Behold the elitism of the eponymous liberal

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 19 April 2007 23:12.

Hat-tip to Laban Tall for this sublime example of elite discomfiture, occasioned by the ruthless, knowledgeable Piers Morgan in an interview of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.  It was retailed in The Independent today.

PM: Do you assume that editing is a job for life?

AR: No, I assume that all careers must come to an end at some point.

PM: But Guardian editors, tend to have the professional lives of several elephants. What would it take to be fired?

AR: When you’re appointed, the only thing you are told is to edit the paper “as heretofore”.

PM: That seems suitably incomprehensible for The Guardian.

AR: I think it means that The Guardian is a liberal, progressive, intelligent, internationalist paper which operates to certain ethical standards. And that’s what I have to do. So if you betray that edict by backing UKIP in an election, for example, you would have to leave.

PM: I’m talking more about personal conduct. 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: But when David Blunkett admitted in his diaries that he couldn’t concentrate on the Iraq war dossier debate in Cabinet because he was in emotional turmoil over his affair, isn’t that where private and professional gets a little blurred?

AR: If that impacted on his life…

PM: A private or public matter?

AR: I wouldn’t, er… [pauses] go looking for this kind of thing.

PM: Really? Isn’t it a matter of public interest if the Home Secretary admits he couldn’t focus on a dossier that sanctions war because of the turmoil surrounding his affair?

AR: Well, I wouldn’t go looking into it, if that answers you.

PM: No, that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was a public matter or not. It strikes me that by his own admission, therefore, his private life is directly impacting on his public work.

AR: If that’s his own judgement…

PM: But The Guardian serialised his own book with that very admission. It doesn’t mean you read it, granted…

AR: It was 900 pages. I didn’t read it all.

PM: It amuses me when you “serious” editors claim you don’t do private-life stuff, because you do. You wait for the tabloids to do the work and then pile in, repeating the juicy bits while condemning the tabloid intrusion. If you feel that strongly about it, why repeat the original invasive material? Did you cover the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott’s dalliance with [his secretary] Tracey Temple?

We did in the end, yes.

PM: Why “in the end”?

AR: There isn’t a pat answer to that. There are very few of my broadsheet editor colleagues who, if someone came to them and said, “I’ve been shagging the Secretary of State for, er - I’m trying to think of a department that doesn’t exist - er, pensions and culture, are you interested?”, would say “yes”. None of us do that kind of stuff as original journalism. But, once stories are out, then if your job is to report what is going on in society at large then there comes a point when you can’t ignore them.

PM: I find that a totally fatuous argument. Either you believe that Prezza’s affair is in the public interest, or you don’t. If you think that the affair itself is not a public matter, the braver thing to do is not to report it all. The Independent used to have a policy of never reporting on the Royal Family, and I thought that was admirable and that it lacked the total hypocrisy of your position.

AR: It was brave, but in the end they looked stupid and stopped.

PM: If I gave you concrete evidence Charles and Camilla were splitting up, would you publish it?

AR: Yes, because that is about the relationship between future monarch and wife, the future King and Queen.

PM: And if I told you that Charles was leaving Camilla because he was having an affair with Victoria Beckham, would you publish that part of the story?

AR: Well, again, because marriage in monarchy is more part of the job, then it is more relevant; rather than the fictional minister I discussed earlier.

PM: Isn’t being Deputy Prime Minister a fairly important job?

AR: Yes, but the broad distinction that editors in my end of the market make is that what politicians do in private, consensually, is up to them.

PM: Literally, anything?

If it’s legal, yes.

PM: So if I showed you evidence of David Cameron snorting cocaine, you would publish that because it’s illegal, right?

AR: Yes, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time going looking for it. I think illegal behaviour by a possible future prime minister is in the public interest.

PM: Don’t you think that Cameron should have been honest on whether he’d broken the law?

AR: I’d have been happier if he’d come out one way or another. But we all knew what he was saying by refusing to answer it.

PM: Did we?

AR: Didn’t we?

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.

PM: Do you like money?

AR: I remember JK Galbraith saying to me once: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor, and rich is better.” You can have an easier life if you have money.

PM: I heard you bought a grand piano for £50,000.

AR: £30,000 - the most extravagant thing I’ve ever bought.

PM: Are you any good at it?

AR: I can play quite well, I suppose. I rarely inflict it on anyone else, though.

PM: Is it true you play naked?

AR: No. I usually play fully clothed in the mornings.

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.

PM: You were, though, the author of A Concise History of the Sex Manual, 1886-1986. So - you’re clearly interested in this genre?

AR: Go and read it.

PM: I’d love to, it sounds great.

