Gordon Brown's Painkiller 'Problem': Are Internet Rumors Fair Game?

It started out as an interview like any other. Gordon Brown -- the British prime minister -- agreed to take time out of the annual Labour Party conference in Brighton on Sunday to chat with one of the country's most renowned television journalists. But then things got ugly.

Halfway into the interview, The BBC's Andrew Marr asked Brown whether rumors circulating on the Internet about the prime minister's alleged dependence on prescription painkillers "to get him through" the stress of his job were true.

A shocked Brown replied: "No. I think this is the sort of questioning which is all too often entering the lexicon of British politics." He then went off on a long (and familiar) tangent about the injury he sustained while playing rugby as a teenager, which blinded him in one eye and severely damaged the other. But the smile he wore as he spoke was almost too painful to watch. (Rumors have also been circulating that Brown's eyesight is deteriorating.)

When the interview was over, the $#% hit the fan. The BBC received over 100 complaints from viewers. The Labour Party also lodged an informal complaint with the BBC and is considering whether to lodge a formal one. According to the government, this sort of question about the prime minister's personal (mental) health is completely out of bounds, largely because -- as Business Secretary Lord Mandelson put it -- the BBC is just recycling "smears and rumors" from right-wing Web sites.

Maybe I lived in America too long, but my first reaction was, so what else is new? Can anyone say "birthers"?

I mean, sure, I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. He's had a rough summer. And he's now fighting for his political life. This was not the kind of distraction he needed right now.

The BBC is also under the gun. The government is threatening to cut back its beloved "license fee" (the money the public pays in order to receive BBC television, radio and digital services). And just last week, an opposition party official accused the BBC of having an "innate liberal bias" and challenged it to hire more Conservative presenters.

But at the end of the day, what this whole controversy boils down to is what "counts" as a legitimate question in journalism. While the BBC may be the Grey Lady of Great Britain, I'm not sure that it's out of bounds for one of their presenters to ask a personal question about the prime minister's health -- mental or otherwise -- regardless of the source. (Marr alluded to the fact that the PM's mental health has also been the subject of speculation in Westminster Village.)

That's just . . . journalism.

The BBC also thinks so and is defending Marr.

Good for them.