If you want a good laugh read THIS GQ/Independent Media Section interview between Piers Morgan and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Morgan makes mincemeat out of him. He exposes his hypocrisy over sending his children to private schools, being happy to write about politicians' private lives but being (ahem, undertandably) reticent about his own, fiddling The Guardian's circulation figures and much more. Here are a few excepts, but do read the WHOLE THING...PM: And has the diet improved your sex life?
AR: I, er...
PM: Come on, Alan. It's a legitimate question.
AR: It's not. I'll pass on that one.
AR: I, er...
PM: Come on, Alan. It's a legitimate question.
AR: It's not. I'll pass on that one.
PM: How is your new Berliner-sized paper actually doing?
AR: It is doing, more or less, what we expected.
PM: That's what I used to say when things went badly.
AR: Do you want to see charts?
PM: No. I always used to bamboozle my critics with charts. How did you sell last week, then [December 2006]?
AR: About 386,000.
PM: And what were you selling before the Berliner redesign?
AR: We were down in the 360s, 370s. The one mistake we made was to take out 10,000 bulks, which made the figures look worse than they were.
PM: But you did that to make the relaunch look better than it was.
AR: No, we did that at the time of the relaunch.
PM: I thought you did it a couple of months before the relaunch.
AR: Er, well, we took them out a few months before and didn't put them back for the relaunch.
PM: So I was right. You did it deliberately. It's an old trick.
AR: We did. But we didn't shove them back in; that's the point.
PM: It's not my point.
AR: We were too honest.
PM: Hmmm...I read an interview in which you said that what mattered most between a paper and its staff and the readers was trust. Do you think you have to be as trustworthy privately as you are professionally?
AR: I think you have to be trustworthy in your professional life.
PM: Not personal life?
AR: [Silence for 10 seconds] I like to make a distinction between professional and private in everything we write about.
AR: It is doing, more or less, what we expected.
PM: That's what I used to say when things went badly.
AR: Do you want to see charts?
PM: No. I always used to bamboozle my critics with charts. How did you sell last week, then [December 2006]?
AR: About 386,000.
PM: And what were you selling before the Berliner redesign?
AR: We were down in the 360s, 370s. The one mistake we made was to take out 10,000 bulks, which made the figures look worse than they were.
PM: But you did that to make the relaunch look better than it was.
AR: No, we did that at the time of the relaunch.
PM: I thought you did it a couple of months before the relaunch.
AR: Er, well, we took them out a few months before and didn't put them back for the relaunch.
PM: So I was right. You did it deliberately. It's an old trick.
AR: We did. But we didn't shove them back in; that's the point.
PM: It's not my point.
AR: We were too honest.
PM: Hmmm...I read an interview in which you said that what mattered most between a paper and its staff and the readers was trust. Do you think you have to be as trustworthy privately as you are professionally?
AR: I think you have to be trustworthy in your professional life.
PM: Not personal life?
AR: [Silence for 10 seconds] I like to make a distinction between professional and private in everything we write about.
PM: Would you answer that question? Are you a public figure?
AR: Not really, no. I am accountable to the Scott Trust [owner of the Guardian Media Group], and I make The Guardian's journalism more publicly accountable than any other editor in this country.
PM: I only ask, because I remember The Guardian treating me as a public figure when I encountered various scrapes as an editor. Do you think that your own life would stand up to much ethical scrutiny?
AR: In terms of the journalism?
PM: No, I mean privately. Do you consider that infidelity is always a private matter for public figures, for instance?
AR: I think what people do legally and consensually is private.
PM: If I asked you if you had ever taken illegal drugs, would you feel compelled to answer?
AR: No, I'd say to you to mind your own business.
PM: What's your current salary?
AR: It's, er, about £350,000.
PM: What bonus did you receive last year?
AR: About £170,000, which was a way of addressing my pension.
PM: That means that you earned £520,000 last year alone. That's more than the editor of The Sun by a long way.
AR: I'll talk to you off the record about this, but not on the record.
PM: Why? In The Guardian, you never stop banging on about fat cats. Do you think that your readers would be pleased to hear that you earned £520,000 last year? Are you worth it?
AR: That's for others to say.