AR: It was OK. It was a book where I looked back over 100 years of people writing about sex.

PM: Will you be doing a sequel?

AR: I haven’t really got time. The problem was that nobody could decide if it was a historical, sociological or medical book.

PM: Or just a shagging book. Back to education: do you think that Labour politicians should send their kids to state schools?

AR: I suppose, as a rule of thumb, yes, they should, if that is the doctrine of their party.

PM: Was Blair wrong about how he educated his kids, then?

AR: I didn’t get worked up on it.

PM: What has been your proudest moment as editor?

AR: Seeing Jonathan Aitken’s [libel] case against us collapse was heart-pounding stuff. It was the greatest rabbit that George Carman [QC] ever pulled out of a hat. And came just as Aitken was about to stick his wife and daughter into the dock, so it couldn’t have been a more dramatic moment.

PM: What’s your biggest scoop?

AR: I’d say Mandelson’s house, and the Aitken story.

PM: What about your failures?

AR: Can I dwell on my successes first? Building the Guardian Unlimited website has been one of the best things I’ve been involved with. And relaunching the paper in its Berliner shape.

PM: Give me a one-line reaction to the following: Paul Dacre [the Daily Mail editor] .

AR: Brilliant, driven, technically flawless, politically misguided.

PM: And morally?

AR: I don’t know anything about his morals.

PM: If you were offered photos of Dacre snorting coke with hookers, would you publish the story?

AR: Illegally?

PM: It’s usually illegal, yes.

AR: If he admitted it, then that would be fairly irresistible, yes.

PM: And if it was just the hookers, and not the coke?

AR: I don’t think I’d…

PM: If it was a hooker that he had picked up off the street. In other words, illegally?

AR: That wouldn’t be so good.

PM: What do you think of the Daily Mail’s journalism?

AR: Er… well, it can be cruel. And sometimes a bit aggressive.

PM: And The Independent?

AR: I think that Simon Kelner is incredibly talented. He works on very slender budgets, and I’m never sure if it is that which drives his type of journalism. The emphasis on views, not news, means that the reporting is rather thin, and it loses impact on the front page the more you do that.

PM: And do you accept that he has been successful?

AR: I think they have stabilised the circulation, so yes.

PM: Richard Desmond?

AR: Journalistically, not a terribly inspiring story.

PM: Should someone with his background be allowed to own a national newspaper?

AR: It’s a free market, so yes, they should. I’m more wary of people like Rupert Murdoch owning too many papers.

PM: Is Murdoch a public figure?

AR: [Long pause] I would say that, on the graduation scale, he is probably less than a publicly elected figure but…

PM: But more, say, than the England football manager?

AR: Yes.

PM: You’ve edited The Guardian for more than a decade now. Any plans to try something else?

AR: No.

PM: What about a politician?

AR: No.

PM: Is that because you then become a public figure?

AR: No. I’m just not interested enough in that political way of thinking, and being whipped.

PM: I don’t think being whipped is automatic. Would the scrutiny worry you?

AR: No, but I do think you forgo a certain freedom of thought as an MP.

PM: How much is a pint of milk?

AR: About 30p. Is that right?

PM: No idea. Loaf of bread?

AR: Er… around 70p?

PM: Bag of sugar?

AR: I don’t buy bags of sugar.

PM: Skinny latte from Starbucks?

AR: £1.75.

PM: I thought you’d know that one. What would you miss most if you suddenly got fired?

AR: The honest answer is that, in this building, you’ve got 400 incredibly clever people…

PM: Well, they’re not all incredibly clever, are they…?

AR: No [laughs]. But you know what I mean. I would miss working with them.

PM: One final thought. If Paul Dacre was to publish a picture of you, in the Daily Mail, snorting coke with hookers, then would you get sacked?

AR: I don’t know.

PM: Would you resign?

AR: If I was caught snorting cocaine with a couple of hookers?

PM: Yes.

AR: I imagine in that case I would probably have to consider my position, yes…

Further comment from me would be entirely superfluous, I think.

Tags: Media



Comments:


1

Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:06 | #

That was bloody brilliant!

It’s not often you get to see such a grand expose of leftist hypocrisy in action. It’s truly here that you get to see a glimpse inside the mind of someone who - if you believed what they write - is just someone working tirelessly and with little recompense for social justice. And when you dig down a bit, you find that they are nothing but the most hypocritical charlatans, paid to lie, in a position of unaccountable power far beyond that of anyone else in the country, even King or Prime Minister.

Rupert Murdoch, less a public figure than someone publicly elected? He has the ability to decide whether people are elected or not, and also who even stands to be elected!

