Guarding radio's sacred flame: Gwyneth Williams in conversation with Gillian Reynolds

Watch the video of this event.

Meddle with the BBC, and you meddle with the psychology of a nation. Or, more specifically, should Radio 4 Controllers meddle with the fundamental cornerstones of the nation's best loved spoken word radio station, they will be told in no short shrift what listeners think of their decisions. If you have read the excellent potted history of the station, And Now on Radio 4, you will get a slightly more detached, yet sentimental view of this national treasure – much is written of the trials and tribulations faced by various controllers over the years. Radio 4 is, quite simply, the station with the most vocal and critical audience of any on the airwaves.

Continue reading

Catch me on the radio

Last Friday I completed a two-week stint of jury service at Southwark Crown Court, which was an interesting and fulfilling experience, although quite tiring at the same time.

I’ve already published some of my initial thoughts about the experience, which resulted in a phone call from a researcher on Radio 4’s Law in Action programme. On Saturday afternoon I found myself with another recent juror at Broadcasting House to take part in an interesting recorded discussion for the programme with Joshua Rozenberg. The programme was broadcast yesterday afternoon at 4pm. And although our ‘bit’ only covered about 10 minutes, we covered quite a lot of ground around the topic of juries and whether they’re prepared and equipped from their courtroom experience to make decisions which do, of course, affect many peoples’ lives.

Have you been a juror or had an interesting courtroom experience? As Rozenberg points out, it’s illegal under the Contempt of Court Act to discuss anything that happened in the deliberation room, but I invite you to listen again and comment below on what you think about our thoughts. I come in at about 20 minutes into the programme. The other voice you’ll hear is the fabulous Milly Hill. We could have gone on for hours had the studio not been needed for The Archers...

Alastair Stewart and the new theatre of TV politics



Alastair Stewart, moderator of the first ever UK General Election televised debate



“The TV debates were a tipping point in how we do politics” according to Alastair Stewart, who made history as moderator of Britain's first ever televised election debate between the three main party leaders. And having experienced in the flesh the effervescence of the man himself, I couldn't think of anyone better to do so.

For Gordon Brown, there was much to fear from a new spotlight on his persona. For David Cameron, it was a chance to prove his statesman credentials. Nick Clegg would be the new boy with the clean slate, railing against the 'Labservative' duopoly. They had everything to lose, and everything to gain. For the broadcasters, the debates were a long-awaited “alignment of the planets” as according to Ric Bailey, the BBC's political adviser, previous Prime Ministers had refused their rivals an equal footing.

It would have been easy to write off the debates as presidential. But for Stewart, they were a chance to revert to “old fashioned campaigning...when TV meets people who are trying to get your vote”. And it worked. Viewing figures compared favourably with, say a Friday night episode of Coronation Street, with the first debate watched by 9.6 million – and remaining consistently high for the Sky and BBC broadcasts.

The debates came at an opportune time for parties to get their message across when public trust in politicians was at an all-time low, in the wake of a damaging expenses scandal and an enormous budget deficit. Stewart reflected the overall feedback seen afterwards in the press, and throughout on social networking sites such as Twitter. Brown came across as “ill at-ease, and made no 'killer' points”. Cameron “hadn't a clue what he was doing”, but Clegg “shone from the outset, with a natural, compelling narrative”.

“The penny dropped in enormous numbers” as the public fell for Clegg's seemingly invincible message. Joint favourites of the 2010 General Election had been the Tories and 'change' – and the result fulfilled a general desire for a hung parliament. But as Stewart said, “the real impact didn't change the outcome” - but did confirm the perception of politics as presidential...the brutal ideological battles are now struggles of the past”.

In articulating party policy, those “three to four minutes of interplay were better than reading out verbatim statements on policy” and for Stewart, from that “brash, commercial channel”, prime time viewing figures were encouraging: “We got 10 million people to watch a TV show about politics – and I'm personally very proud of that.”

Stewart's perception of the debates was unsurprising. And, like Stewart, I'm only partially in agreement with Andrew Rawnsley in that the TV debates dominated to such an extent that they 'sucked the oxygen out of the rest of the campaign'. It could be the fault of the parties themselves, for not creating enough 'real' events. Arguably the only other exciting element of campaign in 2010 was Brown's infamous encounter with Gillian Duffy, which benefited Labour ultimately as they snatched the seat from the LibDems. Might the campaign have benefited from more unscripted encounters? Maybe. “Television has to reflect the tussle that's going on” said Stewart, and, what's more, “there were lots of local candidates who were not being covered by national TV. Local TV needs to work better.”

And, having delivered his script, in true TV style this seasoned pro shuffled his papers as if signing off from the evening bulletin. I half expected the lights to go down and a rousing theme tune to play him out...