PM: Wouldn't it be more Guardian-like, more socialist, to take a bit less and spread the pot around a bit? We have this quaint idea that you guys are into that "all men are equal" nonsense, but you're not really, are you? You seem a lot more "equal" than others on your paper.
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Do you ever get awkward moments when your bonus gets published? Do you wince and think, "Oh dear, Polly Toynbee's not going to like this one."
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Or is Polly raking in so much herself that she wouldn't mind?
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Are you embarrassed by it?
AR: No. I didn't ask for the money. And I do declare it, too.
PM: But if you earned £520,000 last year, then that must make you a multimillionaire.
AR: You say I'm a millionaire?
PM: You must be - unless you're giving it all away to charity...
AR: Er...
PM: What's your house worth?
AR: I don't want to talk about these aspects of my life.
PM: You think it's all private?
AR: I do really, yes.
PM: Did you think that about Peter Mandelson's house? I mean, you broke that story.
AR: I, er... it was a story about an elected politician.
PM: And you're not as accountable. You just reserve the right to expose his private life.
AR: We all make distinctions about this kind of thing. The line between private and public is a fine one, and you've taken up most of the interview with it.
PM: Well, only because you seem so embarrassed and confused about it.
AR: I'm not embarrassed about it. But nor do I feel I have to talk about it.
AR: Not really, no. I am accountable to the Scott Trust [owner of the Guardian Media Group], and I make The Guardian's journalism more publicly accountable than any other editor in this country.
PM: I only ask, because I remember The Guardian treating me as a public figure when I encountered various scrapes as an editor. Do you think that your own life would stand up to much ethical scrutiny?
AR: In terms of the journalism?
PM: No, I mean privately. Do you consider that infidelity is always a private matter for public figures, for instance?
AR: I think what people do legally and consensually is private.
PM: If I asked you if you had ever taken illegal drugs, would you feel compelled to answer?
AR: No, I'd say to you to mind your own business.
PM: What's your current salary?
AR: It's, er, about £350,000.
PM: What bonus did you receive last year?
AR: About £170,000, which was a way of addressing my pension.
PM: That means that you earned £520,000 last year alone. That's more than the editor of The Sun by a long way.
AR: I'll talk to you off the record about this, but not on the record.
PM: Why? In The Guardian, you never stop banging on about fat cats. Do you think that your readers would be pleased to hear that you earned £520,000 last year? Are you worth it?
AR: That's for others to say.
PM: Wouldn't it be more Guardian-like, more socialist, to take a bit less and spread the pot around a bit? We have this quaint idea that you guys are into that "all men are equal" nonsense, but you're not really, are you? You seem a lot more "equal" than others on your paper.
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Do you ever get awkward moments when your bonus gets published? Do you wince and think, "Oh dear, Polly Toynbee's not going to like this one."
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Or is Polly raking in so much herself that she wouldn't mind?
AR: Er... [silence].
PM: Are you embarrassed by it?
AR: No. I didn't ask for the money. And I do declare it, too.
PM: But if you earned £520,000 last year, then that must make you a multimillionaire.
AR: You say I'm a millionaire?
PM: You must be - unless you're giving it all away to charity...
AR: Er...
PM: What's your house worth?
AR: I don't want to talk about these aspects of my life.
PM: You think it's all private?
AR: I do really, yes.
PM: Did you think that about Peter Mandelson's house? I mean, you broke that story.
AR: I, er... it was a story about an elected politician.
PM: And you're not as accountable. You just reserve the right to expose his private life.
AR: We all make distinctions about this kind of thing. The line between private and public is a fine one, and you've taken up most of the interview with it.
PM: Well, only because you seem so embarrassed and confused about it.
AR: I'm not embarrassed about it. But nor do I feel I have to talk about it.
PM: What about your cars? Are you still driving that ridiculous G-Wiz thing around?
AR: Yes, and I love it.
PM: But I also read that you use taxis to ferry your stuff to and from work, which sort of negates the green effort, doesn't it?
AR: That story was a bit confused. I used to cycle to work sometimes, and if I was too tired at the end of the day then I would fold up the bike and get a cab home, yes. But about a year ago I was nearly killed in a nasty accident on my bike so I gave up cycling and bought the G-Wiz.
