When Did Openly Attacking Politicians Start?

[PeterRS]

Friends and I were discussing this over dinner earlier in the week. In our much younger days, politicians in the UK, especially more senior ones, would be treated with a deference that today would be described as toadyism, the act of flattering and taking answers as fact whether they were or not. The media in the UK treated virtually as fact Prime Minister Harold Wilson's 1967 comment on the devaluation of sterling when he said words to the effect, "There will be no change to the pound in your pocket." It was blatently untrue but he was never drawn on expanding that statement.

Nowadays, the media can say almost what they like about polliticians, their programmes and their statements. often braying like a kennel of rabid dogs for a comment. It is then analysed relentlessly for its honesty of more frequently its lies. Can anyone imagine Winston Churchill or Eisenhower being treated in such a fashion?

It brought to mind an excellent play I saw at London's National Theatre nearly 20 years ago. The Reporter by Nicholas Wright delved into the life and times of one of British television's finest reporters. Tall, slim, aggressively handsome, James Mossman spent three years working for the BBC's flagshp news and current affairs programme Panorama in the early-1960s. During this time he was assigned to overseas duties and his filmed reports on a variety of wars and conflicts were praised for being balanced and factual.

Burned out after continually having to pack bags at the last minute, Mossman asked to be relieved of the overseas duties and brought back into the studio. The BBC mandarins agreed. It was around this time that the revered presenter of Panorama Richard Dimbleby (a figure whom Brits trusted as much as the Americans had Edward R. Murrow in his despatches during WWII) was dying of cancer. Who was to succeed him was a subject of much debate. Mossman was one of the favoured candidates. Until, that is, what was to  become an infamous live interview with Harold Wilson. Mossman had been in Vietnam several times and loathed what he was witnessing. For whatever reason, he jumped over the bounds of conventionality and attacked Wilson on the war. I have a copy of the play here. The dialogue starts gently enough but it is lengthy. The main thrust is this - 

JM: "Do you deplore war?"

HW: "Yes I do. I deplore all wars. They're horrible."

JM: "The why are we supporting the Americans?"

HW: "We oppose the advance of communism wherever it approaches the free world. That's why we have a moral responsibility to support the Americans . . . why we maintain a robust military presence East of Suez."

JM: "Though not in Vietnam itself?  . . .Do you have any plans to send British troops to Vietnam?"

HW: "No, we do not."

JM: "But as a show of support, they might be very welcome, isn't that so?"

After some more to and fro, Mossman came to the nub of his questioning.

JM: " . . . may I suggest that our support for America isn't based on morality at all, but on expedience? You spoke earlier of an economic downturn. Wouldn't that downturn spiral into chaos if the Americans withdrew their support for the British economy? Don't we have to support them whether we like it or not? Why can't you admit that?"

HW: "Because it isn't the case."

JM: "So your support is based on pure morality?"

HW: "Yes it is."

JM: "And you expect us to believe that?" 

At that point, the guest presenter attempted to step in but Mossman had the last word.

JM: "But if one is burning to death under a layer of napalm, one's not going to be very happy about being told that's it's all for the sake of free choice and democracy. Where do we stand in relation to the killing? . . .Isn't it morally more appropriate to deplore the killing on the side you claim to have influence? That's if you have any influence? Or else to admit that you're supporting a war that you know to  be immoral and foolish out of sheer abject subservience to the United States?"

Wilson immediately gave up and stormed out of the studio. From that point on, there was never any chance of Mossman taking over from Dimbleby. The BBC needed the government since it depended financially on a licence from those owning TV sets. Mossman was demoted and eventually - and miserably - took over an arts programme.The new presenter was brought over from the competing ITV channel, Robin Day.

Although this post (as usual!) is long, I think it is of interest not merely for the subject matter but for the fact that Mossman was gay at a time when it was still illegal in England. After his professional broadcasting life suffered, for a short time he was happy.  He had met a young Canadian and they set up house in the Norfolk countryside. Mossman finally felt that life was important once again. Did he know his Canadian lover was a drug addict? He died of an overdose just two years later. Mossman tried to go on, but for him it was the last straw. He committed suicide in 1971 aged 45. He left a note.

"I can't bear it any more, though I don't know what 'it' is."

