The Today programme needs more than a harrumphing John Humphrys
|
Version 0 of 2. The BBC Radio 4 listener whose blood pressure isn’t regularly sent off the charts by the Today programme is a rare one indeed. Young people declare it too old, while old people say it’s too young. No one likes John Humphrys apart from the scores of people who can’t get enough of his harrumphing, and would picket Broadcasting House in the unlikely event of him being crowbarred from his desk. Women invariably find it too male, though there are men who still balk at the sound of two female presenters. Pity the poor mug patrolling the programme’s Twitter feed and wading through the torrent of indignation and invective while still on the first coffee of the day. Lately, however, the ire levelled at the programme has gone up a notch. The extra helping of irritation has largely been directed at Sarah Sands, who was appointed editor in January following eight years in charge of the London Evening Standard. Among the complaints thus far – and it’s been said that many are coming from inside the network – are that it has become lightweight and magazine-ish, that fashion and arts stories are being given undue prominence, that the political argy-bargy has been toned down, and that it is failing to set the news agenda. The content shift suggests a programme trying to broaden its remit, to think about who is listening Certainly, Sands has made a clear decision to give more coverage to subjects and figures that have long been marginalised by a show fixated on world politics and the goings-on in Westminster. She has pledged to give greater prominence to what she calls “girls’ stuff”, which is good in principle, but is perhaps an unfortunate way to describe stories that men might find interesting and women could just as easily find a turn-off. The very fact that “girls’ stuff” has been viewed negatively points, of course, to a wider and long-standing problem with Today: that even with a woman at the helm, and two female presenters, it is still seen as a mouthpiece for and about men. (This would also account for some of the vitriol being aimed at the show’s editor). In any case, the big interview slots have, in recent weeks, occasionally been turned over to cultural figures, among them the former Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman, the novelist John le Carré and the actor Judi Dench. This, apparently, is a bad thing for those who can’t enjoy breakfast unless it is soundtracked by a barking match between Humphrys and whichever hapless politician has been frogmarched to Broadcasting House, or between the advocates in one of the frequent issue-based items pointlessly reduced to adversarial “for” and “against” positions. For this listener, the content shift suggests a programme trying to broaden its remit, to think about who is listening – and, crucially, to evolve. Having said all that, I listened to the Shulman interview and cringed throughout due to the banality of the questioning. If Today really wants to refresh the format, it needs to treat these supposedly “lighter” subjects with the seriousness and depth they deserve. That Today is, apparently, no longer setting quite so much of the news agenda strikes me as a win, if not for the show itself then for the wider media which has too often relied on the programme to determine the day’s coverage. It’s significant that the latest wave of criticism coincides with a broader sense of cynicism about the so-called mainstream media. Sands’s job is a thankless one, but here’s hoping she stands her ground, continues to blow away the cobwebs and ignores the petulant traditionalist rumbling. Her show may be a broadcasting institution, but there are plenty who see it as arrogant, fusty and, in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, potentially surplus to requirements. Today still has a part to play in the national conversation, but to stay relevant it is quite right that it should adapt and change. Better that the listeners grumble than turn off altogether. • Fiona Sturges is a freelance culture writer |