Interview: Andrew Marr, BBC political editor (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
THE British press is in dire trouble. From its "slimy misrepresentation" and "hackneyed emotionalism" to an arrogant failure to correct errors, print journalism, in Andrew Marr's view, faces "serious problems that everybody needs to talk about". Lazy and untrusted, its practitioners are seen as "voyeurs, liars, drunks and cynics". Is it any wonder circulations are plunging?
After BBC journalism's recent traumas, you might understand its political editor wanting to point fingers elsewhere. But Marr, a former editor of The Independent, speaks as a media historian rather than a corporation man. His new book, a selective history of his trade, has convinced Marr that the prognosis for newspapers - in fact, journalism in general - is the bleakest for decades. And that, he suggests, is not the politicians' fault.
"The evidence is pretty horrible, with circulations falling dramatically," he says. Much of the decline is because "people just don't believe what they read" - a "disservice" he traces to Kelvin MacKenzie's Sun.
He also blames today's office-bound culture. "It's about idleness and sloth, and not getting out there and bringing in fresh, exciting stories," he says. "We're all quoting each other. Everything feels the same."
Still, he believes that political journalism "has come back from the brink" since Alastair Campbell quit. "Downing Street is certainly less hysterical, and though we still have arguments, there isn't that edge of wildness," he says.
Although Campbell tried to have Marr sacked from The Independent, the two avoided direct conflict in Marr's current job. "Other people told me No 10 was saying I'd lost it, or that I was just knee-jerking as I was frightened the Daily Mail would call me a Leftie," he says. He raises his eyes at reports that Campbell will return for the election.
The book tiptoes over the Hutton inquiry, although Marr clearly detects an injustice. "I was astounded when I read the report," he says. "Whenever somebody from Government or the Establishment said something, [Hutton] believed them; whenever a journalist said something, he disbelieved them."
HE denies The Observer's suggestion that he threatened a "walkout" over the BBC's subsequent internal inquiry, although he still considers the disciplinary process to have been " completely inappropriate" and "not conducted adroitly … But I don't want to reopen the war over Hutton, as Greg [Dyke] is doing."
Was Dyke's Channel Four documentary a misjudgment? "I think he has got every right to come out fighting," Marr says, suddenly strident. "It may be convenient for the BBC and the Government to say, 'Oh, we've moved on.' But to then say that those individuals involved - and Greg lost the job he loved - should just shut up … why?"
Has Marr faced pressure to "soften" towards Labour? "I don't think anything's different," he replies. "I don't listen to John Humphrys or watch Jeremy [ Paxman] and think, 'There are people who are going soft.'" Reporting on Hutton, he feels he managed to remain scrupulously neutral. "I got one call from a BBC news manager about my coverage, to say you're not being quite hard enough on the BBC. That was someone who then faced disciplinary proceedings. I felt particularly proud about this place - even with their own positions under attack, they were concerned to see the Government received a fair hearing."
There have been embarrassing moments - such as having to report last week the BBC's failure to act on a tip about the Chamber being stormed. "I was more or less told to go on and say it, but I probably did offend some colleagues by making it so clear it was a bog-up," he says. "The only thing I regret is not adding that the BBC gets an extraordinary number of tip-offs, most of which are rubbish."
As for the BBC playing down Lord Bragg's comments that Blair considering resigning over "personal and family" stress, Marr explains that his judgment suggested otherwise.
"I believe Blair went through a long dark night of the soul about whether to stay on, but I'm as sure as I can be that it was to do with Iraq, his opinion-poll standing, and his concern about whether he remained an asset to the party. I don't think it was personal."
He admits in the book that vanity and greed led him to accept the Independent job, but that he was "never a top-notch editor". "I have a very short attention span, am catastrophic at office politics, and I don't enjoy achieving things second-hand," he explains. "You spend a lot of time nurturing other people's careers. I'm not very good at that."
The book settles a few scores - Janet Street-Porter is "dreadful", David Montgomery a "liar", Simon Kelner "not my cup of tea". Marr also stakes his claim to have conceived the Independent's tabloid strategy, scuppered by management inertia and lack of money.
HAS he revised his view of Kelner? "Yes," he says. "I felt quite sore at the Independent management when I left. There was an airbrushing of history, and everything that happened when I was there was deemed a terrible failure.
Simon's done brilliantly. The launch of the tabloid alongside the broadsheet was a masterstroke. If it's moving towards taking on the Daily Mail, or becoming the Daily Mail of the liberal classes, which seems to be where it's going, that could well be the saving of it."
He is endearingly open about his insecurities. His vast workload, only marginally diminished since dropping the News at Ten (to see more of his journalist wife, Jackie Ashley, and children), is driven by fear of unemployment. "There's a lot of insecurity, a feeling that they may want me now but I'll become unfashionable. I'm 45. An awful lot of folk have gone as far as they're going to go by their forties."
His appearance, too, is "yet another source of neurosis". He compares his ears to "large red satellite dishes", and still winces when he sees himself on screen. He has not adjusted to being recognised in Waitrose. "It is very weird, quite disconcerting and not particularly pleasant," he reflects.
What's his next move? "I just don't know," he says. "I keep reading that I'm about to move on, but no, the assumption that I'd like to do the election and just waltz off is not the way I'm thinking. It's perfectly possible that politics will become even more interesting after the election." Besides, "nobody has approached me in the BBC about any other job".
