This post (rant?) got ridulously long, so it has been split into two parts...
Part One
BBC's Humphrys honours Johnston
John Humphrys, a presenter on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, has paid tribute to the BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, abducted in Gaza seven weeks ago.
Receiving an award in London for news journalist of the year, Mr Humphrys said he did not deserve the honour.
There is much to be applauded in John Humphrys' comments at the Sony Radio Academy Awards.
"Frankly if we weren't so obsessed with personalities and celebrities
...can't argue with that...
they're the people who should have had the award," he said to the applause of the audience at the Sony Radio Academy Awards.
Well I certainly think that if we - and more importantly, the media - were really not so obsessed with personality, Humphrys may very well have faced stiffer competition for the award of news journalist of the year.
He may be a decent journalist - certainly he is by no means a bad writer - but for the last several years his reputation has been built on being a professional "Mr Grumpy" rather than much in the way of incisive questioning. As with Jeremy Paxman, this makes for entertaining TV or radio; especially when his particularly rude and hectoring style seems mostly reserved for everybody's favourite targets, Bush, Blair and the Labour party.
(One wonders if this will change if Cameron leads the Tories to victory...)
Humphrys declared that...
BBC correspondents who faced danger on a regular basis, above all Mr Johnston, deserved the award more
Hmmmm...Why?
What is the purpose of an award for "news journalist of the year"? Isn't the clue there in "what it says on the tin"? It is not for the best news journalist of the year?
It may be that the best journalist is currently on assignment in Iraq - or in some other deadly trouble spot - it may be that Alan Johnstone is the best news journalist in the world.
But perhaps he/she is in some dingy office in Scunthorpe. Is being in danger - or indeed being brave as I have no doubt such people are - what decides how good a journalist you are?
Well of course not; and I am not claiming that Humphrys is really making
that case.
And it is of course perfectly understandable that the journalistic community should feel a collective call to keep Johnstone's plight in the public eye. Although you have to ask - What do they think they're doing here..?
British union calls for boycott of Israeli goods
Unbiased press? My eye...but that's another post.
Back to John Humphrys...
...if he (or the BBC or the Sony Radio Academy Awards) wish to honour such bravery they would be better handing out "bravest journalist of the year" or some such.
But actually how much should anyone care about which awards some narcissistic group bestows on one another? Well, not much; but there are two wider points that flow from this.
The first is about the awards/honours "system" in general. It has been a constant source of amusement to me over the last few months to listen to the shock and/or horror expressed over the "
Cash for Honours" scandal stories. As if the honour system had suddenly changed from rewarding people who actually deserved it!
The entertainment industry has for years used its awards as a means of promotion...does anyone in their wildest imaginings really believe that "newcomer of the year" (or whatever) really represents the "best" or just the band that the Music Moguls think have the best chance of becoming the next cash cow?
Does anyone believe that the main recipients of Knighthoods and other honours are really those who have served their counties and fellow citizens rather than the latest group of party hacks who's turn has come up (whether with financial inducements or not).
Even the awards given to us plebs (what did Blair call them - "the people's awards", or some such) are too often laughable. Why do so many "lollipop ladies" get an MBE? After all they simply did their job...for money (admittedly not much money)...like how many millions of people?
Or headteachers...there's always headteachers...but the same question can be asked as for the lollipop ladies - except headteachers get vastly more more money of course.
And the list could go on...interpersed of course with genuine "heroes" who really did go beyond the call of duty...
The reason of course, is to keep us all in line. Put up with the crap that the world, the government, your employer, throw at you...be good, don't question and, at the end of it all, we may pat you on the head and you can pop along to see the Queen.
But the other wider question is about the place of merit in today's society.
Do we still believe in rewarding ability and hard work?...but that's for part two...
awards iraq Alan+Johnston bbc meritocracy press
