I completely understand why John Humphrys should find the Today programme lacking since he left (The hill I will die on: Radio 4’s Today programme has become really annoying since I left, 11 July). How could it be otherwise? But I am not convinced by his critique. In the latter days of his pomp, Mr Humphrys would regularly make me feel uncomfortable by his haranguing of interviewees – not always politicians – as if they were hostile witnesses.
I remember a particularly painful (for the listener) interview with a representative of a charity who was treated in that way, even though they were clearly on air to explain a problem, not to plead a cause. It wasn’t helpful. I like the mutual courtesies that Mr Humphrys derides. Of course, the interviewees are programme fodder, but someone had to be chosen, and it isn’t always easy to be heard in such a prestigious sphere. And why shouldn’t presenters and interviewees acknowledge this?
