Feedback 13 May 2022

[Frances_iom]

...The interviewee would be generally given a broad indication of the subjects to be covered though.

judging from Davy's remark re a forthcoming concert it was recorded in the week prior to Friday's broadcast but it did sound scripted to me - certainly not questioning and as we all know questioning is urgently needed tho I suspect it is way too late to stop the decline.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thanks for that reassurance.

Whenever people used to ask me for questions in advance I used to say that’s the sort of thing they do in Zimbabwe or North Korea…that usually stopped it.
Think it sometimes happens with celebrity interviews though.

[Ein Heldenleben]

judging from Davy's remark re a forthcoming concert it was recorded in the week prior to Friday's broadcast but it did sound scripted to me - certainly not questioning and as we all know questioning is urgently needed tho I suspect it is way too late to stop the decline.

I must give it a listen. Bit tricky interviewing a high up in the company you work for but Feedback presumably do that all the time. I haven’t listened for ages but I know a few managers have been “roughed up “ in the past. Thing is if you can’t take it don’t dish it out….

[Ein Heldenleben]

judging from Davy's remark re a forthcoming concert it was recorded in the week prior to Friday's broadcast but it did sound scripted to me - certainly not questioning and as we all know questioning is urgently needed tho I suspect it is way too late to stop the decline.

I reckon Alan might well have heard the vox pop package in advance as that’s quite common practice ; equally he might well have not.
The package had some thoughts which were to put it mildly a bit at variance with my experience of the Channel or , to be less mealy mouthed , reality. That would put Alan in some difficulty as he wouldn’t want to appear to be endlessly correcting slightly misinformed listeners.

If Roger Bolton , one of the most experienced current affairs editors and presenters in the business , had given Alan the questions in advance I would be absolutely staggered!

One point : why was the recorded sound on AD so poor - boxy indeed ? I would have thought he would get VIP studio treatment.I guess it was a zoom job.

[cloughie]

I must give it a listen. Bit tricky interviewing a high up in the company you work for but Feedback presumably do that all the time. I haven’t listened for ages but I know a few managers have been “roughed up “ in the past. Thing is if you can’t take it don’t dish it out….

I think they are all happy to bluster through with their ‘we are never wrong’ mantra. As Paul Simon said in ‘The Boxer’ - A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest! …and the last thing they want to hear are the views of the grumpy aged minority!

[french frank]

If Roger Bolton , one of the most experienced current affairs editors and presenters in the business , had given Alan the questions in advance I would be absolutely staggered!

When I appeared on Feedback, interviewed in the Bristol studio with Roger Bolton being in London, my impression and that of the studio people in Bristol was that Roger Wright was somewhere in the background suggesting lines of questioning. We overheard Roger Bolton responding to someone he called 'Roger' while the recording was being set up. Sure enough, the question came up (it was about listening figures).

[Ein Heldenleben]

When I appeared on Feedback, interviewed in the Bristol studio with Roger Bolton being in London, my impression and that of the studio people in Bristol was that Roger Wright was somewhere in the background suggesting lines of questioning. We overheard Roger Bolton responding to someone he called 'Roger' while the recording was being set up. Sure enough, the question came up (it was about listening figures).

If the controller of radio three was suggesting lines of questioning to Roger Bolton again I’d be surprised . Though it’s perfectly acceptable for interviewees to do so I think Roger B would be capable of working it out for himself . He produced Death on the Rock a film that examined the IRA deaths on Gibraltar - a very challenging job . He doesn’t need a ventriloquist. Presenting Feedback , though not without its demands , is not in the same league of difficulty.

[french frank]

If the controller of radio three was suggesting lines of questioning to Roger Bolton again I’d be surprised . Though it’s perfectly acceptable for interviewees to do so I think Roger B would be capable of working it out for himself . He produced Death on the Rock a film that examined the IRA deaths on Gibraltar - a very challenging job . He doesn’t need a ventriloquist. Presenting Feedback , though not without its demands , is not in the same league of difficulty.