Photo: BBC News

[Keithambrose]

On 10/4/2025 at 5:44 AM, PeterRS said:

Friends and I were discussing this over dinner earlier in the week. In our much younger days, politicians in the UK, especially more senior ones, would be treated with a deference that today would be described as toadyism, the act of flattering and taking answers as fact whether they were or not. The media in the UK treated virtually as fact Prime Minister Harold Wilson's 1967 comment on the devaluation of sterling when he said words to the effect, "There will be no change to the pound in your pocket." It was blatently untrue but he was never drawn on expanding that statement.

Nowadays, the media can say almost what they like about polliticians, their programmes and their statements. often braying like a kennel of rabid dogs for a comment. It is then analysed relentlessly for its honesty of more frequently its lies. Can anyone imagine Winston Churchill or Eisenhower being treated in such a fashion?

It brought to mind an excellent play I saw at London's National Theatre nearly 20 years ago. The Reporter by Nicholas Wright delved into the life and times of one of British television's finest reporters. Tall, slim, aggressively handsome, James Mossman spent three years working for the BBC's flagshp news and current affairs programme Panorama in the early-1960s. During this time he was assigned to overseas duties and his filmed reports on a variety of wars and conflicts were praised for being balanced and factual.

Burned out after continually having to pack bags at the last minute, Mossman asked to be relieved of the overseas duties and brought back into the studio. The BBC mandarins agreed. It was around this time that the revered presenter of Panorama Richard Dimbleby (a figure whom Brits trusted as much as the Americans had Edward R. Murrow in his despatches during WWII) was dying of cancer. Who was to succeed him was a subject of much debate. Mossman was one of the favoured candidates. Until, that is, what was to  become an infamous live interview with Harold Wilson. Mossman had been in Vietnam several times and loathed what he was witnessing. For whatever reason, he jumped over the bounds of conventionality and attacked Wilson on the war. I have a copy of the play here. The dialogue starts gently enough but it is lengthy. The main thrust is this - 

JM: "Do you deplore war?"

HW: "Yes I do. I deplore all wars. They're horrible."

JM: "The why are we supporting the Americans?"

HW: "We oppose the advance of communism wherever it approaches the free world. That's why we have a moral responsibility to support the Americans . . . why we maintain a robust military presence East of Suez."

JM: "Though not in Vietnam itself?  . . .Do you have any plans to send British troops to Vietnam?"

HW: "No, we do not."

JM: "But as a show of support, they might be very welcome, isn't that so?"

After some more to and fro, Mossman came to the nub of his questioning.

JM: " . . . may I suggest that our support for America isn't based on morality at all, but on expedience? You spoke earlier of an economic downturn. Wouldn't that downturn spiral into chaos if the Americans withdrew their support for the British economy? Don't we have to support them whether we like it or not? Why can't you admit that?"

HW: "Because it isn't the case."

JM: "So your support is based on pure morality?"

HW: "Yes it is."

JM: "And you expect us to believe that?" 

At that point, the guest presenter attempted to step in but Mossman had the last word.

JM: "But if one is burning to death under a layer of napalm, one's not going to be very happy about being told that's it's all for the sake of free choice and democracy. Where do we stand in relation to the killing? . . .Isn't it morally more appropriate to deplore the killing on the side you claim to have influence? That's if you have any influence? Or else to admit that you're supporting a war that you know to  be immoral and foolish out of sheer abject subservience to the United States?"

Wilson immediately gave up and stormed out of the studio. From that point on, there was never any chance of Mossman taking over from Dimbleby. The BBC needed the government since it depended financially on a licence from those owning TV sets. Mossman was demoted and eventually - and miserably - took over an arts programme.The new presenter was brought over from the competing ITV channel, Robin Day.

Although this post (as usual!) is long, I think it is of interest not merely for the subject matter but for the fact that Mossman was gay at a time when it was still illegal in England. After his professional broadcasting life suffered, for a short time he was happy.  He had met a young Canadian and they set up house in the Norfolk countryside. Mossman finally felt that life was important once again. Did he know his Canadian lover was a drug addict? He died of an overdose just two years later. Mossman tried to go on, but for him it was the last straw. He committed suicide in 1971 aged 45. He left a note.

"I can't bear it any more, though I don't know what 'it' is."

Photo: BBC News

The new presenter was brought over from the competing ITV channel, Robin Day.

 

Interestingly, Day quickly gained a reputation for aggressive interviewing. 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, Keithambrose said:

The new presenter was brought over from the competing ITV channel, Robin Day.

Interestingly, Day quickly gained a reputation for aggressive interviewing. 

