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