Powered by Google

Barry: Fair questions or an unhealthy obsession?

IN the 1950s when television was in its infancy, interviewers would ask the leader of the country: “Prime Minister, is there anything you would like to share with us?’’

We live in considerably less deferent times, so perhaps it should be no surprise to hear the BBC’s top political interviewer, Andrew Marr, asking Gordon Brown if he takes prescription painkillers.

It’s a widely circulated rumour – I read it in a respectable national newspaper a few weeks ago – and it’s something which the Prime Minister emphatically denied when Mr Marr asked him on Sunday.

Anyone with a hint of humanity will feel awkward watching that clip as the interviewer enquires about something which would normally be considered private.

When asked about painkillers, Mr Brown would have been quite within his rights to reply that his medical affairs were no business of Mr Marr’s. But that kind of answer would have done nothing to squash the rumours.

So the Prime Minister answered the question head-on and denied that he is taking painkillers. In case there are any lawyers reading this, let me just say that there’s no reason to doubt this is the truth.

But it does raise the interesting question of how much we deserve to know about a politician’s private life.

In America, presidential candidates are expected to open their medical records up to the prying eyes of Joe Public to demonstrate they are mentally and physically healthy enough to be trusted with the little red button.

But in this country there is no such tradition. A Prime Minister’s health is considered their own business unless it deteriorates so much that they are unable to do their job. And, should this happen, the politician in question will likely be persuaded by their healthier cabinet colleagues that it’s time to go.

But where does that leave journalists? What are the lines we should not cross?

I’ve faced this problem myself when it comes to the soon-to-retire Colne Valley MP Kali Mountford.

Share