More like this
Andrew Marr does not deserve this retribution
By owning up to his gagging order, the BBC man has unleashed the wrath of venomous bloggers
Andrew Marr, whose spry frame, geeky grin and big ears come straight out of Mad magazine, was a brilliant political correspondent for the BBC. His penchant for wild metaphor and sheer energy – often appearing on the box several times in one night when a big story broke - brought to life the most turgid political wrangles of the Blair years.
The public now knows, because Marr has felt it right to admit to a super injunction, what many of his fellow journalists have known for ages - that he had an extramarital affair eight years ago.
He took the decision to own up to the gagging order because, he says, he felt embarrassed by it. "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists."
But by allowing the full story to come out, he appears to have taken the risk, all these years later, of our prurient public interest creating as much pain for his family as the affair itself must have done at the time.
A simple Google search reveals the viciousness of the jeering crowd online.
One blogger, calling himself Max Farquar, brands Marr a 'cunt' and posts a grotesque photo of the BBC man, with a cauliflower for a nose. Clearly on a roll, Farquar writes, "I mean, what woman, in their right mind, would want anyone else to know that they had been 'bobbing up and down' on this?"
Max Farquar may be a saintly family man, but his blog caters to all tastes, including a regular feature called 'Totty' - under which he has posted a photo of a topless 16-year-old Ruby (The Heartbreaker) of Berlusconi fame, who at this tender age, looks like a plump and vulnerable candidate for paedophiles.
Yet the moral outrage seems grossly out of proportion: Marr's affair was not with a leopardskin-clad girl at a bunga-bunga party but with a fellow political correspondent.
Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, has accused Marr of being a 'hypocrite' for asking for a super-injunction when, as a journalist, he must ask incisive questions of politicians and press for the truth.
Hislop, like many satirists, has a profound moral core, and out of context, his judgment can seem harsh at times. But he is consistent. He banished presenter Angus Deayton from Have I Got News For You when photos were published in the tabloids following Deayton's cocaine-snorting romps with silly blondes. Neither Deayton's career, nor HIGNFY, has ever recovered.
But Marr has not behaved like an idiot. There is no need for anyone other than his wife to castigate him and those who feel the need should look in the mirror. The British are quick to condemn the fanatical Moral Majority in America, and yet Fleet Street and now internet bloggers let rip with as much venom as the deranged priest in the pulpit.
And, of course, the Max Farquars of this world are just giving more ammunition to those injunction-happy judges. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Rubbish!! He has spouted against gagging orders and the freedom of the press to print what they liked for years and is a typical hypocrite. He only owned up when Ian Hislop was instrumental in getting the money to challenge and overturn his gagging order alongside the fact that he discovered he was not the father of the baby.
He only 'allowed' the full story to come out because it was heading that way and he would have looked more of a snivelling hypocrite than he now does. He will just have to sit in the stocks and take it until the next thing comes along.
It's the HYPOCRICY of the thing and I, a member of the general public think he has indeed acted like an idiot and believe I as am entitled to my opinion as you. Print that if you dare.
The problem with Andrew Marr (in this case) is that he still thinks that his original assumption - that his affaire deserved to be kept as an entirely private matter - was reasonable and he still believes nobody should have been or should be entitled to know about what he was doing privately. But there is no absolute boundary between the private and the public realms, such as he seems to credit - and the judgment about that boundary cannot be left to the individual to rationalise, as Marr's self-serving current view demonstrates. It's true that his infidelity is not inherently interesting, but as Hislop has again pointed out Marr was interviewing the rich and powerful when questions of their private behaviour could have involved similar indiscretions. The real problem is the feverish interest of the current culture in every instance of fame and money, and the absence of interest in almost anything else. It is tasteless (but sometimes comical) to go on about private sexual happenings. But our bosses' private lives have always been subject to scrutiny, and the wealthy and successful are now so privileged that it's hard to see why they should be left with their dignity intact if they choose to put it at risk. The primary motive for outing private immoralities has always been the perpetrator's potential or actual hypocrisy. The law of libel is protection enough. If what is printed or becomes known through the Internet is true, who can complain? It's always the cover-up that extends the interest in such tales, and it's impossible to see on what basis judges are extending their protection to the rich in the form of super-injunctions against publication - except that judges also are rich and have sexual foibles to protect in some cases. Cave custodes.
Whilst some comment may be over the top, let's concentrate on the important aspect of this story. Any kind of privacy law is bad because it gives politicians or others performing important jobs in society a place to hide. Ian Hislop has performed a great service in the interests of openness and transparency.