Mair

Certain broadcasters become brands, Humphries, Paxman, Dimbleby, and Whicker. By fair means or foul the best of them get information out of their subjects. No-one who saw it is likely to forget Jeremy Paxman's repeated asking of the same question to Michael Howard (back in the Jurassic period when Tories could form a government) which revealed far more about that particular reptile than would an answer to the question. John Humphries of course is at his best when lightly roasting any politician brave or foolish enough to attend for the 8:10 interview on the 'Today' programme.
Well I'd like to add my praise for another of these.
The incomparable Eddie Mair.
I first came across him one Sunday morning years ago when I discovered 'Broadcasting House' He was irreverent but never silly or lightweight and was capable of a marvellous turn of phrase. When he left BH (and I'm sorry to Fi and Paddy but it's never been half as good since) I was delighted to find him on PM. His style is sort of a cross between Alan Whicker, Louis Theroux and Robert Carlyle's character 'Begbie' in' 'Trainspotting'. You know what I mean; he goes into an interview with his gentle tones and his air of wide eyed interest. Sometimes I swear you can hear his interviewees purring as the questions wash over them and they can trot out their prepared text. Then, like Begbie at the bar, Mair strikes. The other night on PM he had some junior minister on talking about the railways. I'll confess it was washing over me too leaving nothing memorable behind. I was aware that the minister was talking at some length, an answer packed with statistics and bullshit. He paused and you could imagine him high fiving his spin doctor. Then Eddie, in his best modulated tones said. 'What does that mean?' with a slight emphasis on the last word.
The pause that followed reeked of sudden panic, bowel-stirring shock as if he had just been glassed in a pub. When he regained his composure the ministerette's answer was broken and so was any credibility he might have had. On reflection, perhaps glassing is not the right analogy. Mair is more subtle, a stiletto perhaps.
It's not just on the attack that the approach works either. Just today (March 3rd) Mr. Mair was presenting 'Cleaning up the camp’ a programme about the Service's attitude to homosexuality. He interviewed a guy who had been drummed out of the Parachute Regiment in the eighties after a long and unblemished career as a bandmaster. His offence was that he was a homosexual. He described how during his interrogation he was told by the provosts that he must have slept with his dog and his two brothers if he was gay. Dreadful stuff. At the end of the show after the 'happy ending' of the change in the law had been described Mair spoke to the man again. He described how he sat and wept after he had lost his career. Mair asked him, with his trademark simplicity,
'What were you crying for?'
The pause that followed that was eloquent indeed. The man genuinely had to think, there wasn't a knee-jerk answer. The pause spoke of the loss of more than a career for, as the other contributors had said, the Services aren't just a job but rather a life choice. Even those treated appallingly had no rancour for the service itself just the outdated and prejudiced rules that applied.
All that was expressed in the pause and the pause came because Mr. Mair asked a simple question.
Now that’s worth the license fee.