I mentioned in my post that Robin Day had come over to the BBC from ITV. As you say, although it took a while, he became a much more probing interviewer. That said, I think Mossman's character would not have worked in the role. He was a marvellous foreign correspondent but I think unsuited to regular studio work. And that had nothing to do with his being gay.  

[PeterRS]

Mossman's death was obviously tragic. I cannot help comparing his suicide note with that of Hong Kong's mega-star Leslie Cheung. Hugely talented as an actor and singer with two fabulous movies to his credit Farewell My Concubine and Happy Together, very few were aware that he was suffereing from chronic depression. He committed suicide at almost the same age as Mossman - he was 46 - and wrote just before jumping to his death from the top of Hong Kong's Mandarin Hotel a very similar note -

“I can’t stand it anymore . . . In my life I have done nothing bad. Why does it have to be like this?”

 

 

[jimmie50]

I cannot speak about such attacks in the UK, but as far as the US goes it has existed for a very long time.  While the methods and level of intensity has changed in large part because of technology and social media, such attacks can be traced back to the earliest days of this country…even with some of the founding fathers.  Partisan newspapers were established during the presidency of George Washington for the express purpose of criticizing the administrations policies, as well as Washington’s character.  A journalist hired by Thomas Jefferson’s supporters attacked John Adams, who in turn hired a journalist to attack Jefferson.  This was in the 1800 election.  As president, John Adams and his Federalist Party passed the Sedition Act to stifle criticism, making it a crime to publish false, scandalous and malicious comments about the government.  With all of the false accusations fake news that can be found online these days, I almost wish we had such a law on the books now.  lol.  Anyway, the law was eventually overturned but gives a perfect example in this country about how long the practice has been in existence.  The first known attack ads in on-screen format appeared in the 1934 California governor’s race. We certainly cannot forget the dark days of McCarthy’s accusations of disloyalty and communist ties that ruined many careers and personal attacks became more vicious.  Does this sound familiar to anyone else?  Certainly seems like someone else is following the same playbook these days.  Unfortunately, along with this increase in vocal attacks has come an increase in violence and physical threats.  I fear this will be the norm at least for the next 3.5 years…if we survive that long.

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

We certainly cannot forget the dark days of McCarthy’s accusations of disloyalty and communist ties that ruined many careers and personal attacks became more vicious.  Does this sound familiar to anyone else?  Certainly seems like someone else is following the same playbook these days.  Unfortunately, along with this increase in vocal attacks has come an increase in violence and physical threats.  I fear this will be the norm at least for the next 3.5 years…if we survive that long.

Verbal duelling sometimes including lies had been part and parcel of British parliamentary life since the 17th century. As time progressed, personal insults where parliamentarians criticised fellow members using certain words and phrases, especially those including some degree of jocularity, were accepted. Only when an untruth was alleged and challenged, could the Speaker intervene and eject him from of the chamber. If proven untrue, the member was expected to resign. I assume much the same is true today. However, even lies cannot be taken to law since if spoken in the House as MPs are covered by Parliamentary Privilege. On the other hand, if an MP lies about and slanders those whom they accuse of some crime or abuse of the system outsde the House, they can be prosecuted in court. The media used to be very sensitive about parliamentary reporting such acts, but much less so today.

This continues even though to the outside observer the House of Commons can sometimes appear like a bear pit, especially during Prime Minister's Question Time when, unlike in the US Houses of Congress, prepared speeches are far less usual.

This all brings up a key question of: when is a lie a lie? The fact is whether we like it or not deception in public life is rife. So how would you solve it? The fact is that declining trust in politics and politicians is directly linked to failures of integrity and a perceived lack of accountability. Strengthening accountability systems, improving the transparency of how decisions are made, and how politicians are held to account could be an important response to this. But surely that is never going to happen. There are so many examples it is hard to pick just one or two. Did Clinton lie when he said he "never had sexual relations with that woman"? Although seemingly obvious, you can actually argue that two ways! 

Recently a British MP Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, said she had never accepted free clothes from a donor. "I haven't and I wouldn't." When it was proved that she had received such a loan from a luxury clothing brand, she merely gave it back to the donor so that it, too, then became a loan. How do we define words and their precise meanings?

@jimmie50 mentioned the McCarthy hearings which has appeared in a number of threads recently. And as also mentioned we have to remember that one of the legal counsels at some of those hearings was the frightful - and frightening - closet gay Roy Cohn. He became the chief mentor to Donald Trump. Almost everything Trump now does comes directly from the Cohn playbook!