I deliberately didn't mention it yesterday, but today - surely - you have to talk about Andrew Marr's current situation. As somebody who has asked politicians about failures of judgement, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies in their views and other embarrassing (to them) issues I consider it to be a bit rich that he had a so-called Super Injunction of his own to hide certain alleged misdemeanours. Yet he continues to be an active journalist and interviewer - where is the impartiality there?
You haven't done a character assassination hatchet job for a while, so how about covering Marr's plight today? I'd listen to that.
Or is your "the BBC is sacrosanct" policy going to override this very important news story?
This all just adds fuel to the fire to my view that journalists are liars, cheats, lazy and incompetent.
If you don't want to talk about Marr specifically, how about a discussion on journalism and ask the question: Does journalism have any credibility left, at all? I'd listen to that too.
Or is your "the BBC is sacrosanct" policy going to override this very important news story?
This all just adds fuel to the fire to my view that journalists are liars, cheats, lazy and incompetent.
If you don't want to talk about Marr specifically, how about a discussion on journalism and ask the question: Does journalism have any credibility left, at all? I'd listen to that too.
UPDATE:
Email received from JV himself:
hi . We're doing AM today.
Best wishes
Jeremy
No comments:
Post a Comment