Radio
Vicious attack
Michael Vestey
One of the most astonishing develop- ments in my lifetime has been the increas- ing viciousness of a section of the media, particularly the downmarket tabloids, the so-called red tops. I assume it started with the Murdoch press and spread in a compe- tition battle but I can't be sure because I tended not to read these papers much, unless they were to hand.
Criticism, adverse or supportive, is a healthy element in a free society. Everyone has the right to an opinion and opinions are merely that; they don't need to be right or wrong. But it was while I was listening to Radio Five Live last Thursday afternoon that I wondered why people are no longer content simply to express a view but have to display such a hatred towards people they don't know. A truly ghastly woman whose name escapes me was appearing on the network's late-afternoon programme Drive which is normally presented by the excellent Jane Garvey and Peter Allen.
She's a columnist with the Sunday Mirror which, when I last saw it, seemed semi- pornographic. She was there to comment on Prince Edward's criticism of the British media for its attitude to success, its desire to destroy those who do well in life. Prince Edward meant, presumably, papers like the Sunday Mirror. I couldn't help thinking that whilst it might have been unwise to vouch- safe such views in today's climate he was absolutely right. To be opposed to the exis- tence of the monarchy is a perfectly accept- able argument though not one I share. But this woman described the Prince as an abject failure in film-making and in every- thing he had turned his hand to. She thought he was good at waving and should return to this role.
Is he an abject failure? Isn't that some- thing you might be tempted to level at any- one who works for the Sunday Mirror and those who buy it? She thought Prince Edward's company Ardent produced awful films, complete flops. Perhaps it does. All I know is that I saw his series Crown and Country on ITV, a programme about places with past royal connections, and thought it excellent. I was impressed, too, by his pre- senting skills, relaxed, fluent and profession- al. It occurred to me then that he should have his own BBC radio programme. Has he thought of it? Considering who his fami- ly is he has a relatively classless voice that shouldn't offend anyone; the BBC doesn't care much for what it thinks are posh voic- es. He would be good on the radio.
Then, no doubt, the tabloid harridans would still criticise him for trying to earn a living. At least Jane Garvey who was con- ducting the interview with the mean-spirited hack pointed out that Prince Edward was only trying to make his way in the world. But, no, Sunday Mirror woman wasn't hav- ing it; he should go back to waving.
Another phenomenon of our times that baffles me is the willingness of people to talk to the newspapers about their private lives. I regard the privacy of a relationship as something absolutely sacred. Anyone who gives away intimate details of their marriage is doing so either for revenge or for money.
With Margaret Cook, the ex-wife of the Foreign Secretary, it is clearly revenge for having been left for another woman. Her book, A Slight and Delicate Creature, com- prehensively exposed the frailties of her for- mer husband, revealing his infidelities, heavy drinking and vanity. She was at it again on Radio Four's In the Psychiatrist's Chair (Sunday), describing how the younger Robin Cook held those who worked with their hands, engineers and so on, in con- tempt. He was, she told Professor Anthony Clare, an intellectual snob. She felt he loved appearing in public, basking in the adula- tion, and couldn't cope when he got home and found his wife less than impressed, par- ticularly as he'd ditched his left-wing princi- ples to become a Blairite Cabinet minister.
By publishing the book she hadn't want- ed to dig the knife in. But you did, said Clare. She expressed surprise that the media had made so much of the heavy drinking period and thought newspapers seized on it to cause the maximum embar- rassment. But had she not written the book and mentioned it herself the media wouldn't have known about it. Nor she said, unconvincingly, had she wished to destroy Cook. She came across as not in the least a slight and delicate creature though perhaps a little naive. Clare tried to discover what had really caused the break- down of their marriage, to go beyond the damage caused by Cook's affairs, and to some extent he succeeded. As I listened, though, it seemed very simple to me and undeserving of a trip to the shrink even if he does operate from a radio studio.
If one partner spends most of the time living alone in London during the week and the other is a busy hospital consultant it is `Hi! I'm your tutor.' inevitable that one or other will have affairs. Only the most saintly resist the temptation. There's no doubt that she was treated badly by her husband and the Labour party but as with all relationships it is only half the story and one better not told.
Previous page