(Evening Standard, September 22, 2004)
THE British press is in dire trouble. From its "slimy misrepresentation" and "hackneyed emotionalism" to an arrogant failure to correct errors, print journalism, in Andrew Marr's view, faces "serious problems that everybody needs to talk about". Lazy and untrusted, its practitioners are seen as "voyeurs, liars, drunks and cynics". Is it any wonder circulations are plunging?
After BBC journalism's recent traumas, you might understand its political editor wanting to point fingers elsewhere. But Marr, a former editor of The Independent, speaks as a media historian rather than a corporation man. His new book, a selective history of his trade, has convinced Marr that the prognosis for newspapers - in fact, journalism in general - is the bleakest for decades. And that, he suggests, is not the politicians' fault.
"The evidence is pretty horrible, with circulations falling dramatically," he says. Much of the decline is because "people just don't believe what they read" - a "disservice" he traces to Kelvin MacKenzie's Sun.
He also blames today's office-bound culture. "It's about idleness and sloth, and not getting out there and bringing in fresh, exciting stories," he says. "We're all quoting each other. Everything feels the same."
Still, he believes that political journalism "has come back from the brink" since Alastair Campbell quit. "Downing Street is certainly less hysterical, and though we still have arguments, there isn't that edge of wildness," he says.
Although Campbell tried to have Marr sacked from The Independent, the two avoided direct conflict in Marr's current job. "Other people told me No 10 was saying I'd lost it, or that I was just knee-jerking as I was frightened the Daily Mail would call me a Leftie," he says. He raises his eyes at reports that Campbell will return for the election.
The book tiptoes over the Hutton inquiry, although Marr clearly detects an injustice. "I was astounded when I read the report," he says. "Whenever somebody from Government or the Establishment said something, [Hutton] believed them; whenever a journalist said something, he disbelieved them."
HE denies The Observer's suggestion that he threatened a "walkout" over the BBC's subsequent internal inquiry, although he still considers the disciplinary process to have been " completely inappropriate" and "not conducted adroitly … But I don't want to reopen the war over Hutton, as Greg [Dyke] is doing."
Was Dyke's Channel Four documentary a misjudgment? "I think he has got every right to come out fighting," Marr says, suddenly strident. "It may be convenient for the BBC and the Government to say, 'Oh, we've moved on.' But to then say that those individuals involved - and Greg lost the job he loved - should just shut up … why?"
Has Marr faced pressure to "soften" towards Labour? "I don't think anything's different," he replies. "I don't listen to John Humphrys or watch Jeremy [ Paxman] and think, 'There are people who are going soft.'" Reporting on Hutton, he feels he managed to remain scrupulously neutral. "I got one call from a BBC news manager about my coverage, to say you're not being quite hard enough on the BBC. That was someone who then faced disciplinary proceedings. I felt particularly proud about this place - even with their own positions under attack, they were concerned to see the Government received a fair hearing."
There have been embarrassing moments - such as having to report last week the BBC's failure to act on a tip about the Chamber being stormed. "I was more or less told to go on and say it, but I probably did offend some colleagues by making it so clear it was a bog-up," he says. "The only thing I regret is not adding that the BBC gets an extraordinary number of tip-offs, most of which are rubbish."
As for the BBC playing down Lord Bragg's comments that Blair considering resigning over "personal and family" stress, Marr explains that his judgment suggested otherwise.
"I believe Blair went through a long dark night of the soul about whether to stay on, but I'm as sure as I can be that it was to do with Iraq, his opinion-poll standing, and his concern about whether he remained an asset to the party. I don't think it was personal."
He admits in the book that vanity and greed led him to accept the Independent job, but that he was "never a top-notch editor". "I have a very short attention span, am catastrophic at office politics, and I don't enjoy achieving things second-hand," he explains. "You spend a lot of time nurturing other people's careers. I'm not very good at that."
The book settles a few scores - Janet Street-Porter is "dreadful", David Montgomery a "liar", Simon Kelner "not my cup of tea". Marr also stakes his claim to have conceived the Independent's tabloid strategy, scuppered by management inertia and lack of money.
HAS he revised his view of Kelner? "Yes," he says. "I felt quite sore at the Independent management when I left. There was an airbrushing of history, and everything that happened when I was there was deemed a terrible failure.
Simon's done brilliantly. The launch of the tabloid alongside the broadsheet was a masterstroke. If it's moving towards taking on the Daily Mail, or becoming the Daily Mail of the liberal classes, which seems to be where it's going, that could well be the saving of it."
He is endearingly open about his insecurities. His vast workload, only marginally diminished since dropping the News at Ten (to see more of his journalist wife, Jackie Ashley, and children), is driven by fear of unemployment. "There's a lot of insecurity, a feeling that they may want me now but I'll become unfashionable. I'm 45. An awful lot of folk have gone as far as they're going to go by their forties."
His appearance, too, is "yet another source of neurosis". He compares his ears to "large red satellite dishes", and still winces when he sees himself on screen. He has not adjusted to being recognised in Waitrose. "It is very weird, quite disconcerting and not particularly pleasant," he reflects.
What's his next move? "I just don't know," he says. "I keep reading that I'm about to move on, but no, the assumption that I'd like to do the election and just waltz off is not the way I'm thinking. It's perfectly possible that politics will become even more interesting after the election." Besides, "nobody has approached me in the BBC about any other job".
(Evening Standard, September 22, 2004)
<< Home