John Humphreys - grilled by House of Lords

[Teddy Bear]

[ftp]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/30/nhumph30.xml [/ftp]
So Mr Humphrys, why are you always so nasty to politicians?
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2005)

John Humphrys yesterday denied being biased and unfair when he was grilled by a House of Lords committee about his combative interviewing style.

The Today programme's star presenter also rejected allegations that he never let politicians answer his questions because he was too busy interrupting them.


John Humphrys said it was his job to ask tough questions
In a rare appearance on the receiving end of the questions, Humphrys told peers that he would argue "with anyone about anything" and it was his job to ask tough questions on behalf of his listeners.

Humphrys, who has often been criticised for his hard-hitting approach to interviewees, was giving evidence with three other senior broadcast journalists to a committee considering the BBC's charter review.

Lord Maxton, a Labour peer, accused Humphrys of treating the political guests on his programme with insufficient respect. "Why don't you let them make their arguments?" said Lord Maxton, who stood down as a Glasgow MP in 2001. "You often express views about what they are saying."

Humphrys said he rejected the assertion entirely.

But Lord Maxton claimed that he had heard an example of Humphrys' hectoring style that very morning.

"You were doing an interview with a junior minister about music licensing in pubs. He was 10 seconds into an answer when you interrupted him with another question."

Before Humphrys had a chance to answer, Adam Boulton, the political editor of Sky and another witness giving evidence, said Lord Maxton was wrong to assume that politicians always wanted to answer questions from interviewers. "You must know perfectly well that most ministers or politicians regard the most successful interview as one in which they say nothing," Boulton said.

Humphrys said there was a difference between giving someone a "hard time" in an interview and being biased. "I am not entitled to put my views in interviews and I don't. I certainly put views in interviews. I attribute them to someone or I say 'Nonetheless, there's a view that . . .' There's a big difference."

Humphrys said the BBC had once received a complaint that he had been biased in an interview about GM food because he was an organic farmer. At the time Humphrys had dispensed with his farming interests and the complaint was dismissed. "You could argue that I was more vehement than I would have been if I had not been sympathetic to organic farming, which I am," Humphrys said.

But he insisted that in interviews he was just as tough on the supporters of organic farming as on its opponents.

Humphrys also clashed with Lord Maxton when the Labour peer asked why he thought he was entitled to interrogate politicians in the way that he did.

The broadcaster said it was his job to hold politicians to account on behalf of the listeners. When Lord Maxton tried to butt in, Humphrys asked to be allowed to finish making his point. The Labour peer appeared to enjoy the irony of being asked not to interrupt the BBC's most famous interrupter.

"I'm allowed to let you finish but you don't let anyone else finish," he said to the amusement of his fellow peers.

At the start of the hearing Lord Fowler, the Tory former Cabinet minister and chairman of the committee, recalled coming out of an interview with Humphrys with his ear "hanging off". He said the broadcaster had told him afterwards: "That was fun". Asked by the peer if he enjoyed a good argument, Humphrys said yes.

Lord Fowler replied: "I do not criticise that. I worked for 15 years for a lady who enjoyed a good argument."

[Teddy Bear]

John Humphreys has now had his hand slapped by Mark Thompson for making inappropriate comments about certain politicians while giving an after-dinner speech for businessmen on a cruise ship. A comment in The Times by Steven Pollard really puts it very well
That man gives me the hump

By Stephen Pollard
Watch a clip of the video Read the speech

SO JOHN HUMPHRYS has had his knuckles rapped by the BBC. In the mildest possible rebuke, the Director-General has said that his remarks were “inappropriate”.
Mark Thompson was, of course, referring to a speech by the Today presenter — part of his extracurricular activity. When it comes to his performance as a broadcaster, Thompson lauds Humphrys as “one of our finest news presenters”.

If that is the case, the BBC is in dire straits, because no word is more appropriate to describe Humphrys’ behaviour on air than “inappropriate”.

Argumentative, hectoring and sneering as Humphrys may be, his tone is a matter of taste. What is a matter of public concern, however, is his apparent inability to conduct an interview without inserting his own prejudices.

From the many examples, the most egregious is an “interview” — in reality a diatribe — he conducted with The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. An eminent foreign policy specialist, Mr Friedman is a critic of many aspects of President Bush’s policies. But even he was shocked at the force of Humphrys’ contempt for the President. After one rant, Mr Friedman interjected rather meekly: “The American people elected George Bush” — at which the Today presenter snapped: “Just — or possibly not, as the case may be.” Then this: “What, Thomas Friedman, could cause the Americans to pull back from this?” “From what? Iraq?” “No, this position that ‘we are the masters and we can do whatever we want’ ” — stated as if fact.

Were Humphrys employed by any other media outlet he would have every right to behave like this. If we objected to his modus operandi, we could simply turn him off. But as licence payers, we are forced to pay £126.50 a year to fund it. There is no BBC “off” switch.

In his now infamous speech, Humphrys argued that: “If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed there would be no point in the BBC existing — that is ultimately what the BBC is for.”

No, Mr Humphrys, it is not. The purpose of public service broadcasting is precisely the opposite: to provide an analytical, unbiased and serious alternative to the supposed free-for-all of commercial broadcasting.

That it is now ITV and Sky to whom one turns for unbiased coverage is thanks to John Humphrys and his BBC ilk.

[cifpower]

I really fail to see the point