He was talking to someone (called Roger) about Radio 3's listening figures. After so many years I've forgotten the exact details. But I remember RB saying to "Roger": "If xxxxxxxx, that would be very surprising, wouldn't it?" He was discussing the questions he was going to ask me. It could be that everyone in the London studio that day was called Roger, but my dealings with RW would make me less surprised than you. I was also invited to discuss Radio 3 with RW on the Today programme. I stayed by my phone for the call to come through until the programme ended. When I rang up to find out what had happened I was told RW had been unable to participate so the item was scrapped.

[Ein Heldenleben]

He was talking to someone (called Roger) about Radio 3's listening figures. After so many years I've forgotten the exact details. But I remember RB saying to "Roger": "If xxxxxxxx, that would be very surprising, wouldn't it?" He was discussing the questions he was going to ask me. It could be that everyone in the London studio that day was called Roger, but my dealings with RW would make me less surprised than you. I was also invited to discuss Radio 3 with RW on the Today programme. I stayed by my phone for the call to come through until the programme ended. When I rang up to find out what had happened I was told RW had been unable to participate so the item was scrapped.

To be honest French it’s pretty common practice to discuss lines of questioning with other interviewees and indeed check figures with them - though strictly speaking it would be better to check figures at printed source rather than through a verbal exchange with some one who , no matter how well-informed, may have a reason for “massaging” them. The problem arises if , in some way , one side of the debate gains advantage through that process.
The controller of a Radio station would however expect possibly a tougher line of questioning than a member of the public with much less broadcasting experience.
I can confirm that Roger is a very common forename in broadcasting…as indeed are Dave and John.

[french frank]

To be honest French it’s pretty common practice to discuss lines of questioning with other interviewees and indeed check figures with them - though strictly speaking it would be better to check figures at printed source rather than through a verbal exchange with some one who , no matter how well-informed, may have a reason for “massaging” them. The problem arises if , in some way , one side of the debate gains advantage through that process.
The controller of a Radio station would however expect possibly a tougher line of questioning than a member of the public with much less broadcasting experience.
I can confirm that Roger is a very common forename in broadcasting…as indeed are Dave and John.

I'm sure you're more au fait with what goes on behind the scenes than I am! He was not talking to an advertised interviewee, and I remember exchanging puzzled looks with the BBC woman at the Bristol end as to what was delaying the interview with me. But many of us have heard Roger Bolton interviewing BBC people (many times) about Radio 3. There are some issues you either understand or you don't. And if you don't listen to Radio 3 and have no interest in doing so, you aren't going to be able to get to the bottom of what the complaints are about. I've spent too long shouting at RB on the radio over why he isn't asking a particular question, or why he accepted an answer as being an adequate response. Feedback is 99% giving the BBC an opportunity to put their side and have the final word. When are we ever going to hear the host say: "Well, frankly, I think that was a pretty feeble attempt to answer what are obviously strongly felt - and justifiable - audience complaints."

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm sure you're more au fait with what goes on behind the scenes than I am! He was not talking to an advertised interviewee, and I remember exchanging puzzled looks with the BBC woman at the Bristol end as to what was delaying the interview with me. But many of us have heard Roger Bolton interviewing BBC people (many times) about Radio 3. There are some issues you either understand or you don't. And if you don't listen to Radio 3 and have no interest in doing so, you aren't going to be able to get to the bottom of what the complaints are about. I've spent too long shouting at RB on the radio over why he isn't asking a particular question, or why he accepted an answer as being an adequate response. Feedback is 99% giving the BBC an opportunity to put their side and have the final word. When are we ever going to hear the host say: "Well, frankly, I think that was a pretty feeble attempt to answer what are obviously strongly felt - and justifiable - audience complaints."

I remember once (decades ago) being fed a line of questioning from a COI (government) press officer on a ministerial visit with the words “ why don’t you ask him this as he doesn’t know much about it ?” . At the time I assumed the PR man was about to be made redundant. In fact he just had a rather enlightened attitude to his job.
If RW was in the studio coaching RB ( as I say unlikely) you should be flattered.
As to your final point , if they are following editorial guidelines , the host isn’t really supposed to volunteer his / her personal opinions. The words “feeble” and “justifiable “ are editorialising.

