Radio
Ask the right questions
Michael Vestey
In the closing weeks of the year I have been struck more than usual by the irritat- ing sloppiness of so many radio presenters and interviewers. On subjects such as the US presidential election, the Nice summit, unproven global warming, William Hague's call for more policing in London and the government's proposed punish- ments for minor motoring offences, the tone of questioning has been largely one of political correctness and the liberal-left consensus.
In a subtle way the impression was given on several news and current affairs pro- grammes that somehow certain votes in Florida hadn't been counted when in fact they hadn't been recounted. Similarly, many radio interviewers happily swallowed and left unchallenged the Democrat and American media claim that George W. Bush was a half-witted Texan; you could hear the laughter in their voices when they were discussing him with the usual biased American media pundits.
It's true that Bush might be weak on for- eign affairs but it's a simple matter to brush up on these matters and he has between now and the inauguration to get up to speed; in any case, there's no mystery to foreign affairs. Nor does he have the instinctive ability of Al Gore and Bill Clin- ton to lie smoothly and brazenly or the lat- ter's remarkable thespian talents. He does seem, not surprisingly, to be a trifle uncer- tain but that too will fade in office. But the BBC has drip-fed us this myth about Bush and will no doubt continue to do so.
Listening to the radio coverage of Hague's call for more policing in Peckham and elsewhere and Labour's rattled and desperate accusation that he was playing the race card I also began to feel that inter- viewers were taking this nonsense as read. I didn't hear anyone ask if more policing in inner-city areas might benefit law abiding minorities as well, which, of course, it would. It was pretty much the same with the new draconian motoring fines and imprisonments. No interviewer whom I heard questioned the need for these absurdly disproportionate punishments or suggested that the government urge the police to concentrate more on real crime than moments of inattention on the roads.
I have touched on this theme before but independence of thought and proper devil's advocacy on the radio is becoming a lost art. Many of these interviewers seem genuinely baffled that not everyone shares their centre-left perspective. Some presen- ters do stand out for their multi-faceted interviewing: Nick Clarke on the World at One, despite having a shortened pro- gramme; Peter Allen on Drive, Radio Five Live's excellent three-hour afternoon show, approaches interviews from other perspec- tives, and Nicky Campbell on Five Live in the mornings, despite failing occasionally to disguise his own Labourish sympathies. But he will tackle an interview from all sides and is helped by having more time in which to do it.
The most outstanding interviewer is, of course, Andrew Neil whose mysterious departure from Five Live's Sunday break- fast programme I have referred to in previ- ous issues. His last programme was on 17 December and he bade a barbed farewell, declaring that against the downward trend of the station's audience figures his show had actually increased listeners. 'We were not the weakest link,' he said, defiantly. From what I've seen of the official figures from June to September he appears to be right. I've been brooding on the letter from the controller of Five Live Bob Shennan that appeared in The Spectator on 2 December to the effect that weekend breakfast shows 'attract about half the number of listeners that regularly tune into our weekday programmes'.
He's making a false comparison as the RAJAR listening figures tell a different story about early morning programmes. From June to September the Monday to Friday breakfast share of the audience was 3.8 per cent; Neil's by contrast was almost 30 per cent higher at 4.9 per cent, the high- est of any news programme on the net- work. One would normally expect the weekday figures to be greater because more people are up and about but they were lower than Neil's Sunday spot. The principal reason for this was the calibre of the presenter.
His main replacement appears to be Bill Turnbull, an able enough broadcaster, but no one will wake up on a Sunday morning and cry with a sense of anticipation, Turn- bull's on!' Perhaps it was Neil's very un- BBC manner that appealed. More likely, we will doze on and listen to the cranky Broadcasting House at nine on Radio Four, even if it does often sound like a Fabian Society meeting one has stumbled into.
So as we enter the New Year and a gru- elling run-up to the next election we need to remind broadcasters to put aside their own distaste and ask questions that reflect all their listeners' views.
Previous page
