My Final Stand: Why Radio 4’s Today Programme Drives Me Mad
A Listener’s Perspective After Seven Years Away
The hill I will die – It has been seven full years since I hung up my microphone as a presenter on the Today programme and attempted to embrace life as a casual listener. My initial ambition was to switch to Radio 3 entirely. That strategy lasted precisely one hour on the very first day. By the time the second day dawned, I had completely abandoned the experiment. Perhaps this outcome was entirely predictable. After dedicating sixty-one years to journalism—more than half of those decades anchoring the same broadcast—I simply could not erase the programme from my consciousness and begin afresh.
What naturally happens, at least in my particular case, is that you transform into something of a “new” listener. If I were currently serving as Today’s editor, I might describe this new version of myself as a “pain in the arse.” For thirty-three years, I was the voice on the airwaves, occasionally irritating the audience while informing them. Now, I am the person shouting at my radio, complaining about how increasingly grating the programme has become.
The Irritation Quotient
The complaints are not primarily about the substantial news content. The three main presenters remain as excellent as ever. Rather, it is the manner of communication that challenges my intelligence. In my new listener mode, I have come to believe that IQ stands for “irritation quotient.” This frustration stems largely from how the presenters talk to one another and to their guests.
Consider Amol Rajan’s persistent habit of emphasizing every definite and indefinite article in any sentence he speaks. In his universe, a bomb has exploded in “THE” palace of Westminster, and he will make certain you notice the article. I apologize if you have never observed this, but if you have not, I suspect you will now.
Another source of irritation is the gratuitous gratitude exchanged between hosts and guests. It is becoming increasingly rare to encounter a guest who does not feel compelled to curry favour with their interviewer. “Thank you SO much for inviting me on!” has evolved into standard protocol. The appropriate response, in my view, should be: “On the contrary. Without someone to interview there’d be no programme.” Instead, we witness a gushing contest between host and guest.
Y’know and I Mean
Then there is the phenomenon of presenters occasionally pausing to chat with each other about the significance—or lack thereof—of an interview one of them has just completed. Discerning listeners may have noticed that even some of the presenters appear to find this deeply uncomfortable. Yet they do it anyway. They do not do it half as much as they annoy those of us who believe Today listeners are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions. That is precisely why they are Today listeners.
And I mean … y’know … it has become the most successful news programme in the history of radio broadcasting for a very good reason, y’know? What I do know is that you, discerning Guardian reader, may well feel your teeth grinding when a contributor or, God forbid, even the occasional presenter or correspondent finds it a real challenge to get through an interview without … “y’know …” probably followed by “I mean …” Otiose? Almost always. Irritating? Profoundly.
Would I Really Die on This Hill?
But would I really die on this hill? Possibly not. Then again … y’know? And if the big bosses persist in cutting its budget so it sometimes has to use last night’s TV news report and becomes less “Today” and more “Yesterday” – then Radio 3, here I come!
PS Grammar pedant that I am, this is not the hill I will die on; it is the hill on which I will die.
But it has survived (more or less) the BBC cuts, so let’s hope. I mean regular listeners might struggle without it. Y’know … ?
John Humphrys presents The Odd Couple podcast with Matthew Norman
