It takes a sharp mind to question a Cabinet minister briskly, knowledgeably and aggressively at six o’clock in the morning. And it would be a peculiar sort of intellect that was up to this task but incapable of forming opininons of its own. It goes without saying that John Humphrys, the Today programme presenter, has views on the leading figures in Government. He is perfectly entitled to them, and it should not surprise his listeners that these views prove colourful, particularly when distilled to a few resonant phrases for the pleasure and entertainment of after-dinner audiences.

Humphrys is, moreover, equally entitled to address such audiences on whatever subject he chooses, whether it be the perceived tedium of interviewing the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the pleasures of observing rural pond life in his native Wales. For his own part, he should not feign surprise or indignation when his personal opinions become fodder for public debate, as they have since The Times’s publication on Saturday of his remarks to a gathering of public relations executives on board a cruise ship.

Like it or not — and on the whole he seems to like it — Humphrys is a public figure. His views are therefore a matter of legitimate interest. What they are not is a suitable subject for an exhaustive internal BBC inquiry. Michael Grade, the corporation’s Chairman, is said to have requested a full transcript of the cruise ship speech. He should read it, chuckle and move on: he has the more serious issue of institutional bias to confront, and on this score the BBC’s frontline presenters are far from blameless.

Neither Humphrys not Jeremy Paxman, his televisual counterpart, are hapless victims of bullies of the fourth estate. They are more used to being called bullies themselves, and are certainly not intellectual weaklings. They are backed by a public service broadcaster funded by taxpayers. Their hectoring style is most vividly deployed against those with whom they genuinely disagree, and in broadcasting style can disguise a good deal of substance. As one former editor of Today admits, bias in this medium is “a subtle creature”, conveyed by tone, nuance and grammar.

Narrative news programmes, such as Today, are far more vulnerable to presenters’ prejudices than the traditional news broadcast. Personality is both their strength and weakness; total objectivity is too much to expect, but the objective of objectivity remains crucial.

Humphrys has argued that the journalist’s chief responsibility is to challenge authority. This is necessary, and extremely easy. It is far harder for the journalist to ensure that his own views do not interfere with the presentation, and BBC presenters are all too often impatient with anything other than a soft-left world-view. Humphrys’ performance as an onboard entertainer should not be exploited by the Government to settle old scores, nor by Mr Grade to improve relations with the Government. But it might usefully prompt sober introspection by the BBC’s most senior journalists.