by Andrew Marr (amazon link)
Andrew Marr is one of the few well-known journalists today, and perhaps the only one employed by the BBC, whom I have any measure of respect. This is not because I agree with his views. Where those views are deducable I frequently do not. I like him because he knows his "stuff" and his stuff is politics. That is a knowledge due in part because of experience, and in part through basic intelligence. I had some hopes therefore of this book. It is organised thematically: a basic history chapter, a chapter discussing what is and what is not news, a chapter specifically on political journalism, a chapter about newspaper editing, a chapter about television news, and finally a chapter about foreign correspondents vs columnists. Aside from these divisions it is really a book of three things, all interlinked.
Firstly it is exactly what it says on the cover, a short history of British journalism. Not in depth, and not exhaustive. Rather it tries to give the reader an outline that should serve one is good stead. Not knowing really very much about the history of British journalism I cannot say whether it is a good history or not, but it reads well. A lot of this comes in the first chapter, but is spread about elsewhere (in particular in the television chapter there is a digression into the history of television news).
Secondly it is partly autobiographical. He uses his own experiences often as a lead in about what he is discussing. This is especially true in the chapter about editing, where Marr uses his own experiences as editor of the Independent as a way of demonstrating things to the reader.
Thirdly it is an assessment of the state of British journalism today, about which he is somewhat gloomy, and what needs to be done about it. Although he has a number of things to say the most repeated mantra goes something like this: advances in modern technology, especially communications technology, has meant journalists spend more time in the office and less time out and about, with the result that these journalists actually know less of what is going on and produce shoddier work. He does go into a great deal more detail, and I have to say his basic thesis (which I have not well represented) sounds convincing.
While he does not quite shine a light into dark places Andrew Marr is quite brazen about the trade in which he is in. He acknowledges many of the criticisms that are made against the profession while excusing by essentially saying "It's what people want".
The most revealing passage though is when Andrew Marr writes the following passages, on p322-3 of my copy, which I'll type out. I am omitting one paragraph in the middle which is one of the history digressions which are spread througout the book. He is talking about whether the BBC is biased. He has just written a paragraph trying to demonstrate that the BBC is basically unbiased in UK domestic politics, which if one takes the entire BBC as an institution I think is fair enough. However, he goes on:
It isn't party bias: it's cultural bias. 'Where are you coming from?' is a common question. We all come from somewhere, in the sense of having basic values and instincts. But if people come from somewhere, so do institutions. The BBC comes mainly from its own public sector history, and from the sprawling west London site where its main television and radio programmes are based. Its staff are younger, and more often black or Asian, than the population of the UK generally. Being younger, and living in London, they are likley to be more socially liberal in their attitudes to drugs, sexuality, and much else.
...
So this culture, younger, more liberal and urban and public sector than Britain as a whole, transmits a national broadcasting service which inevitably mimics its origins. This is not the case for everything about the BBC - the Corporation of Gardener's World or One Man and His Dog also exists. But it is true that, overall, the BBC's assumptions are more progressive, or tendier, or mildly more radical, that the whiter, older, more conservative, more suburban country it serves. All that can be done about this is for the BBC to be constantly aware of the gap and to 'aim off'. The bias is mostly unconcious and does not mean to offend - I am talking about the presenter's joke that assumes 'we' are all against George Bush, or country vicars are inherently funny. Even in politics, the liberal assumptions sometimes slip in: when BBC correspondents, particularly from London, are reporting the Irish peace process, it could be imagined, occasionally, that the BBC disapproved of people voting for Ian Pailsey's Democratic Unionists - though they pay their license fees like everyone else. What, though, about even harder cases - the racists of the British National Party, and the general unwillingness of the BBC to broadcast the views of people who wish, for instance, to get out of the EU, or to see an English parliament established?
Andrew Marr's weakness, and the weakness in the book overall however, is that he does not answer this question raised by his frank admission of the sort of prejudices that the blogosphere routinely bashes the MSM for, the acknowledgd cultural bias of what Mickey Kaus (unless I'm terribly mistaken) called the echo chamber. This might well be because he continues to be employed by the BBC and needs to make sure he continues to receive his pay packet. It might also be that, as the paragraph after this one seems to suggest, we should keep the BBC for reasons of British sentimentality.
However, I do want to pick up on thing here. When I watched the UK Local and European elections last year and the surprisingly large vote for the UK Indepedence Party came in he put up quite an argument that the people voting UKIP were not simply casting protest votes. Rather, he suggested, they were people who had very serious concerns and doubts about the European project, concerns and doubts they felt they could express in a European election in a way they felt they might not in a General election, on which so much else rides. The other two BBC presenters were, I think, Anthony King (whom the BBC drag on fairly often), and David Dimleday. Both rubbished the suggestion, but I rather think Andrew Marr put his finger on something. Of course, since I was someone voting UKIP on that occasion for more or less that reason I am completely biased on this point. It is for a deduction like that I hold Andrew Marr in high respect.
A final word, this book is a book about British journalism, though American journalism is touched briefly where its trends effect the main subject matter. Jayson Blair is referred to a few times, particularly in the 'lack of trust' department. The US election campaign, with the CBS Memos, or more latterly Eason Jordan, are not included however for the simple reason the book was written beforehand. It is however a very good read, and I heartily recommend it.
Recent Comments