#lab09: Why Andrew Marr had no right to ask pill question, and what he should do about it

By David Higgerson on Sep 28, 09 09:05 PM

So, was Andrew Marr wrong to ask if prime minister Gordon Brown was taking prescription drugs to see him through the role as Britain's first citizen?

Believe the Press, particularly the BBC-hating and Labour-loathing Telegraph, and you'll believe the corporation and Labour are on collision course over this.

To me, Andrew Marr is always in a difficult position. As he is the first to admit, his conference is normally over before it's begun for the rest of delegates. That said, his conference interview with a party leader can often set the tone for the week.

If gives a politician an easy ride, and he's accused of cosying up to them - an accusation Adam Boulton over on Sky News also has to deal with.

But ask a question the politician is uncomfortable with, and he's accused of operating on behalf of a rival political party. That's political reporting, so is the question about potential pill-popping fair game?

I'm inclined to line up with Ben Brogan of the Telegraph on this one. While there may well be rumours in Westminster about potentially pill taking, it certainly wasn't a topic of conversation on the lips of the public at large.

And as Brogan points out, the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct states: "Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence."

That doesn't cover broadcasters, as it happens, but it covers the industry where Marr made his name, and it's his success in that industry which enable him to land the jobs he has done at the BBC.

Of course, the country should be interested in the private life and personality of the prime minister, as Charlie Beckett of Polis points out. But does that mean the PM should be quizzed about every single rumour which is pushed out about him?

Surely that would only serve to create the sort of vindictive campaigning from an opposition which the Tories so lamented in the Damian McBride affair not so long back.

This, to me, boils down to simple journalistic good practice. The pills rumours began life, according to Channel 4, on a blog called Not Born Yesterday.

The author openly admitted to Channel 4 that he had no proof of the story - prior to his publication, it had just been civil servant rumour. To me, that's no justification for lobbing that rumour at the prime minister, especially at a time when there's no shortage of issues based on firm facts to deal with.

But all journalists suffer from poor judgment from time to time. How can Marr sort this out? Simple - he should seek to address David Cameron's alleged illegal drug taking in the past, an issue the would-be PM has always refused to be drawn on.

Cameron's argument has always been that private lives should remain that, which is a great defence until you start inviting the cameras into your home to see you playing with the family.

Brown was open and honest about the pills rumour - and even if he had been taking them, at least they were legal. Cameron's refusal to talk about rumours of drug taking, even as a teenager, is the exact opposite. He's shifty about it. If there's nothing to hide, say so. If not, expect people to judge him on his non-disclosure.

Marr's done half a job so far. If rumours are fair game, then surely they don't come much bigger than Cameron's dodging of illegal drug use?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100011610/gordon-brown-and-the-pills-what-was-andrew-marr-thinking/