The topic for a broadcast debate should be a matter in which there is genuine public interest or concern. The aim is for the listener to hear argument and counter-argument expressed in conversational form by people actually holding those views with conviction. The broadcaster can then remain independent.
At its simplest, there will be two speakers representing opposing views together with an impartial chairman or host. The producer may of course decide that such an arrangement would not do justice to the subject, that it is not as clear-cut as the bi-directional discussion will allow and it might therefore be better to include a range of views – the ‘multi-faceted’ discussion.
In this respect the ‘blindness’ of radio imposes its own limitations and four or five speakers should be regarded as the maximum. Even then it is preferable that there is a mix of audibly different voices – male and female.
Under the heading of the discussion programme should also come what is often referred to as ‘the chat show’. Here, a well-known radio personality introduces one or more guests and talks with them. It may incorrectly be described as an interview but since ‘personalities’ have views of their own which they are generally only too ready to express, the result is likely to be a discussion. The ‘chairman plus one at a time’ formula can be a satisfactory approach to a discussion, particularly with the more lightweight entertainment, the non-current affairs type of subjects. It works less well in the controversial, political, current affairs field since it is more difficult for the chairman to remain neutral as part of the discussion. In any case the danger for the broadcaster is that in order to draw out the guest contributor, it is necessary always to act as devil’s advocate – the ‘opposition’ – and so become identified as ‘anti-everything’. In such cases the more acceptable format is that of the interview. It’s important for listeners and broadcasters to draw a clear distinction between an interview and a discussion. Having talked individually with each guest in turn, they can then talk together with the chairman as intermediary.
Figure 12.1 A studio discussion table with script, cue and information screens for the presenter, a mic and headphones for each contributor, a cue light and reverse talkback (Courtesy of BBC News)
A very acceptable format is where questions are put – possibly from an audience – to a panel of speakers representing different political parties or specialist interests. Such ‘Any Questions?’ programmes will have a sharper edge by being topical and broadcast live.
Do all participants start equal? A discussion tends to favour the articulate and well-organised. The chairman may have to create opportunities for others to make their case. It is possible, of course, to ‘weight’ a discussion so that it is favourable to a particular point of view, but since the listener must be able to come to a conclusion by hearing different views adequately expressed, the producer should look for balance – of ability as well as opinion. Often there are, on the one hand, the ‘official spokesmen’, and, on the other, the good broadcasters! Sometimes they combine in the same person but not everyone, in the circumstances of the broadcast debate, is quick thinking, articulate and convincing – however worthy they might be in other respects. In selecting the spokesperson for one political party it is virtually obligatory also to include their ‘shadow’ opposite number – whatever the quality of their radio performance.
Figure 12.2 A talks discussion table for studio use. The table has three legs to reduce obstruction and stop it wobbling on an uneven floor. 1. Headphone jack carrying a programme feed with or without additional talkback. 2. Centre hole to take a mic, either on a special carrier or on a floor stand. 3. Acoustically transparent top consisting of a loose-weave cloth surface, a layer of padding (4) and a steel mesh base (5) (Courtesy of the BBC)
There will obviously be times when it is necessary to choose the leader of the party, the council member, the chief executive of the company or the official PR person; but there will also be occasions when the choice is more open to the broadcaster, and in the multi-faceted discussion it is important to include as diverse a range of interests as is appropriate.
In general terms these can be summarised as: power holders and decision makers, legal representation and ‘watch-dog’ organisations, producers of goods and services, and consumers of goods and services. These categories will apply whether the issue is the flooding of a valley for a proposed hydro-electric scheme, a change in the abortion law or an increase in the price of food.
Listeners should also be regarded as participants and the topic should at least be one that involves them. If listeners are directly affected they can be invited to take part ‘live’ and ‘now’, or in a follow-up programme by phone, text, email or social media. In the event of a public meeting on the subject it may be that the broadcaster arranges to cover it with an outside broadcast.
Having selected the topic and the team, the programme will need someone to chair the discussion. The ideal is knowledgeable, firm, sensitive, quick thinking, neutral but challenging, and courteous. He or she will be interested in almost everything and will need a sense of humour – no mean task!
Once this paragon of human virtue, who also possesses a good radio voice and an acute sense of timing, has been obtained, there are several points that need attention before the broadcast. One of these is to decide what to call the chairperson – some people object to being called simply ‘chair’. Here the term ‘chairman’ is used to include both men and women. The problem is solved by using the term ‘host’.
