How dare you ask the Prime Minister that question !@?

The quake could be felt around the media and far beyond. Andrew Marr, an astute BBC Political commentator cum journalist had asked the question of the British Prime Minister.

If you're American your likely reaction may be "..and yeah! You Brits are so sensitive".

There are some things, many indeed which the Brits curry or import to shore up their own media. Indeed the dawn of the TV News age and the BBC's decision to allow on screen reporters was prompted by the US Networks influencing UK domestic competition.

But this question, about the PM, particularly the condition about his health was a googly, what in Baseball you might call a breaking ball, and in case you're wondering "googly" came before "google".

But that's beside the point, the PM's expression tells he never saw it coming and when it did, the utter disdain is evident.

The question suggested by implication that was he was so severely handicapped that, and the follow up question would have been on its heels, shouldn't he step down as Prime Minister.

This was was a grenade with the pin smothered with chloric acid and its kaboomness and repercussions, not now, but way into the election run could be hugely unsettling.

Asking that Question
You've seen it before, a cunning attorney introduces a stray piece of evidence or pursues a course of questioning knowing full well the other side will object and the judge will overrule. But you can't ignore that the jury now privy to this info will find it hard to "strike off this comment".

And so it was and will be with PM Gordon Brown.

As a former Television Political Producer ironically working under the PM's brother Andrew Brown, I agree with Tim Montgomerie, from Conservative home, who said on BBC's PM, early evening News radio news programme:

"I do worry about this. I think there's been a decline generally in the standard of political journalism in Britain. There's an obsession with opinion polls, personality, obsession the new. There's not enough policy analysis; not enough interviewing of the kind politics would be enhanced by and what we had here was a rumour circulating on the blogosphere categorically denied by Downing Street in private being aired on the BBC's flagship programme.. and therefore giving the license to newspapers and others to put this story out there and give people the impression there's something wrong with Gordon Brown's mental health"

He also added, just in case you're thinking why in the rolling stones would a Tory be defending Labour that he (Tim) wasn't going to regret those who'd take a swing at the PM and that the sooner the PM left office, the better. There!

Mary Ann Sieghart, formerly of the Times, who now presents Newshour on the BBC World Service begged to differ. She was behind revelations that Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy's had a drinking problem, which would later lead to to his resignation.

Lord Owen, formerly leader of the Social Democrats has written a well received tomb about political failings attributed to ill health and the rest in: In Sickness and in Power: Illness in Heads of Government During the Last 100 Years reviewed here in the Guardian.

The Westminster Village
So what's off limit and what isn't?

In the village of Westminster, and corridors of traditional journalism, many a comment and innuendo remain behind closed doors, some of which are bound by Chatham House rules. I have been a member of Chatham House for fifteen years.

Others are hearsay, not worth the outing, some would damage any relationship with a source were it to become public. I like many journalists will have favourite dinner-time stories that stay in the kitchen.

The Westminster village Marr talks about is rife with rumours of one sort or another. Scallywag, a political satire mag alluded to something deeply unrepeatable about some politicians. I'm not going to say it either.

But at some point as a political journalist perhaps you look for new tools to play the game. Margaret Thatcher during her reign hated being asked questions by the public ergo the famous sinking of the Belgrano question.

And this new game, because in many ways the political jousting between interviewer and interviewee is that, looks to work outside the rules. MPs today have been trained to the teeth in obfuscation and parrying difficult questions, so journalist need to find new approaches, new skills, new questions.

In US politics, presidential hopefuls have everything scrutinised. As Sieghart said on PM even Reagan's rectum got the treatment. Apologies if you're eating.

But the rules of the blogosphere whilst not entirely new are unfolding. Hugh Hewitt in his brilliant book Blog - Understanding the information reformation changing the world gives a far better account than I could of how the nature of blogs undid a republican Trent Lott, and a news anchor Dan Rathers.


A new politcal turning point?
Yes the salvos were not based on rumours, so Marr is in a new league here. The league of ungentlemanly, when MPs knew a journalist would not break off and go rogue? Or a league that say now everything goes?

These are interesting times for the genie is damn if it's going to lie back down in that cold uncomfortable bottle and so with an election looming, look forward to the unexpected. It's going to be dirty, very dirty and the first salvo for how we become knowledgeable may just have been lobbed and it's a going to go kaboom for a very long time.

