Interview: Kevin Marsh, Today programme (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
HE WAS Lord Hutton's uncalled witness. Kevin Marsh, editor of the Today programme, never did get to give his side of the story, damned only by his email of 27 June 2003, condemning Andrew Gilligan's "flawed reporting" and "loose use of language". Yet not only did Hutton condemn Marsh's "defective" editorial processes, he specifically criticised him for not passing his concerns up the managerial chain. It took an internal BBC inquiry, the Neil Report months later, to find the criticisms "unjustified".
Marsh is still stunned that he was never called. "My guess would be that the BBC had a strategy to keep its witness numbers small," he says in a corner of the Today newsroom. "What is harder to understand was that when Hutton came to call extra witnesses, he didn't feel it appropriate to ask me. There's a bit of an irony that one of his conclusions was that serious allegations should be put to the party concerned."
Had he spoken to Marsh, he would have produced "a very much better report". Instead, Marsh hired a lawyer to salvage his reputation. But the BBC's internal verdict persuaded him to drop a legal challenge. "I - not just me actually, the team - were exonerated, confirming that this team was not guilty of shoddy journalism." He never considered resigning. "I knew that I had done everything as diligently as I could, and crucially the team here had as well."
Marsh is no fan of contemporary British journalism, as he made clear in a recent speech to the Society of Editors. "I don't think it's a good place to be, frankly," he said, blaming the press for "conniv[ing] at its own debasement". "Far too many people in the press don't actually know why they're there," he says now. "Pursuit becomes an end in itself. How could anybody with a straight face go to court to win the right to talk about a supermodel's detox programme?"
That would be the Daily Mirror.
But his targets are wider. "Is that news?" he asks, holding up Monday's Sun front page about Sophie Anderton's cocaine habit. "Do I care? With some newspapers, it's impossible to tell the difference between news and entertainment." He was shocked at the Society of Editors meeting when Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor, sang the praises of his new star journalist, recruited from PR. "Somebody has got to start teaching a little about the ethics of journalism," he says in despair.
Marsh, meanwhile, is busy retraining his own staff, as the Neil Report recommended. "I'm doing three-hour workshops where I set them eight or nine difficult posers," he says. "'You've got a bid in for a Cabinet minister on one basis, but a completely different story breaks. What do you do?' Of course, there's no right answer."
Not even John Humphrys and Jim Naughtie are exempt - although their sessions take place over lunch. Still, it is hard to see Humphrys acceding. "John is fantastically receptive," Marsh replies. "He's a huge self-critic. When he feels something hasn't gone so well, he's the first to turn on himself." Humphrys has also famously turned on Marsh - notably over cuts made to his interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury. "He was very angry," Marsh admits. "He felt it was a brilliant interview. And on one level it was, but I felt that if we were going to ask questions about the Iraq war, we should have been more explicit beforehand."
Marsh, who joined in 1978, personifies the BBC's "serious" side, with a reputation among staff as demanding if unadventurous. Now 50, he edited PM and The World at One before succeeding Rod Liddle at Today in 2002. The programme, he insists, has emerged "unwounded" from Hutton - although critics such as Gillian Reynolds claim that it has "gentled down" and lost its edge. "That depends what you want the edge to be," he counters. "If you think Today is about snarling juvenilism, being aggressive for the sake of it, yes, that edge has gone."
This sounds like a dig at Liddle. Marsh's record on investigations - on Shirley Porter, on child welfare - proves that the show still has teeth, he says. "But with me, no investigation gets off the ground until we have a pretty high standard of evidence that it's justifiable."
The programme is often criticised as artificially confrontational. Marsh sees "interrogative, courtroom-style cross-examinations" as an effective way to prise truth out of people in authority, but he recognises that tastes are changing. "I get a sense from some of the witless stuff that's written about the programme that this adversarial tradition possibly isn't there in the public mind any more. It's not artificial if you're brought up in my tradition, but maybe it's not so obvious if you're brought up in the Richard and Judy tradition."
Does Today still matter? Sky News's Adam Boulton blames Marsh for introducing "piffling items" such as whether to put milk first in tea. "They might be trivial, middle class, white, south-eastern things, but items about how we live resonate with people," he replies. "We're still a must-listen for over six million people. And there are millions more whose news agenda the programme sets."
Ah, but didn't Five Live gain at Today's expense in the latest ratings? "How big a surprise is it that the audience dips for the Olympics?" he says. "Get real. They'll come back. That last quarter's figures were still significantly more than that prior to 9/11."
What of the presenters' perceived bias? Some commentators claim that Naughtie favours Labour, and that Humphrys is antiwar. "It's overstated," Marsh says. "Irrespective of what John believes, if he can't handle an interview impartially he should be fired. That's what he's said to me, and I agree."
Marsh claims to be "spoilt for choice" over a successor for Humphrys, though he will offer no clues. He also denies that the women presenters lack the men's authority. "There hasn't been a time when people haven't complained that women presenters were not strong enough, were too shrill. I don't know whether there's something about people's ears not being attuned to it. Sarah Montague and Carolyn Quinn are terrific."
As for that other critical bugbear, Thought for the Day, Marsh says "tinkering" would be a mistake. "When it's good, it can be some of the best stuff you will hear."
The complaints, meanwhile, continue to pour in - in greater numbers than before Hutton, but Marsh credits improved transparency. "And if we do get it wrong, then we really should say, look we're only human."
Still, it must be a relief not to have any more run-ins with Alastair Campbell. "Do you know, I've never had a run-in with Mr Campbell," he says. "He's never actually spoken to me. Still," he reflects, "I think he's been a necessary force, a creation of his times."
It is the detached, objectified view you would expect from a BBC man.
