Radio is only rivalled by theatre as my favourite cultural medium. I love television dramas, but that is purely a form of escapism. I enjoy films, but don’t go the cinema enough to call myself a proper film obsessive. Radio, on the other hand, encapsulates my cultural personality. Whether it’s listening to the enlightening Radio 4, the unapologetic but authentic LBC presenters or whiling away the hours with Classic FM, I find it is such a powerful form of communication. It is company that I can turn on or off whenever I like.
I was rather pleased to see that Warwick University had its own radio station: RAW. Founded by former Brexit secretary David Davis, it broadcasts 24/7 (with many pre-recorded features) covering many topics like news, music, politics, sport, fashion and light entertainment. There is such a range of programming. It was something I wanted to get involved with. I was slightly reticent however. I can write a somewhat coherent blog and listen to the radio a lot. But it’s possible to be a huge fan of radio and also be a terrible broadcaster. I had written an article on Jeremy Corbyn for the Perspectives website – it’s the home of Warwick student political commentary, publishing a termly magazine and regularly updating its website to allow reaction to the latest political developments. The level of editorial freedom is fantastic – people can write about all parts of the world with any political slant they place. My basic perspective (if you pardon the pun!) was that Jeremy Corbyn has always been a great campaigner but this is not the same as being a great leader, which the office of Prime Minister requires. It was with delight, therefore, that I received a request asking me to appear on the Perspectives radio show, where they discuss recently published articles and debate their key premises. I accepted immediately: I loved writing the article and so would love to talk about it and hear the views of others. The show was to be pre-recorded, meaning any on-air howlers could be edited out (thank the Lord!). I arrived at the Student Union building with plenty of time to spare. RAW has two studios: one for live broadcasts and the other for pre-recorded programmes. The studio itself is rather small, as we all discovered when eight guests turned up. There were two microphones and a proper radio desk. I felt reassured that I would only be speaking and didn’t have to worry about all the other technical features. How national presenters broadcast with such ease while frantically driving a desk I will never know. Pleasingly, there was plenty of time for discussion before the broadcast began. It allowed the conversation to breath off-air before our on-air discussion commenced. There was plenty to muse about both politically and at Warwick after all. The conversation and ice-breaker introductions certainly made bunching together to get near enough the limited supply of microphones easier! I found being at the radio headquarters very eye-opening due to the level of professionalism. Music was played that would be featuring (with a Christmas song of course!) during the broadcast while adverts were slotted in that would help to break up the discussion. I had some notes with me, more as a prompt rather than a script, in case I verbally dried up. We all gave an indication that we were ready and that was it – the recording had begun. I definitely felt nervous, there’s no point denying it. Off air, I can make a slightly sarcastic remark and it’s batted away. On air, that will quite literally be on the record forever. Excellently, the Perspectives show is released as a podcast meaning those who can’t access the station (or forget to listen live) can hear every edition. This furthered my thoughts that every remark I made would have to be carefully thought through. I wanted to sound articulate, be aware of my thoughts, not stumble over my words as so often happens in ordinary conversation. I wanted to be critical but reasonable, strident but not libellous. There was plenty to think about, which, on top of broadcasting for the first time, meant my mind was fully focused in the recording studio. Forget mindfulness, the way to get people to pay attention is to put them in a radio studio! The format worked a bit like the Moral Maze, probably my favourite programme on Radio 4 (rivalled only by Start the Week and Analysis). A contributor to the website that week would summarise their article and then be cross examined by the host and we fellow contributors. That being said, there were far more laughs with a generally informal atmosphere, which, shall we say, certainly differs from the Moral Maze! Everyone had a fair opportunity to make an argument, probe an idea and respond to defend their viewpoints. The process of conversation is just so different on air, partially because of the microphone. There are physical logistics that have to be taken into account to be heard – moving the microphone towards you, which I was slightly paranoid about in case of damage. Furthermore, the hosts advised us to speak into the microphone instead of looking at the person we were interrogating or responding to. The art of broadcasting inevitably creates a different dynamic from an off-air conversation, but I think it was something we all managed well – even with one microphone for seven people. There were a range of topics under discussion. Initially, we spoke about the Brexit Party and the effect of them standing aside in all Tory-held seats and whether this guaranteed the Conservatives victory this December. You have to judge when is the correct time to probe - often when someone is speaking I could think of ways to challenge or extend their argument, but I wanted to ensure others had amble time to make valid remarks. It was certainly not the Noah Keate Show and nor would I have wanted it to be. The issues in this general election were at the heart of the discussion and not any one personality. Clearly, there were time limits on the amount of time we had in the studio. The presenters were excellent at taking into the account the adverts and music to ensure the programme would fit the correct length upon broadcast. My writing has often been criticised for not being concise enough so I really wanted to be precise and direct in my verbal line of arguments. Ideally, the presenters wouldn’t need to resort to waving their arms frantically for me to stop if I spoke for an appropriate period of time. Nevertheless, there was motivation throughout the hour, as during adverts or when music was playing, we were all told how well the programme was going. The highlight of the discussion was probably a discussion on the Liberal Democrats and democracy more broadly. An article had been written criticising Jo Swinson’s party for, among other reasons, advocating a second referendum, wishing to introduce proportional representation, moving immigration out of the Home Office and extending voting rights. People were given amble time to further the debate, with opportunities to refute arguments and offer alternative perspectives. I didn’t speak in that segment of the programme but enjoyed nodding or shaking my head frantically, depending on what remarks were being made. I couldn’t remain neutral throughout - if someone was making a remark I disagreed with, I made my opinions physically, if not verbally, known! The final part of our discussion focused on my Jeremy Corbyn article and an opinion piece about trust in politics. I attempted to summarise my article clearly, only stumbling at the end by saying ‘uncertainly certain’! All I’ll say is it made the discussion authentic and showed I was a complete amateur when it comes to radio discussions. When I was asked a question, I just spoke away. Two seconds of silence on radio sounds like two minutes – there just has to be some form of voice/music permanently on air. In a way, knowing I had to speak and had a limited period of time helped, I believe, to ensure my remarks weren’t overly incoherent. The discussion concluded by assessing the merits of a written constitution, a key interest of mine mainly because I am opposed to one. I was pleased to be able to make that brief contribution and provide some balance to advocates of a written constitution. And then the discussion was over. It felt like the show had only just started, yet we had been talking for 50 minutes. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, found the experience very rewarding and thought the opportunity to be on student radio was an honour. I look forward (hopefully) to making future contributions to the Perspectives website and radio show as they are organisations I feel proud to be associated with.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|