John Humphrys earns as much in a year as Christiano Ronaldo does every week. But his salary – said to be £375,000 annually after a £75,000 reduction reflecting ‘straitened’ times at the BBC – was strictly out of bounds of discussion inside the Today Programme studio. This was, ultimately, a ridiculous interview with commenters afterwards describing the pugnacious broadcaster’s conduct as both ‘arseholery’ and ‘brash’. Perhaps my questions were a little contentious – Humphrys’ answers, though, were far more vexatious.
We began with religion, as Humphrys had in 2006 presented a series of television episodes in search of faith. Has he ever found God? “Nope. That’s a nice short answer to begin with,
isn’t it?”
On George Entwistle, dismantled by Humphrys in a live interview immediately before resigning his position as BBC Director-General, he roared that for me to ask him whether he felt any guilt “is like saying to a doctor ‘did you kill that patient deliberately?’ It’s that outrageous.” I queried whether substantial rivalries exist between big name journalists, to which came the sardonic deadpan response: “Is the Pope a Catholic? Does a bear do his business in the wood?” And in answer to my probe on the most honest person Humphrys has interviewed, he replied: “That’s an impossible question to answer. Honest? I wouldn’t dream of answering a question like that.”
It was an impossible interview which, I wager, neither of us would dream of doing again. But on closer inspection, the veteran Today programme presenter gave us some food for thought. “I didn’t really expect to find God,” elaborated Humphrys after my opening question. “It was my idea for a series of programmes with the leaders of the three Abrahamic faiths – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I thought it would make for a diverting conversation. It had the most reaction from the audience of any series of programmes or interviews I’ve ever done – in fact I wrote a book as a result of it.”
Raised as a Christian with prayers every day for most of his childhood, Humphrys began to doubt: “If you talk to God you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia,” he quotes in his book. “You either have faith or you don’t. I don’t think I ever did – I was brought up in the Christian religion as all working class kids were in those days. But I lost my faith and have never had it since.” As a cub reporter, Humphrys covered the resignation of Richard Nixon, the execution of Gary Gilmore, and later, when based in South Africa, he detailed the transformation of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe for BBC News. “I’ve been in the right places at the right times,” asserted the 71-year old – none more so than his timely grilling of ex-BBC director general George Entwistle: Humphrys’ role in his downfall was undeniably pivotal.
The Radio 4 journalist is widely acknowledged as the man who sealed the fate of his old boss with a brutal Today programme interview about his handling of a series of crises at the Beeb. Entwistle, who had been in the post for less than two months, spent essentially his whole tenure trying to deal with the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal.
But Humphrys denied he feels any sense of guilt after his killer interview aired just hours before Entwistle resigned: “Guilt?” replied a baffled Humphrys. “Goodness no, I asked him questions.
“He was a powerful figure and things were going badly wrong in the BBC. He had serious questions to answer, and I put those questions to him.
“I felt sorry for George – that’s a completely different matter – he was my junior producer many years ago. But I did my best to do with him what I do with anybody I interview.”
To maintain the integrity of the BBC, the killer blow seemed like it had to come from within the organisation – but Humphrys was having none of that either.
“It wasn’t a killer blow and it didn’t come from within the organisation. “Look, it’s a very, very simple process. George had done – or failed to do – a series of things which brought the
BBC into disrepute. He acknowledged he wasn’t in touch, he got it wrong and as a result he offered his resignation.” The organisation has faced heavy criticism from numerous angles over recent years – namely its ever-increasing role of setting the agenda of current affairs and debate. But is one of the roles of the BBC to directly influence public opinion? “Of course it is. What doesn’t influence public opinion? JK Rowling does, you do. If people listen to one of my interviews they will take a view from that. There’s a difference between having influence and operating as a propagandist. We don’t do that.”
Questions, though, are continually asked whether the BBC successfully manages to present accurate stories whilst also maintaining that primary principle of neutrality. Indeed, Sky News’ Adam Boulton, an earlier interviewee of ours when he came to the University to speak for the York Union, told us that his organisation was, by its very nature, more willing to question publicly-funded institutions like the NHS than the BBC would be. “Rubbish,” cut in Humphrys as I put those comments to him. “He would say that, wouldn’t he, because he works for Sky and we are mortal enemies. “We are infinitely more successful than Sky. We have seven million listeners – people at Sky News would kill their Grannies to get 700,000, let alone seven million!”
In a rare moment of frank, genuine reflection on his own career, Humphrys brushed aside his time reading the evening news – “it isn’t a proper job anyway. “But then I was offered to present ‘Today’, and I said ‘yes please’. This is what I’ve always wanted to do.” He went on to claim his programme is “the most important programme that the BBC does, without any doubt. “We do the three things set out all those years ago. We inform, educate and entertain.” And for aspiring presenters – the Mastermind host has disheartening advice. “I always suggest to people who want to be journalists – especially those who want to be broadcasters and personalities – don’t do it! The chances of success are miniscule. “It doesn’t matter how good you are. You just have to be in the right places and offered the right opportunities.”
Widely considered one of Britain’s most authoritative journalists, Humphrys has taken plenty of criticism for his style. Considered by many as overly aggressive with elected representatives and guilty of holding the polity in a sneering contempt; it is widely held this sort of approach to interviewing has a corrosive effect upon democracy. Yet there seems a good argument for suggesting that Humphrys’ tactics are simply a reaction to developments in modern politics which really have had destructive effects upon democracy – the rise of spin-doctoring, PR mentoring and the central office control of politicians – all of which were taken to audacious new heights with the arrival in office of Tony Blair. But with Paxman now in the sidelines, and Evan Davis bringing his accessible interviewing style to the Newsnight scene, perhaps we are seeing a further journalistic shift which will see Humphrys move on and out. “Are there any plans to change…” – hint hint, retire – “…soon?” I asked.
“My life changes every day and anybody’s whose doesn’t is a deeply boring person. “I’ll stop doing radio when they tell me to.” With Humphrys’ answers repeatedly brusque – perhaps justifiably to an extent – I felt the need to give him an opportunity to choose a theme of discussion. “What question would you like me to ask?” I finished. “Absolutely none at all,” he said.