability to take on the difficult and sensitive subjects that it ended up in the target area. It is not brave to be wrong, but being brave can run that risk.Today is more careful now, but it does not seem to be more cautious.
It remains essential, and Kevin Marsh has been a big part of that. It will be the College of Journalism’s gain.Brian Redhead, another presenter from Today’s hall of fame, said: “If you want to drop a word in the ear of the nation, then this is the programme in which to do it.” It still is.Peter Cole is professor of journalism at the University of Sheffield. The Prince of Wales has made the Royal Family look foolish, again, by going to the courts, again, in a case that could only make matters worse, again. Having failed to learn the lesson of the trial of Paul Burrell, his ex-wife’s butler, which had to be aborted when the Queen “remembered” a material fact, Prince Charles tried to punish a newspaper for publishing his private diary. His attempt backfired spectacularly last week when the court heard Mark Bolland, the Prince’s former deputy private secretary, describe how Charles saw himself as a “dissident” working to influence prevailing political opinions. While the eye was caught by the word “dissident”, which prompts lively debate about the extent to which the Prince’s views are challenging, unconventional or simply loopy, the point was that he is willingly engaged in public debate.
The allegedly private diaries were, in fact, widely circulated to “people in positions of power and influence”, according to Mr Bolland, in an attempt to shape public policy. To which the right response is not to express horror that the monarchy is getting involved in politics but to say: bring it on But also: bring it out into the open. The protection against interference by the Prince in politics is openness. As long as we know what he is saying to ministers and officials, we can judge whether they have been unduly influenced The Prince should engage far more in public debates.