Andrew Marr v Boris Johnson was a dire day for journalism

In his quest to look smarter than Boris, Marr abandoned the usual rules of interviewing

Boris Johnson and Andrew Marr in a heated debate on the Andrew Marr Show, Sunday 6 March 2016 (BBC)

Mark Twain said “familiarity breeds contempt”. Never is this more evident than in the current dire state of the EU Brexit debate.

Actually, what familiarity breeds in contemporary British society is a corrosive chumminess, where objectivity is lost to the detriment of those not in “the club”. You see it all the time between the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London, and also political journalists. It was all too evident as the phone-hacking investigations revealed the extent of their private dealings. Rarely has there been a better example than Boris Johnson on The Andrew Marr Show this weekend.

Marr abandoned the usual rules of interviewing, most notably the one that says let the interviewee answer a question, in his quest to prove himself cleverer than Boris. Meanwhile, Boris did what Boris does: waffle on without anyone really knowing what he is actually saying.

It scarcely matters because to these two high-profile, powerful, extremely well-paid men this was the type of peer group willy-waving contest that has been going on for most of their lives. This felt more like debating class at Loretto School or Eton. Only, at school they would have been taught to have more respect for the opponent’s views.

No matter. This one-upmanship between two men who have known each other for years was safely taking place within the Westminster bubble. The sad episode did not show “Marr putting Boris in his place”, but rather losing control of his own show and forgetting a public seeking illumination. Both will chuckle over their little scrap at some cocktail party soon. No-one will focus on their respective dereliction of duties.

We need politicians and journalists to distance themselves from each other more, both in private and public. No more cosy kitchen suppers. Perhaps the journalists should rotate and be less famous. The alternative is clear: familiarity breeds not only contempt, but impotence.