Andrew Marr and Journalism

I have been reading Andrew Marr's Book entitled "My trade" off and on for the last year. For those of you who are unaware he is a British political journalist.

His book is all about journalism and although I haven't read much of it one of the quotes in his history of journalism resonated through the years with some of the points I have expanded on in the relationship between the press and government.

W. T. Stead was a Victorian editor described by Andrew as a bearded, blazing eyed and riotously sexual editor of among others the Northern Echo and The Pall Mall Gazette. In 1886 he had this to say about what he called government by journalism:

I am but a comparatively young journalist, but I have seen Cabinets upset, ministers driven into retirement, laws repealed, great social reform initiated, Bills transformed, estimates remodelled, programmes modified, Acts passed, general nominated, governors appointed, armies sent hither and thither, ware proclaimed and war averted, by the agency of newspapers.

-W. T. Stead 1886

That was in 1886 when the general populace still respected government and politicians. One can only surmise that since then the press have become more powerful, where today entire elections can be won or lost on the front page of the Sun newspaper(1992 general election - election day headline "If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.").

Next year there will be a general election, which way will the press vote?

Which brings me onto Andrew Marr himself and how he asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown whether he used prescription painkillers in a recent interview. I thought I would analyse this question and the journalism behind it.

Before we get to the question itself we have to decide whether it is correct to ask a question about the prime ministers health. In the 'for'corner we should be entitled to ask any question if it impacts on his ability to do the job, as in the extreme he could take this country to war. Although you could argue that he could not take this country to war by himself and therefore his individual health is immaterial.

In the 'against' corner, his personal life is his own business, just because he is prime minister doesn't mean that every single detail of his life should be public knowledge. After all would we want to know that the prime minister is constipated and might not be fully concentrating in a cabinet meeting? There is also the argument that why should we expect our politicians to be supermen without any fault. What do we want a human being or a robot?

There is an implied contract of trust between the electorate and the government that the prime minister is fit to govern at any time. Even if this contract is weakened should the press act as final arbiter?

I think it can be safely assumed that asking the simple question are you fit, well and capable to carry out your role as prime minister is a valid question. However this is not what Andrew Marr asked, he asked:

"something everybody has been talking about in the Westminster village... A lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of them?"

Some technical points first. The "Westminster village" is what most of us would describe as the rumour mill. The use of the word "use" which is close to drug user which had many socio - negative connotations. You use heroin but you take medication.

"Help them get through" - again suggesting that people aren't coping and giving the question an overall negative tone.

So did Andrew ask about the prime ministers health or did he imply that the prime minister was not competent to do the job?

In my opinion he chose to ask this question on his own authority because he wanted to imply that Gordon Brown was taking pain killers which meant that he was not fully capable of carrying out his duties.

It could also be described as a leading question. In answering "Yes" the prime minister would confirm much more than just that he took prescription drugs. Even if he went on to explain , it would be the initial yes that was shown on the Six O'clock news probably with an image of Gordon looking really tired from 2002 to emphasise how pain killers had effected him. Again the picture would imply a negative view of Gordon Brown. All of the negativity would be implied and may distort the reality of the situation.

After Gordon had politely told Andrew it was none of his business Andrew asked the question again. Perhaps not your finest hour Andrew.

In a guardian article interestingly a BBC spokesman is quoted as saying:

"Andrew was asking a legitimate question about the health of the leader of the country."

Was he? Or was he implying that Gordon Brown was unfit to hold office because he took pain killers? Surely if he was in pain we should be more worried if he didn't take painkillers?

References:

Andrew Marr: I have no intention of apologising over Brown question (guardian)
'I do not roll over,' says Brown(BBC)
1992 General election (wikipedia)