Andrew Marr

Indeed...

On a vaguely serious note there is clearly a debate to be had about journalistic freedoms here.

Just because somebody is in the public eye is this sufficient to justify the publication of anything embarrassing and personal relating to them (subject to the usual caveats of factual accuracy etc) or are we satisfied to say that such publication should be blocked unless it is 'in the public interest'?

My immediate thought is the the 'public interest' is hardly easy to define. Marr works for the BBC, I pay a licence fee as do most of us, does that make his indiscretions public property etc etc? Equally I have some unease that complete press freedom can potentially mean we deny any privacy to any individual. Should privacy at some level be a right for all of us, public figures or not?

I think ultimately I'm uncomfortable with blocking the publication of anything unless it is libellous or presents a genuine risk to the health/safety of that individual. Boring, cruel and unpleasantly prurient these 'kiss and tell' stories may be but I'm not sure I'm happy that injunctions should be given out.

Bruce

How can the BBC justify having allowed Marr to interview and question politicians, on our behalf, while keeping this shameful secret under the carpet?

If Marr wanted to avoid "kiss and tell" stories, he only had to keep his dick in his trousers.

Marr hasn't shown much decency so far, but I hope that he'll resign without further ado. I don't want my licence fee being given to such a craven hypocrite.

I broadly agree Bruce.

I don't see the fact that he works for the BBC being here or there, unless one is a member of the Maily Telegraph Tendency. 

Marr has said that he didn't go in to journalism so that he could gag other journalists.

Chris

But that's exactly what he's been doing for the last three years, with active connivance from the BBC!

I totally agree with that no misdemeanour = no story but what about the principal of privacy and the Law. Should anyone have any legal right to privacy about anything that they do?

We all have a right to pivacy of our confidentail medical details but should that be the limit?

Bruce

"How can the BBC justify having allowed Marr to interview and question politicians, on our behalf, while keeping this shameful secret under the carpet?"

Why is there a problem with this? I don't see how it affects his ability to ask questions.

Because it was, apparently, an open secret amongst politicians and the press.

As a result, Marr would never be able to probe a politician about, say, his or her financial or sexual indiscretions, for fear of a response mentiong pots and kettles. We may (or may not) like Paxo, Humphrys et al, but surely we're entitled to expect that interviewers aren't hiding dirty little secrets that prevent them asking politicians difficult questions.

Marr's own dirty little secret compromised his own ability to do that, and I'm appalled that the BBC kept him on, and no doubt paid him handsomely, in his severely compromised state. Let's hope that he pisses off soon. 

"As a result, Marr would never be able to probe a politician about, say, his or her financial or sexual indiscretions, for fear of a response mentiong pots and kettles."

Unlikely, as he was protected by the injunction! Anyway it wasn't his job to probe them about sexual secrets. And nor should it be. Who they have sex with is nothing to do with their fitness to do their jobs either.

That's a remarkably naive response, if I may say so, David.

Imagine any BBC TV or radio being conducted by Marr, in which Marr asks interviewee about some financial peccadillo. Interviewee responds along the lines that that's a bit rich coming from an adulterer. Result is that interview can't be broadcast (and BBC hardly dare broadcast live interviews between Marr and anyone who hasn't agreed in advance to hush up Marr's secret 'problem').

I guess you could argue that he is better qualified to discuss such indiscretions?

As for 'dirty little secret' I wonder if we need a sense of poportion here. He is (presumably) accused of having an affair. That would appear to be a fairly common human weakness. He is not accused of robbing a bank, murdering old women or selling cocaine on the steps of the Palace Of Westminster.

If this event has genuinely compromised his ability to actually do his job effectively that is one thing, but to sack him for having played away from home seems wrong. As for compromising his ability to interrogate an MP I want him to explore what they think and what they do at work. I don't see how his alleged infidelity compromises that task. If he did actually ask about an alleged affair of an MP because it was affecting their performance and they replied 'well you can talk' that is hardly relevant as a reply and would, frankly, not exactly show that politician in a good light.

He is a journalist, he does not set himself up to be judged on the standards of his personal behaviour; politicians often do.

Bruce

"Imagine any BBC TV or radio being conducted by Marr, in which Marr asks interviewee about some financial peccadillo. Interviewee responds along the lines that that's a bit rich coming from an adulterer. "

I can imagine it Graham, but it sounds a bit unlikely.  As for -

"BBC hardly dare broadcast live interviews between Marr and anyone who hasn't agreed in advance to hush up Marr's secret 'problem'"

- he does live interviews all the time! 

Maybe it's not been such a  big problem as you thought.

I don't think Andrew Marr will be the last journalist to be exposed as a hypocrite. Nor do I think that it bars him from being able to act as journalists do, shining light into dark places.

Chris