[Serial_Apologist]

I remember once (decades ago) being fed a line of questioning from a COI (government) press officer on a ministerial visit with the words “ why don’t you ask him this as he doesn’t know much about it ?” . At the time I assumed the PR man was about to be made redundant. In fact he just had a rather enlightened attitude to his job.
If RW was in the studio coaching RB ( as I say unlikely) you should be flattered.
As to your final point , if they are following editorial guidelines , the host isn’t really supposed to volunteer his / her personal opinions. The words “feeble” and “justifiable “ are editorialising.

That's very strange unless we're talking purely Radio 3, because as I've often pointed out, hosts do do that all the time on Radio 4 programmes such as Today and Any Questions these days, under the obviously fabricated pretense of putting across the general public's view which would otherwise not be represented. My view is that this is actually a way of feeding, as opposed to informing, the public view.

[french frank]

As to your final point , if they are following editorial guidelines , the host isn’t really supposed to volunteer his / her personal opinions. The words “feeble” and “justifiable “ are editorialising.

Only if the dissenting side isn't given the same tough treatment. I wouldn't mind an interviewer being 'antagonistic' towards me in order to be a devil's advocate. If you have a strong argument and are well informed you want to 'get the better' of the questioner. You want to get the tough questions. It makes more of an impression on the listener (I think) that just being asked to state your case. The interviewer should put the questions that an interested, knowledgeable member of the public might want to hear about (I agree that words like "feeble" and (possibly) "justifiable" would not be allowed by an impartial organisation. But even an impartial questioner ought to be able to tell when responses fall short of being satisfactory.)

[Ein Heldenleben]

Only if the dissenting side isn't given the same tough treatment. I wouldn't mind an interviewer being 'antagonistic' towards me in order to be a devil's advocate. If you have a strong argument and are well informed you want to 'get the better' of the questioner. You want to get the tough questions. It makes more of an impression on the listener (I think) that just being asked to state your case. The interviewer should put the questions that an interested, knowledgeable member of the public might want to hear about (I agree that words like "feeble" and (possibly) "justifiable" would not be allowed by an impartial organisation. But even an impartial questioner ought to be able to tell when responses fall short of being satisfactory.)

It’s acceptable to say “you haven’t answered the question.” The whole issue of differential treatment of interviewees is a very interesting one. In theory you are supposed to adopt the same tone with everyone (barring out and out miscreants) . In practice you just doesn’t approach an interview with the victim of a crime with the same tone as the Home Office Minister responsible for policing. It often astonishes me what an easy ride some interviewees are given particularly those representing pressure groups who are on telly and radio all the time. They get a dolly question while the relevant minister gets a hob nailed boot.

[Serial_Apologist]

Only if the dissenting side isn't given the same tough treatment. I wouldn't mind an interviewer being 'antagonistic' towards me in order to be a devil's advocate. If you have a strong argument and are well informed you want to 'get the better' of the questioner. You want to get the tough questions. It makes more of an impression on the listener (I think) that just being asked to state your case. The interviewer should put the questions that an interested, knowledgeable member of the public might want to hear about (I agree that words like "feeble" and (possibly) "justifiable" would not be allowed by an impartial organisation. But even an impartial questioner ought to be able to tell when responses fall short of being satisfactory.)

If that was what actually happened, then fine; too often these days one finds the interviewer siding with the point of view the opponent present in the studio should be capable of delivering on his or her own behalf: countless examples of the "when did you stop beating your wife" kind. I've cited Chris Mason's chairing of Any Questions recently on this forum. Today Sophie Raworth, for the umpteenth time asking a Labour spokesperson - Ed Miliband in this case - if they would remove the interest rate rise should Labour win the next election. Given an expectation of balanced presentation one would have expected equal treatment of Jeremy Hunt - eg "if you are offering solutions to the crisis in the NHS don't you think you should admit to the mess of it you made the last time you were in charge?" - otherwise this is tantamount to feeding rather than informing the public.

Now, why do you think the BBC is doing this? Personally I can't imagine...