Today is Bad News for Everyone

A couple of weeks ago, a man from the Wall Street Journal telephoned me to ask, in tones of undisguised bewilderment, why everyone took the Today programme so seriously. "After all," he said, "it's just another radio news show." He was, of course, wrong. A radio news show Today undoubtedly is. But it is a radio news show with an attitude. And, whatever the Hutton inquiry decides about the conduct of Andrew Gilligan, its defence correspondent, the report will at least expose the flaw in Today's technique. It is obsessed with making news, not reporting it.

Thanks to Gilligan's determination to cut a dash, national attention has been diverted from the main issue of the day. That is a remarkable achievement for a news programme. Britain ought to be arguing about whether or not the war in Iraq was justified. Instead, the country spends its time examining the contents of Gilligan's notebook, the state of Dr Kelly's mind and the management policies of the Ministry of Defence.

To be more exact, most of the media are concentrating their energy on those absorbing topics. Whether or not the public is equally interested is a different matter. But all the evidence suggests that the general dissemination of information does not rank high on Today's list of priorities. Its declared purpose is to lead the news. Its admirers speak of it setting the news agenda for the day. Its determination to be mentioned on radio, television and in the newspapers would be more appropriate to an aspiring starlet than a serious news broadcast.

Today succeeds in its objective by always stimulating controversy and, wherever possible, arranging confrontation. The result is often about as informative as two cats fighting in a sack - not least because politicians, knowing the Today formula, have worked out defence mechanisms by withholding information. Last Thursday's discussion of A-level results illustrated what happens when conflict is the objective.

The A-level item began with the announcement by the admissions tutor at Brasenose College, Oxford, that the examination was a waste of time since it did not help the two ancient universities to identify the cleverest 5% of undergraduates. John Humphrys must have realised the irrelevance of that criticism. A-levels were not designed for the convenience of Oxford and Cambridge. They record the achievement of a level of excellence. And there is no reason in the world why, with every other standard rising, they should not show an improvement for 21 consecutive years. But the admissions tutor's arrogant nonsense had to be used to confront David Miliband, the schools minister.

Miliband, a clever man fallen among Blairites, responded with a clearly pre-prepared and homogenised reply. It was important not to spoil the pleasure of students who had received, that very morning, the news of their success. It was a day for rejoicing and, anyway, there was no evidence to support the accusation of "dumbing-down". I would have welcomed a more positive endorsement. But I do not blame Miliband. Ministers go on Today with guard up and chin tucked safely behind shoulder.

Today achieved its objective. Throughout the morning, BBC news bulletins repeated Miliband's pieties and attributed them to his early morning appearance on Today. No doubt that gave great pleasure to the staff of the programme. But, in terms of political enlightenment, it was about as much use as the shipping forecast. Insisting that every item must be an argument between presenter and guests, or a couple of carefully matched antagonists, has moved Today down to a specific niche in the market. Too often it chooses to entertain rather than inform.

Choose is the right word. For anyone who appears on Today knows that these days guests are often cross-examined before their participation is confirmed to make sure that they will come out fighting. The interviewer (pace Miliband and the admissions tutor) then sets them on each other like the promoter of a cockfight. If they are insufficiently abrasive, Jim Naughtie or John Humphrys is abrasive on their behalf.

Weak-minded listeners think that Today is speaking up for the people against the politicians. In fact, politicians hide their inadequacies behind the interviewer's overt aggression. Remember, Gilligan made possible Alastair Campbell's diversionary tactic that distracted attention from the argument about the need for war.

We have yet to learn how Lord Hutton judges that particular piece of reporting. But to reasonable people, one thing is clear. The discovery that some of the disarmament experts who advised the government had doubts about the justification for war was, in itself, a huge revelation. But Today wanted to turn it into a sensation. The result was trivialisation of a great moral issue. The search for sensation often has that result. If you doubt it, switch to Radio 4 early in the morning.