Meddling with the psychology of a nation

"I woke up to a mental image of Moira Stewart standing outside the BBC shouting SCABSCABSCAB in Alan Dedicoat's face"

The good people of the BBC don't strike very often, but when they do, it's somewhat eerie. Turning on your television set on the morning of Friday 5 November, a day usually set aside for remembering a certain dramatic occasion in history, you may have been forgiven for thinking that a national emergency of some sort had just occurred. It hadn't of course, except that several thousand journalists working for BBC news outlets on television and radio and its website, from Humphrys and Paxman downwards, had refused to cross picket lines. The reason was a strike called by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in protest to the Beeb's management over pension reform.

It was said that, during the Cold War, when Radio 4's Today Programme stopped broadcasting, civilisation and society as we know it had ended, and it would be only safe to emerge from your deep level nuclear bunker or Protect and Survive inspired domestic shelter once the programme had started broadcasting again. In fact, as was reported yesterday, nuclear sub commanders supposedly watched for this as sign UK obliterated by nuclear strike. Listening to Radio Four at 7:45am yesterday, I kept expecting to hear a four minute warning and a stern, patrician voice telling me to 'STAY INDOORS', in the sort of imaginary post-apocalyptic way the wonderful Mitchell and Webb sketch so brilliantly parodied.

So, instead of the usual Today gang, we got an peaceful and easy going early morning documentary on birds and, as an extra special treat, like your mother letting you off doing your maths homework because it's your birthday, even Thought for the Day was forfeited. There just weren't any journalists around to 'make' the news. I doubt for one moment many of the big stars were actually on the picket lines, but I loved the spoof 'bbctvcentre' Twitter account, which gave us a running commentary of the comradely solidarity outside Television Centre: “Keep it up, my loves," trills Brucie. "I'll see you in the bar for a drink afterwards”. And the Guardian had its own take on the allegedly gaping void left by Today, with its own live blog 'covering' the same sort of stories that would normally be broadcast.

Did we miss our usual diet of news, current affairs, religious lectures and sport? No, I don't think so. As a friend of mine, who's worked in the centre of the government's media operation, said: “no disrespect to the NUJ strike at the Beeb, but I can't say I miss the Today programme on Radio 4. Tired format, self-important presenters”. And as Breakfast and Five Live carried on with a mix of stand-ins and skeleton staff, repeating old news and even drafting in senior executives, commentators reflected on the different tone set by the lack of BBC news coverage. “The world feels a calmer place” said Steve Richards from the Independent, as “news is determined less by what happens but availability of journalists and tone they take”. It seems maybe for the first time, that the Westminster village (and I put the media at large in that category), is beginning to doubt the quality of the BBC's output and a style of journalism and programming that could be putting self-serving inflated egos before audiences.

I don't doubt that the BBC needs a morning news magazine on radio, and a light and fluffy television breakfast show (which my boyfriend calls 'middle class live'), but I get the feeling that it's time to take a step back and take a proper look at what audiences actually want. The Today programme supposedly plays to a very important Westminster audience who would be aghast if anything were to change, but the BBC needs to remember its wider remit and bring its radio output up-to-date. BBC Breakfast is so twee I can't watch it, and only gets bigger audiences than 'the other side' because its new rival is so awful, and sets the standard of coverage at such an insulting low. News coverage needn't be dry or boring, nor insulting or patronising – it is possible to cover both current affairs, culture and 'lifestyle' issues without assuming your audience are either members of Mensa or can't even sit in a chair because they can barely function.

I'll be pleased when normal programming returns because I like to know what's going on in the world when I start my day. And I support the journalists' dispute, but that's a separate issue here. But a short break in normal service is a great opportunity to reflect on what could be – a sharper, more interesting and less 'personality' led style of broadcasting – which is genuinely led by professional journalism and not mythical audience whims.

Why this election might be won by the bloggers

Guardian blogger Dave Hill has been blogging about the various TV debates, including the most recent Question Time on BBC One.

The problem with the national TV debates has been that the producers have been desperately trying to make the Mayoral contest relevant to people all over the country. But, although the job of Mayor is a highly influential position, with potential hotlines to the Government and the many other perks of being a world-class city leader, it's genuinely not of any interest to the people of Aberystwyth or Aberdeen, Belfast or Bournemouth.

The same situation is apparent in the national press, although Joe Public arguably gets more opportunities to ignore the London coverage when flicking through their copy of the Daily Mail. Put the other way, it would be like people in London being forced to watch televised debates of the Kesgrave Parish Council by-elections every day for a month.

The two-way (at best three-way, if you count Brian Paddick) debates become inherently confrontational as the programmes have to simplify the issues, and broaden their appeal to justify their airtime. Both Johnson and Livingstone had to resort to getting a little nasty with each other on the ITV debate the other night, and even Paddick, often praised for his good nature, told Boris Johnson to "shut up" on Question Time. Not exactly the most Parliamentary of language, is it? Or perhaps a different set of rules applies for candidates who are not bound by the conventions of the House of Commons...

Perhaps that's why this election, more than any other, will be won by the bloggers and other media outlets where TV targets the wrong audiences, and does so in a way which patronises not only the electorate of London, but the poor souls in the provinces who have to be bored to death by our own local politics.