(Evening Standard, November 24, 2004)
HE WAS Lord Hutton's uncalled witness. Kevin Marsh, editor of the Today programme, never did get to give his side of the story, damned only by his email of 27 June 2003, condemning Andrew Gilligan's "flawed reporting" and "loose use of language". Yet not only did Hutton condemn Marsh's "defective" editorial processes, he specifically criticised him for not passing his concerns up the managerial chain. It took an internal BBC inquiry, the Neil Report months later, to find the criticisms "unjustified".
Marsh is still stunned that he was never called. "My guess would be that the BBC had a strategy to keep its witness numbers small," he says in a corner of the Today newsroom. "What is harder to understand was that when Hutton came to call extra witnesses, he didn't feel it appropriate to ask me. There's a bit of an irony that one of his conclusions was that serious allegations should be put to the party concerned."
Had he spoken to Marsh, he would have produced "a very much better report". Instead, Marsh hired a lawyer to salvage his reputation. But the BBC's internal verdict persuaded him to drop a legal challenge. "I - not just me actually, the team - were exonerated, confirming that this team was not guilty of shoddy journalism." He never considered resigning. "I knew that I had done everything as diligently as I could, and crucially the team here had as well."
Marsh is no fan of contemporary British journalism, as he made clear in a recent speech to the Society of Editors. "I don't think it's a good place to be, frankly," he said, blaming the press for "conniv[ing] at its own debasement". "Far too many people in the press don't actually know why they're there," he says now. "Pursuit becomes an end in itself. How could anybody with a straight face go to court to win the right to talk about a supermodel's detox programme?"
That would be the Daily Mirror.
But his targets are wider. "Is that news?" he asks, holding up Monday's Sun front page about Sophie Anderton's cocaine habit. "Do I care? With some newspapers, it's impossible to tell the difference between news and entertainment." He was shocked at the Society of Editors meeting when Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor, sang the praises of his new star journalist, recruited from PR. "Somebody has got to start teaching a little about the ethics of journalism," he says in despair.
Marsh, meanwhile, is busy retraining his own staff, as the Neil Report recommended. "I'm doing three-hour workshops where I set them eight or nine difficult posers," he says. "'You've got a bid in for a Cabinet minister on one basis, but a completely different story breaks. What do you do?' Of course, there's no right answer."
Not even John Humphrys and Jim Naughtie are exempt - although their sessions take place over lunch. Still, it is hard to see Humphrys acceding. "John is fantastically receptive," Marsh replies. "He's a huge self-critic. When he feels something hasn't gone so well, he's the first to turn on himself." Humphrys has also famously turned on Marsh - notably over cuts made to his interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury. "He was very angry," Marsh admits. "He felt it was a brilliant interview. And on one level it was, but I felt that if we were going to ask questions about the Iraq war, we should have been more explicit beforehand."
Marsh, who joined in 1978, personifies the BBC's "serious" side, with a reputation among staff as demanding if unadventurous. Now 50, he edited PM and The World at One before succeeding Rod Liddle at Today in 2002. The programme, he insists, has emerged "unwounded" from Hutton - although critics such as Gillian Reynolds claim that it has "gentled down" and lost its edge. "That depends what you want the edge to be," he counters. "If you think Today is about snarling juvenilism, being aggressive for the sake of it, yes, that edge has gone."
This sounds like a dig at Liddle. Marsh's record on investigations - on Shirley Porter, on child welfare - proves that the show still has teeth, he says. "But with me, no investigation gets off the ground until we have a pretty high standard of evidence that it's justifiable."
The programme is often criticised as artificially confrontational. Marsh sees "interrogative, courtroom-style cross-examinations" as an effective way to prise truth out of people in authority, but he recognises that tastes are changing. "I get a sense from some of the witless stuff that's written about the programme that this adversarial tradition possibly isn't there in the public mind any more. It's not artificial if you're brought up in my tradition, but maybe it's not so obvious if you're brought up in the Richard and Judy tradition."
Does Today still matter? Sky News's Adam Boulton blames Marsh for introducing "piffling items" such as whether to put milk first in tea. "They might be trivial, middle class, white, south-eastern things, but items about how we live resonate with people," he replies. "We're still a must-listen for over six million people. And there are millions more whose news agenda the programme sets."
Ah, but didn't Five Live gain at Today's expense in the latest ratings? "How big a surprise is it that the audience dips for the Olympics?" he says. "Get real. They'll come back. That last quarter's figures were still significantly more than that prior to 9/11."
What of the presenters' perceived bias? Some commentators claim that Naughtie favours Labour, and that Humphrys is antiwar. "It's overstated," Marsh says. "Irrespective of what John believes, if he can't handle an interview impartially he should be fired. That's what he's said to me, and I agree."
Marsh claims to be "spoilt for choice" over a successor for Humphrys, though he will offer no clues. He also denies that the women presenters lack the men's authority. "There hasn't been a time when people haven't complained that women presenters were not strong enough, were too shrill. I don't know whether there's something about people's ears not being attuned to it. Sarah Montague and Carolyn Quinn are terrific."
As for that other critical bugbear, Thought for the Day, Marsh says "tinkering" would be a mistake. "When it's good, it can be some of the best stuff you will hear."
The complaints, meanwhile, continue to pour in - in greater numbers than before Hutton, but Marsh credits improved transparency. "And if we do get it wrong, then we really should say, look we're only human."
Still, it must be a relief not to have any more run-ins with Alastair Campbell. "Do you know, I've never had a run-in with Mr Campbell," he says. "He's never actually spoken to me. Still," he reflects, "I think he's been a necessary force, a creation of his times."
It is the detached, objectified view you would expect from a BBC man.
(Evening Standard, November 24, 2004)
<< Home