PM: Any other cars?
AR: A company Volvo estate.
PM: A big gas-guzzler.
AR: Yes.
PM: Bit of a culture clash with your G-Wiz, then?
AR: Let me think about that. The problem is that I also have a big dog, and it doesn't fit into the G-Wiz.
PM: I'm sure the environment will understand. Any others?
AR: My wife has a Corsa.
PM: Quite an expansive...
AR: Fleet...
PM: Yes, fleet.
AR: But I've got children as well.
PM: They're privately educated?
AR: Er... [pause].
PM: Is that a valid question?
AR: I don't... think so... no.
PM: And you went to Cranleigh, a top public school.
AR: I did, yes.
PM: Do you feel uncomfortable answering that question?
AR: It falls into the category of something I don't feel embarrassed about, but you get on to a slippery slope about what else you talk about, don't you?
PM: It's not really about your private life though, is it? It's just a fact. And I assume by your reluctance to answer the question that they are privately educated.
AR: [Pause] Again, I am trying to make a distinction between...
PM: You often run stories about Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools, and you are quite censorious about it. Are you worried that it makes you look a hypocrite again?
AR: No. I think there are boundaries. It goes back to this question of whether editors are public figures or not.
PM: And you don't think they are?
AR: Well, again, I've tried to draw a distinction between making my journalism accountable, but I have never tried to go around talking about my private life and therefore making myself into a public figure.
PM: You were originally a gossip columnist on The Guardian. Did you never write about anyone's private life?
AR: I can't remember writing about someone's private life.
AR: Yes, and I love it.
PM: But I also read that you use taxis to ferry your stuff to and from work, which sort of negates the green effort, doesn't it?
AR: That story was a bit confused. I used to cycle to work sometimes, and if I was too tired at the end of the day then I would fold up the bike and get a cab home, yes. But about a year ago I was nearly killed in a nasty accident on my bike so I gave up cycling and bought the G-Wiz.
PM: Any other cars?
AR: A company Volvo estate.
PM: A big gas-guzzler.
AR: Yes.
PM: Bit of a culture clash with your G-Wiz, then?
AR: Let me think about that. The problem is that I also have a big dog, and it doesn't fit into the G-Wiz.
PM: I'm sure the environment will understand. Any others?
AR: My wife has a Corsa.
PM: Quite an expansive...
AR: Fleet...
PM: Yes, fleet.
AR: But I've got children as well.
PM: They're privately educated?
AR: Er... [pause].
PM: Is that a valid question?
AR: I don't... think so... no.
PM: And you went to Cranleigh, a top public school.
AR: I did, yes.
PM: Do you feel uncomfortable answering that question?
AR: It falls into the category of something I don't feel embarrassed about, but you get on to a slippery slope about what else you talk about, don't you?
PM: It's not really about your private life though, is it? It's just a fact. And I assume by your reluctance to answer the question that they are privately educated.
AR: [Pause] Again, I am trying to make a distinction between...
PM: You often run stories about Labour politicians sending their kids to private schools, and you are quite censorious about it. Are you worried that it makes you look a hypocrite again?
AR: No. I think there are boundaries. It goes back to this question of whether editors are public figures or not.
PM: And you don't think they are?
AR: Well, again, I've tried to draw a distinction between making my journalism accountable, but I have never tried to go around talking about my private life and therefore making myself into a public figure.
PM: You were originally a gossip columnist on The Guardian. Did you never write about anyone's private life?
AR: I can't remember writing about someone's private life.
36 comments:
Yes, very funny indeed. Nothing to do with Iain Dale's genius and of course Piers Morgan is a traditional hate figure to most of the readers of this blog, but still a highly pertinent expose of blatant Guardianista hypocrisy. What a shame it wasn't La Toynbee who was thusly lampooned.
Alas, we will not however I suspect any time soon be reading a similar expose in these pages of the vast renumeration Paul Dacre receives and the shabby way the average Daily Mail staffer is treated as a comparison. Neither will Dacre give an interview he does not control, which at least Rushbridger appears to have had the guts to do. And we won't even go to Conrad Black. And Murdoch of course who retains the right to manipulate, control, edit, spite and destroy his way around the world with absolutely no media come-back.