It was fun watching this guy squirm - much like watching a leech after a bit of salt is poured onto it. He’d be much happier calmly sucking his blood while secreting his anesthetic, growing bloated while no one is aware of his presence.


2

Posted by gangsta1gnxp on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:11 | #

The story isn’t from today—Guido Fawkes linked to it on April 2nd:

http://www.order-order.com/2007/04/alan-rusbridger-correction.html

Rusbridger, Toynbee et al, being pure of heart, are permitted to do things that to the impure of heart are not permitted.


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:38 | #

I did mention that it was retailed, and the Indy logs the date of the original airing of this interview in its pre-amble.

I do not trouble myself to read the pudgy youth “Guido”.  I am English and have to be snobbish about something.


4

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:53 | #

This is the bastard who sent out the creepy Guardian undercover spy who ruined the career of the ballerina because she was, in her private life, a BNP member.  He keeps saying you’re entitled to keep your private life private as long as you’re not an elected official or a royal but the ballerina was neither, just a lass from Yorkshire who’d made good in London, became concerned about immigration, and was now ruined on his orders, finished essentially, because of this smug slimy petty hypocritical asshole giving the order to divulge her private life.  Yet look at him squirm and claim “privacy” when the interviewer probes his own life!  If I were he, half-a-million a year or not I wouldn’t be able to sleep nights ... let alone look in the mirror in the mornings ...


5

Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:39 | #

It’s not often you get to see the man behind the curtain, even if obliquely. And here’s why:

“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?”

It was personal.

But AR was quite content to give PM exactly what he wanted, without embarrassment most of the time. He called his set of cars “a fleet”, and came out with the price of a Skinny Latte immediately.

That’s the confidence to know that nothing in the conversation is going to turn away the faithful from reading his magazine. Most of the useful idiots reading his rubbish are going to think “Well, he deserves those perks for promoting good causes”, and many intelligent people still reading it perceive that they benefit from the charade somehow. Nowhere are the questions asked “If you have influence enough to sway an election, are you not more powerful than most public figures and hence a public figure yourself? Why is there so little regulation of this 4th estate, other than a few ownership laws that a (racially) extended family can easily circumvent?”


6

Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47 | #

Fred: Yes, I don’t really understand the chattering class mindset. They seem to have a bad case of cargo cult thinking. Drinking wine, eating every other culture’s food beside your own, living life as is depicted on TV… will give you status and make you rich and happy. Putting on the same makeup as a celebrity will somehow give you different DNA and somehow turn your sow’s ear into a silk purse.

If I were to guess, most of these people are in the IQ 105-120 region. They can string a basic sentence together but have trouble with independent thought. The only way they can really climb a status hierarchy is to curry favor with whoever they perceive as the ruling class. In our era it’s obvious who that class is.


7

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:50 | #

You make quite astute observations there, SCC.  Good, helpful post.


8

Posted by Anon on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:23 | #

I do admire Rusbridger’s bravery (or stupidity) in agreeing to the interview.  He had to know he was going to be eviscerated.  Then again, maybe he thought he could get through it and Morgan would go easy, professional courtesy and all that.  I would love to see Sulzberger go through this, but that is probably just wishful thinking. 
Englishmen, next chance you get, please send Morgan over for a few weeks.  I’ll pay the airfare and put him up at my place.  No hookers or cocaine though.


9

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:29 | #

These guys are too numerous in Finland also. Addition to what was said in the interview, those areas where greens are prevalent and liberal immigration is supported fervently, in practice don’t have immigrants in Finland. Those counties and areas have also fervently resisted taking immigrants. In the following article a British labour politician has just learned that real people live, where immigrants go. Clearly, before we have been imaginary people to them and still are to the most of them. This sudden realization doesn’t change the actual policies in any meaningful way though:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393026-details/Immigration+has+unsettled+the+country,+says+minister/article.do


10

Posted by fwood1 on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:49 | #

“I would love to see Sulzberger go through this, but that is probably just wishful thinking.”
I agree with Anon.  At first, I didn’t believe this article was real,  for no media mandarin in America would ever submit to such an interrogation.
I’ll be searching for more Piers Morgan.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Griffin in a better light
Previous entry: EU Inventing New Crime Category:  Holocaust “Trivializing”

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle continued for comments after 1000' on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:14. (View)

anonymous commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle continued for comments after 1000' on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 21:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:23. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 08 Dec 2024 14:19. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 06 Dec 2024 20:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 06 Dec 2024 01:08. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 04 Dec 2024 19:00. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 23:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The journey to The Hague revisited, part 1' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 21:20. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'The journey to The Hague revisited, part 1' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 13:34. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:49. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 01:33. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:53. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:10. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:28. (View)

affection-tone