BBC's Sir Michael Lyons Interview on Andrew Marr

Fascinating interview with the BBC's Chairman of the Board of Trustees - the round table guardians of the BBC - in expectation of a crunch meeting this wednesday, when this global institution will learn its fate.

In the new economy, it will be smaller; a default from securing less money from the government.

Anyone, anyone, worth their salt in programming, broadcasting and net thingamajigees will be studying this outcome.

For its true that when the BBC sneezes collectively many institutions reach for a handkerchief.

It was a robust performance from the Chairman; what would you expect, but I disagree on one crucial point.

Sir Michael would rather BBC journalists, the top flight ones, not discuss the BBC's affairs in public. Servicemen and civil servants, even the private sector would possibly understand this.

To paraphrase Sir Michael, he wants that debate to happen internally and that it has an impact on the public's confidence when they hear what really should be an kept in house.

He's right!

Tust and some
But throughout the interview he emphasised the trust factor required of the public.

Those two issues rub. If you can't be honest and open with your spouse, how can I trust you darling.

The BBC has a marriage of millions, not just with its employees, but those who pay for it.

So I may choose not to engage as a shareholder, but I should, I believe, have the option of hearing what's being said; participating in the debate.

The perception I supppose is that there has not been enough. This is Labour's territory.

Go through the land with a rolling travelling show asking people what they think.

A good honest open frank discussion. Not a Mactaggert, though incisive as that is.

Not a yearly one-off public 'fess, but a chance to have your say.

Then, then, if you want to get on with your public policy. . .

You could argue programmes like Newsnight continually push that kind of debate. You might ask whether that's beeen enough?

Trouble is, and you only have to look at some of the BBC blogs to get an idea of some people whose idea of a contribution is to lob a cynical grenade into the fray.

Lots of collateral damage. Is it worth it?

Are the two ideals mutually exclusive?

"Jim we're going to have to let them say something".
"Yes but how efficient will it all be in the end"


The heart of the matter
At heart you sense a couple of things.

Of course any manager would prefer to manage its public face and also respect the mechanism of employer-employee trust.

That's why you won't hear google men and women speak anything but good tidings about their company.

For employees who often feel they're not being listened to, dropping tiddle bits of info to the press is a resort, before if anything you go nuclear and put your face to critical messages.

In physics as in good PR, any seasoned media practitioner will say: If persuasion fails, force is then applied. It's a negotiating position looking for your break point.

Moving on, the cuts will hurt, anyway you look at it, but it's also worth considering this: the BBC is a huge and brill institution. Channel 4 is a huge and brill institution. Channel 4 operates at least within its newsroom on a fraction of the news budget BBC uses.

That doesn't make it right to chop at the BBC, but it illustrates there is a working practice to be met, which will not tear the heart out of this august institution.

Often friends and colleagues muse over what could be done with a BBC blanket. I'm not suggesting IM6 Videojournalism is the norm for everyone, but it is cost efficient and works.

The debate about the BBC's future should be "extremely transparent". For, if anything, it the BBC benefits from hearing from people like you and the solutions you might have to offer.

Once, managing PR was acceptable, but the world has changed. A new open source dominates, where people want and demand to be part of a conversation. That does not amount to anarachy.

Take on board the lesson of how Linux - open souce software - became so mighty.

Trust, that very word is what governs an instiution I have been a member for 14 years, Chatham House, which created the Chatham House Rule.

So, it's possible to engage with people with reciprocal trust, with the effect that they will stay stuum. There's still a wad of things I won't talk about because of this.

If people do feel secure in their jobs, they'll tow the line - even within the army ranks. but it's an old tactic which we will never be rid of.

When you feel threatened, when change beckons, when an unknown future sits at odds with traditional ways, anything you say regarding the direction of a company that doens't look to feed it, will make people nervous.

Consider those who have been part of the structure for a good while; it is a second home, and its about to be, well, made smaller. Big Brother -who stays and who goes, except you don't decide

If it's not broke why fix it.

On the other hand if its's not broken, how do you know the underlying structure doesn't warrant a look and a bit of modernising.

Link here for David's work at the BBC in the early 90s and here for one of his news features for Channel 4 News.