The subject must be researched and the essential background information gathered and checked. Appropriate reference material may be found in libraries, files of newspaper cuttings, on the Internet and in the radio station’s own newsroom. The chairman must have the facts to hand and have a note of the views already expressed so as to have a complete understanding of the points of controversy. A basic ‘plot’ of the discussion is then prepared, outlining the main areas to be covered. This is in no sense a script; it is a reminder of the essential issues in case they should get sidetracked in the debate.
Figure 12.3 Stages in producing a discussion programme. Select the topic – research the information – choose the participants – coordinate the contributors – broadcast the programme – deal with the response – evaluate the possibility of follow-up
It is important that the speakers are properly briefed beforehand, making sure that they understand the purpose, range and limitations of the discussion. They should each know who is to take part and the duration of the programme. It is not necessary for them to meet before the broadcast but they should be given the opportunity to do their own preparation.
The producer wants a well-informed, lively discussion and might therefore have to help contributors to give of their best. Some advice to the newcomer may be needed. For example, suggest that a contributor needs to crystallise and hold on to the two or three most important points to put over – but not to come with a prepared list of things to say. Also, that the listener is likely to identify more readily with reasoned argument, based on a capacity to appreciate both sides of a case, than with dogma and bigotry. Accepting the existence of an opposite view and logically explaining why you believe it to be wrong is one of the best ways of sounding convincing on radio.
Whatever is said is enhanced by good illustration – a story – which underlines the point being made. Drawn from the contributor’s own experience and conjuring up the appropriate pictures, the telling of an incident or conversation is a powerful aid to argument. It should be brief, factual, recent and relevant, and since such things seldom come to mind at the right time this needs thinking about in their own preparation. So also do facts – the specifics of the discussion topic. It is important not to appear too glib, but a contributor who is in possession of the facts is more likely to gain the respect of the listener.
It is not the slightest use telling anyone ‘not to be nervous’. Nervousness is an emotional reaction to an unusual situation and as such it is inevitable. Indeed, it is desirable in that it causes the adrenalin to flow and improves concentration – with experience it is possible to use such ‘red light’ tensions constructively. On the other hand, if the contributor is too relaxed he or she may appear to be blasé about the subject and the listener may react against this approach. In practical terms participants should listen hard to the chairman and maintain eye contact – a great help to concentration.
At the start of the broadcast the presenter/chairman introduces the subject, making it interesting and relevant to the listener. This is often done by putting a series of questions on the central issues, or by quoting remarks already made publicly.
The chairman should have everyone’s name, and his or her designation, written down so as to be clearly visible – it is amazing how easy it is for one’s mind to go blank, even when you know someone well. The introductions are then made, making sure that all their voices are heard as early as possible in the programme. During the discussion continue to establish the names, at least for the first two ‘rounds’ of conversation, and again at intervals throughout. It is essential that the start of the programme is factual in content and positive in presentation. Such an approach will be helpful to the less confident members of the team and will reassure the listener that the subject is in good hands. It also enables the participants to have something ‘to bite on’ immediately so that the discussion can begin without a lengthy warming-up period.
In the rather special conditions of a studio discussion, some people become highly talkative, believing that they have failed unless they have put their whole case in the first five minutes. On the other hand, there are the nervously diffident. It is not possible to make a hesitant speaker appear brilliant, yet someone with poor delivery might have significant points to make and need encouraging, while the verbose might actually have little to contribute. The chairman, listening to the content, must draw out the former and curb the latter. Even the most voluble have to breathe – a factor which repays close observation! The chairman’s main task is to provide equal opportunity of expression for all participants. To do this may require suppression as well as encouragement, and such directions as are required should be communicated – with a hand gesture, non-verbally.
After having strongly expressed an opinion, that speaker should not be allowed to continue for too long before another view of the matter is introduced. The chairman can interrupt, and it’s best done constructively: ‘That’s an important point, before we go on, how do others react to that? – Mrs Jones?’ The chair must in these cases give a positive indication by voice, facial expressions and possibly hand signal as well of who is to speak. It is also necessary to prevent two voices from speaking at once, other than for a brief interjection, by a decisive and clear indication of ‘who holds the floor’. It is not a disaster when there are two or more voices, indeed it may be a useful indicator of the strength of feeling. It has to be remembered, however, particularly when broadcasting monophonically, that when voices overlay each other, the listener is unlikely to make much sense of the actual content.