I'll give you a good hiding, Iain, if you like....
"Alas, we will not however I suspect any time soon be reading a similar expose in these pages of the vast renumeration Paul Dacre receives.."
But surely that is what Private Eye is for ??
It does seem that there's nowhere to hide nowadays....
I notice that rusbridger didn't want to claim any credit for the grauniad for the fraudulent, lying coverage of Neil Hamilton. Considering that the framing of NH played such a large part in bringing down the Major government you would think rusbridger would be gagging to brag about it.
Incidentally, when will 18DS interview Jonathan Boyd Hunt about that scam. I'm sure he would be delighted to tell all about this most interesting of stories.
That's a classic interview. In very lossely related news, for one day only, me and Manic have a lot in common. Roll up, roll up.
Is your silence evidence of your slavish dependence on your sources?! What would Guido have to say about that!
"..played such a large part in bringing down the Major government "
I can't believe how many tories still believe this rubbish. That's up there with "we lost the last election for being too right wing" (despite internal polling showing the policies very popular, just not the brand).
It was the economy stoooopid.
The sleaze was unpopular, and a nice frame for opponents, but give people a job and large house-price inflation, and it is amazing what they will turn a blind eye to.
Good spot. I love it when champagne socialists squirm at their own hypocrisy!
That was a hilarious interview. I loved the classic bit (did Abbott and Costello do it first?) where the fellow giving the interview denies that he's a public figure. So then, why would you be being interviewed again?
Mmmm. That photo is presumably either before his 10 Years Younger make-over or before he otherwise got a new spring in his step. AR looks more like a kid than that. Last time I saw him he did anyway. Can a photo constitute defamation?
Having my head in the sand back in Feb I have innocently just reposted the Guido FCS Days story. Inevitably G has come over to mine uttering threats. Obviously the last thing I want is to get up Tory libertarians noses with untrue facts. So if anyone can help me source the retraction people sometimes mention on this one that would be a great help to getting Fawkes his justice.
Chad's right for once - presumably that's Mad Chad from UKIP Comedy Club?
Anyway. Jobs and house price inflation r still us so just how are the Tories ever going to win again?
Particularly if UKIP are monstering them and taking their voters off into ga ga land.
I knew about Morgan (who doesn't) but not Rushbridger. Explains a lot.
I dont know what Rusbridger has to hyde.
Anyone can have a marina if they have enough money so why the embarrassment?
Of course the Scott Trust might think a relationship is unethical but it is only the Guardian and when did ethics matter there?
We're not quite mad enough to take the country to war based on some kid's essay lifted off the net though Chris ;-)
You are barking up the wrong tree on this one Iain. Completely wrong.
fair play to PM, these bleeding heart sandal wearers have done so much damage to this country they deserve to be exposed. They spout on about poverty, global warming and liberal bollox whilst sticking thier snouts as firm;y in the trough as anyone else.
The holier than thou claptrap from these twats lead directly to more poverty, people trafficking and abuse than any daily mail journalist has ever caused. Public figures, esp politicians, are in fear of being outed by the liberal elite for anything resembling a right wing comment, denying intelligent debate,thus perpetuating abuse of all sorts.
I heard a reporter from the Guardian berate the guy from migrationwatch about his use of inflametory language when explaining that migration results in a population growth equivalent to a city the size of birmingham every blah years. How can the tool from the Guardian not understand that the suppression of honest debate simply creates more distrust, racism and exploitation? That journo is responsible for more exploitation of migrants than migrationwatch.
A brilliant interview, which just goes to show what can be achieved with skilful questioning.
So much journalistic questioning, especially on tv and radio, is unskilful. Piers Morgan was able to twist the knife because he asked short, direct, unambiguous questions which left no wriggle room.
I noted Rusbridger's admission that if The Grauniad came out in support of UKIP he would have to resign. So, comment is free? Up to a point, Lord Copper.
I can almost forgive Mr Morgan for his no doubt well meant but misguided support for Brown......almost.
PT: will you be putting quotes in 'context' today too? In the interests of authenticity of course!
So, there's nowhere to hyde.
But what an odd one, eh?
