Andrew Marr - oh dear

The news that Andrew Marr has decided to become the first public figure to voluntarily admit previously trying to conceal his infidelity via a super-injunction/gagging order comes as no real surprise. I doubt that there were many people who if interested had not managed to discover who the male celebrity, previously only hinted at in news reports, was. Andrew Marr managed to impose a High Court injunction in January 2008 so as to suppress any reporting of a relationship with a fellow journalist five years earlier. At the time Andrew Marr believed he had fathered a child with the woman and so was making maintenance payments. A fairly recent DNA test showed that he was not in fact the girl's father. Private Eye has dropped heavy hints in the past, indeed the current issue continues that pattern, and I believe was planning to challenge the injunction.

Now Andrew Marr has made the odd comment that "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists"; but that is just what you did do Andrew.

However I am not really concerned by Andrew Marr's private life, his infidelity, his mistress or his love-child (or not). I am more concerned by the way that a former member of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory whilst at Cambridge University, a former self-confessed 'raving leftie' nicknamed 'Red Andy' and the current husband of the political journalist at the left-wing Guardian Jackie Ashley has become one of the chief political interviewers at the 'impartial' BBC.

Andrew Marr's infidelities and gagging orders are of no real interest to me but his blatant pro-Labour/anti-Conservative bias in interviews is. Here is what I wrote in June 2010:

'Here is the text of a complaint that I have just lodged at the BBC Trust's complaint's page re the bias shown by Andrew Marr in his interviews with the three main party leaders:

'... Andrew Marr's interview with Gordon Brown broke down between subjects thus:
Hung parliaments, campaign, the Queen - 12m 18s (48.5%)
Immigration - 5m 21s (21%)
Bankers - 3m 11s (12.5%)
Ash cloud - 2m 40s (10.5%)
Afghanistan - 1m 56s (7.5%)
Cuts, deficit - 0 m 0s (0%)

Andrew Marr's interview with Nick Clegg broke down between subjects thus:
Hung parliaments, Clegg personally - 11m 7s (49.7%)
Immigration - 7m 32s (33.7%)
Trident - 3m 42s (16.6%)
Cuts, deficit - 0m os (0%)

Andrew Marr's interview with David Cameron broke down between subjects thus:
Cuts, deficit - 15m 26s (67%)
Priorities - 3m 20s (14.5%)
Hung parliament, campaign - 3 m 0s (13%)
Living Wage - 1m 18s (5.5%)


So Andrew Marr spent 2/3 of the whole interview discussing with David Cameron a subject that he chose not to raise with Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown at all. If the subject of 'cuts' was so important as to warrant 2/3 of the interview with David Cameron, why was it not important enough to raise with Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg? Does Andrew Marr believe that only the Conservatives will make cuts or is that just the perception he would like to leave viewers with?


Andrew Marr's position as one of the BBC's lead interviewer is compromised by such blatant bias; what action will the BBC Trust take against him now that you have proof of his anti-Conservative bias?


The percentages are sourced from http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-on-marr.html - If you disagree with the figures, do please correct them.'

You can read about the BBC's response and my response to that here.

Anyway now that Andrew Marr has decided to come clean about his personal life do you think he will do the same about his political bias?