Slick Move by PR-Astute Humphrys

June 4, 2009

hump

Has John Humphrys, the BBC Radio 4 Today presenter and scourge of linguistic infelicity, been getting some PR training? His sidestepping of Conservative MP Edward Leigh’s attempt to get him to reveal his salary was a textbook PR move, as reported by the Guardian here.

During an interview with Leigh, Humprhys found himself on the receiving end of some innocuously phrased and yet potentially embarrassing questionning. The Tory first flattered Humphrys as a presenter, and then asked him if he earnt more than the Prime Minister. Humprhys ducked the question, saying he’d love to answer but couldn’t. Leigh was insistent:

“You are a great man, but how many of these presenters are famous for being famous? Surely if the public knew what they were being paid we could drive down costs. There are many younger people who might want to come on and present the Today programme just as well as you for less money.”

To which Humprhys replied thus: “I’m sure that that’s true. And as far as most presenters are concerned, and I would include myself in that, I think we would say ‘Yeah, by all means’, but we are not going to break ranks. It’s for the BBC to decide. We are freelancers.”

Excellent stuff. But this emerging culture of blanket transparency has got to stop somewhere. In the good old days, one’s salary was one’s own business, and that was that. Granted, public sector employees should be subject to greater scrutiny, but nicely dressed up cheap shots such as Leigh’s are still just that.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

When a lawyer’s son is before the law

September 8, 2010

A lawyer of Swordplay’s acquaintance finds himself in a fix.

“My teenage son is to be interviewed by the local constable,” he tells us. “He is alleged to have committed an offence.”

We gasp, for such seems the appropriate response, and then ask: is it serious?

“No, it is not,” our troubled legal friend tells us. “In the great scheme of things, my son’s alleged transgression is about as de minimis as they get.”

For a split second, we wonder if said teenage son is cognisant of lawyerly terms of art such as de minimis, but rapidly conclude that the answer to this question is not a sine qua non of further discourse. And so we press on. That sounds good, we say, relatively speaking, at least.

“Yes,” says the lawyer, “but I am at a loss as to what to do with him. Do I come down hard and ground him, or do I play the liberal card, or do I find a compromise?”

That depends, we aver.

“On what?” asks our man.

On whether you would prefer to deal with your son’s alleged offence as a lawyer, or as a father, or as a father who is a lawyer, or maybe even as a lawyer who is a father.

“I see your point,” says the lawyer. And then, as if to prove that there is no cure for recidivism, he says: “The offence is, after all, de minimis.”

Without prejudice, we add.

Pictured: something out of Kafka. Now there was a man who knew about the law. And had a tough old father, too.

Max Mosley and Wayne Rooney: bedfellows?

September 6, 2010

We rarely enjoy pondering Max Mosley – the man, the sins, the legal action, what he stands for – but confess to a degree of grudging admiration for his tenacity in trying to change the law of privacy. As this story from the Independent has it, Mosley has lodged a request with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg asking that, by law, journalists must inform the subject of a story of the private details they intend to print, prior to publication.

We suspect the motor racing man would never have thought it, but he would appear to have an unlikely bedfellow in a certain England footballer. Step forward, Wayne Rooney, who would presumably put his name to Mosley’s petition.

Pictured courtesy of NashvilleScene: some bedfellows are stranger than fiction.


Memo to Freelance Writers: return that editor’s call quickly

September 3, 2010

Woe betide those who freelance and fail to return a call.

We say this upon hearing of a normally prolific freelance journalist who picked up a voicemail from an editor at one of the nationals on Tuesday afternoon. Please call us, was the message, and it could mean just one thing – a commission.

Our hero’s habitual practice is to return such calls as soon as is reasonably practicable, as m’learned friends might put it. In practice, that would habitually mean within a couple of hours. Most atypically, and for reasons we have yet to fathom, our man failed to call back for a full 24 hours.

By then, said editor had looked elsewhere. One of our man’s competitors had the gig, an interesting piece about cricket and the law, one which might just be in The Times today and which, we assume, asks whether the Pakistan cricket team have been caught out (in the legal sense, you understand).

We make no judgement on the no ball scandal, save to say that it is a scandal, but in another sense the moral is clear: in the fast-paced world of modern media, he who hesitates is lost.

Pictured courtesy of PrintedClothing.com: a fast-selling shirt.