An instructive moment in the Morgan diaries can be found on page 328, when the then Mirror editor is invited to Number 11.
Brown ushers him into a room and hands over a tape cassette. He explains it's a recording of Liam Fox rubbishing the NHS at a private Tory meeting. "Thought you might find it useful ," he tells Morgan.
Serious statesman? Or slimy spin merchant?
Nice one cybermen - I'd forgotten the context button.
trumpeter -
"I noted Rusbridger's admission that if The Grauniad came out in support of UKIP he would have to resign. So, comment is free? Up to a point, Lord Copper."
Sorry, but what is your point here ?
The phrase from C.Scott is 'Comment is free, but facts are sacred'. The point he is making is that 'talk is cheap', and that rather than putting across opinions of people like UKIP, one should be reporting 'just the facts'. If that is what the 'Scott Trust' is about they would be quite entitled to fire someone supporting such a right wing party, or the BNP on the left wing come to that.
So once again, what is your point ?
Anonymous 4.22
I'm not sure you have understood the point. Rusbridger said that if he crossed a certain line in expressing an editorial view (with backing the UKIP as an example), as opposed to reporting the facts, he would have to consider his position, as this would be at odds with the general ethos of the paper as 'safeguarded' by the Scott Trust. Hence it's arguable that the editor of the Guardian and its ownership structure aren 't in essence different to any other newspaper, despite claims to greater independence etc.
I write as a Guardian reader, by the way.
Haha very funny to see you skip past teh Cameron/Coke bit Iain...
People tend to find this posting useful when discussing the Grauniad. Red-blooded capitalism powering the Grauniad Media Group. Couple their 9 figure losses over the last two years with the fact that the Tories are planning on pulling the £100m pa public sector advertising from under their feet, it's hardly surprising that they are panicking. This includes slurring the Tories when possible.
Did Morgan actually conduct this interview himself, or make up the interesting bits afterwards like he did in his Diaries?
And why aren't we hearing about Morgan and Rusbridger's shared passion for Marinas in Private Eye?
So are we to understand that both Rusbridger and Morgan have been in Hyde(ing) at some point in recent years?
anonymous [4.22]: Steve [5.07] has answered your question and I agree with what he says.
'Comment is free' has become a slogan for what Rusbridger describes as a "liberal, progressive, intelligent, internationalist paper."
To me, 'liberal' means, 'welcoming free discussion and open to new ideas'. But for The Guardian, at least in its editorial line, it means, 'falling within that narrow range of opinion which is acceptable to the Scott Trust.'
So, for the editor of The Guardian, comment is not free. The wrong sort of comment will cost him his job.
Laughed my head off. Though the shameful state of some UK journalism is really no laughing matter. If only Piers Morgan would interview Polly Toynbee.
Speaking of Polly, if the anon author of Factchcheckingpollyanna happens to read this, please come back and expose more of Ms Toynbee's hilarious errors.
http://factcheckingpollyanna.blogspot.com/
Auntie Flo'
Over on Guido's blog someone has pointed out that we pay Rusbridger his cool half million a year. Without all those taxpayer funded public sector adverts for five a day lesbian outreach co-ordinators and the like the paper would go bust.
Over on Guido's blog, comment moderation on this topic is on.
Is this a first? Does Guido have friends in the media he would rather not now annoy? Or are Guido's Caribbean defences against libel actions not as watertight as he would like?
Hi Mad Chad: That was Blair. Check the Labour Against the War site for the very well written and widely available alternative dossier that myself and many Labour Party members and 139 MPs too found more convincing than. It was available for a good long time before the war kicked off. I was able to monster one of Blair's Ministers at an Oxfam meeting the day the war started (sorry Sally, it had to be done) and she literally ran off for her train (due to leave from 5 minutes away in 40 minutes ...) Despite being a Lawyer Blair has the grasp of risk assessment of an Iain Dale and the grasp of truth of a lazy Fawker.
Very interesting debate in the above comments. Taking all points into consideration it's interesting that the most vocal comments are made by 'anonymous'. At least the journalists mentioned put their names to their comments!
All this talk of Alan Rushbridge and Piers Morgan having something in common.
Honestly, are you all suggesting they have something to Hyde?
Post a Comment