The chairman has to obtain clarification of any technical jargon or specialist language a contributor might use. Acronyms and abbreviations, particularly of organisations, are generally far less well understood by the listener than people sitting round a studio table might think.
With one eye on the prepared ‘plot’ and the other on the clock, the chairman steers the subject through its essential areas. However, it’s important to remain reasonably flexible and if one particular aspect is proving especially interesting, the chair may decide to depart from the original outline. Questions in the chairman’s mind should be:
• Time gone – time to go.
• How long has this person had?
• Is it irrelevant?
• Is it boring?
• Is it incomprehensible?
• Next question.
• Who next?
Above all, the chairman must be able to spot and deal with red herrings and digressions. To do this it’s important to know where the discussion should be going and have the appropriate question phrased so that it’s possible to interrupt positively, constructively and courteously.
In a lengthy programme it may be useful to introduce a device that creates variety and helps the discussion to change direction. Examples are a letter, email or tweet, from a listener, or quote from an article read by the chairman, a pre-recorded interview, a piece of actuality, or a phone call or text received during the programme. If the chairman is to remain impartial such an insert should not be used to make a specific point but simply to raise questions on which the participants may then comment.
The chairman has to watch for, and correct, alterations in the balance of voices that was obtained before the programme began. This could be due to a speaker moving back, turning ‘off-mic’ to someone at the side, or leaning in too close. Such changes can of course be overcome by giving each person their own lapel mic but there may still be wide variations in individual voice levels as the participants get annoyed, excited, discomfited or subdued. It’s also necessary to be aware of any extraneous noise such as paper rustle, jingling bracelets or fingers tapping the table. Non-verbal signals should suffice to prevent them becoming too intrusive.
As an aid in judging the effect of any movement, changes in voice level or unwanted sounds, the chairman will often wear headphones. These should be on one ear only to avoid being isolated acoustically from the actual discussion. These headphones may also carry talkback from the producer, for example with additional ideas, questions, or a point of the discussion that might otherwise be overlooked. On occasion, everyone in the studio will require headphones. This is likely if the programme is to include phone calls from listeners, or when members of the discussion group are not physically present in the same studio but are talking over links between separate studios. In these circumstances, the talkback arrangements have to be such that the producer’s editorial comments are confined only to the headphones worn by the chairman. To avoid embarrassment and confusion such a system must be carefully checked before the programme begins.
Figure 12.4 Voice level must be watched throughout. A person with a quiet voice will have to sit close to the table and the discussion chairman must prevent too much movement
If the programme is in stereo, it’s usual to place the chairman in the centre, perhaps with a neutral expert, and the participants panned half left and half right, to give some separation.
An important part of the technical control of the programme is its overall timing. The chairman must never forget the clock.
Figure 12.5 Talkback from the producer goes only to the discussion chairman. Other participants may need headphones carrying the programme in order to hear a remote contributor or phone call
It is rarely desirable for the chairman to attempt a summing-up. If the discussion has gone well, the listener will already have recognised the main points being made and the arguments that support them. If a summary is required, it is often better to invite each speaker to have a ‘last word’. Alternatively, the chairman may put a key question to the group which points the subject forward to the next step – ‘Finally, what do you think should happen now?’ This should be timed to allow for sufficient answering discussion.
Many a good programme is spoiled by an untidy ending. The chairman should avoid giving the impression that the programme simply ran out of time:
‘Well, I’m afraid we’ll have to stop there . . .’
‘Once again the clock has beaten us . . .’
‘What a pity there’s no time to explore that last point . . .’
The programme should cover the material which it intended, in the time it was allowed. With a minute or less to go, the chairman should thank the contributors by name, giving any other credits due and referring to further programmes, public events or a helpline related to the subject.
After the broadcast comes the time when the participants think of the remarks they should have made. An opportunity for them to relax and ‘unwind’ is important, and this is preferably done as a group – assuming they are still speaking to each other. They are at this stage probably feeling vulnerable and exposed, wondering if they have done justice to the arguments and perhaps organisations they represent. They should be warmly thanked and allowed to talk informally if they wish. The provision of some refreshment or hospitality is often appropriate.
It is not the broadcaster’s job to create confrontation and dissent where none exists. But genuine differences of opinion on matters of public interest offer absorbing broadcasting, since the listener may feel a personal involvement in the arguments expressed and in their outcome. The discussion programme is a contribution to the wider area of public debate and may be regarded as part of the broadcaster’s positive role in a democratic society.