Hutchby has previously noted that talk radio signified a distinctive connection between the domesticated environment and an institutional space.623 But before entering the public arena, this connection is filtered via a production team, normally comprising (depending on the budget/time of the show) of phone operators, producers, and studio engineers. While it is natural to examine the on-air relationship that hosts have with callers – it is also worth noting the often multifaceted and hidden off-air relationship that callers had with production team members. There are also often complex dynamics between members of the production team with each other – and the possible motivations which underpin on-air and off air interactions between broadcasters and callers.
“It really wasn’t just a sort of secretarial job of just grabbing a caller and a number and sticking it on a piece of paper; it really was interacting with them and, you know, learning about them. And, actually at the time there were certain shows that the phone operator was very, very important; they were really the lynch pin between the listeners and what was going on in the shows…” 624
Before the convenience of mobile communication, social networks, or search engines, these formats provided a new, open platform for personal disclosure, where the public was invited to reveal untold stories, private fears, shameful confessions and secret desires. For many the appeal was simply the connection to a voice –
622 Interview, Former LBC producer, London, 2013
623 Hutchby 2001
624 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
132
and not even the intention to get on air, or the connection to a well-known presenter. Ollie Raphael recalls how callers did not phone with the objective of getting on air.
“You would go “Right do you want to talk to someone about it”? And they would say “Oh, no, no, I don’t want to do that …I don’t want to go on the air about it, I just wanted to talk about it.”’625
For many listeners, the producers or phone operators also came to be relied on as permanent figures, providing stability and expectation. Presenters would refer to them by name during the show, becoming known to listeners. Repeat callers would phone regularly, “People would ring up and they’d say “Oh, you’re not Paula, are you?” And I would say “No, I’m not Paula.” They would talk to you as if, like, they are expecting to their mate.”626 Callers were able to connect and form bonds not only to the on-air persona of a host like Anna Raeburn, but to those working backstage, and off-air like Ollie Raphael. This was a notable change from the more anonymous roles of Monica Chapman, Mary Baker or Annie Grundy. Hosts began to mention the names of the producers on air, intending to foster and convey a sense of community. This created a sense of openness and transparency to these previously hidden corners of production for the public, but equally ran the risk of bringing team members out into the public eye, which potentially could set them up as a target of criticism from their audience. One former LBC phone- in producer recalls people calling up to tell her “I hope all your family die of cancer.”627 Like a doctor’s receptionist, the producer or phone op became the intermediary between the public and the presenter – having to cope with the challenges of this type of interaction.
The role of the producer on live radio, (as opposed to Desert Island Discs and the Radio Ballads) is fluid and complex. They are under time pressure, reliant on content collected externally from the studio. They must screen contributors, avoid putting to air anyone they might feel could be abusive or create legal difficulties, ensuring that the host is happy but also help to choreograph the content, ensuring that the ‘best’ callers appear in the right order.
“You would get a host who would come in on your talk-back, while they are on air and say,
“This is a great call.” And then some would just say, “Why the hell have you given me this person to talk to?” While the call was going on they would just look at you with this sort of anguished face.” 628
625 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
626 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
627 Interview, Former LBC producer, London, 2013
628 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
133
The relationship between the producer and host is seen as vital – requiring trust from both sides, although who had ultimate control over output was unambiguous. From an institutional perspective it would be the producer who should be in charge – but from a personal perspective this was up for negotiation.
“I thought the producer was there more as a fire fighter. Because I felt that since I was the one taking the risks, I ought to be the one with the responsibilities. I mean I always thought that it was my programme and the producer always thought it was his or her programme.
That was the problem. It’s never a territory that has been defined.” 629
Dori-Hacohen and Katriel both acknowledge that the management of liveness by phone-in production teams is medium specific and public sphere related – but in the case of early ILR phone-ins, I make a further claim that it was also based on an extra set of criteria.630 The producer, phone operator and presenter all aim to make the interview encounter ‘successful’ and a number of other factors emerge which have been touched upon in Ytreburg’s own work on Norwegian radio phone-in shows631: a responsibility towards the others in the team, towards management, toward the listeners. I would agree with these findings but also propose that gatekeeping devices employed on these phone-in radio shows also represents a protection of an individual’s future career in the industry. The repercussions of not pushing the delay button or for putting the wrong caller through could potentially damage their professional reputation and hurt future job prospects. Philip Hodson gave his phone-ops strict instructions as to what to do and what not to do when answering calls, “You are not to pass any judgements at all whatsoever about what you hear. And if you do, I will have you fired.” 632 The role of a ‘shock jock’ was seen to test a caller’s ability to hold their own, in the face of confrontation or disagreement. I would propose that a therapeutic host like Philip Hodson rather values a different set of characteristics. These include: 1) integrity (personal honesty), 2) experience (first-hand, no agenda, not distressing), 3) relevancy (topic) and 4) suitability (duration, age, gender, time of show, voice). These characteristics were often filtered down to the production team. Phillip Hodson felt it was necessary to reinforce his authority over both the operator and producer in order to get the calls he felt were most suitable on his show. This suggests that hosts and teams permitted entry to the airwaves (and to the interview) based on a set of unwritten categories. Similar to Wahl - Jorgensen’s ‘letters to the editor’633, Phillip Hodson gave clear direction to phone operators about the types of callers which should not be put through to air.
“Your job is to ask about three obvious and basic questions. You are trying to establish they are bona fides and if you are in doubt about the caller, then I don’t want to do them. If they are drunk, I won’t do them. I want you to evaluate whether you think that’s going to
629 Interview, Phillip Hodson, Tetbury, 2013
630 Katriel 2004 & Dori-Hacohen 2013
631 Ytreburg 2004
632 Interview, Phillip Hodson, Tetbury, 2013
633 Wahl-Jorgensen 2002
134
contribute overall to the balance of what we are doing today. Because I do not want 10 calls all on the same thing. And then on the screen that I have got I want you to type up
“next call is William” and I want 8 words saying roughly what it might be about.” 634
Callers must first justify that they are worthy of being on air and began to understand what might be required to get through to a host. As a result, many callers might have learnt what might qualify others to be accepted on air, and as Scannell sums up ‘routinely reproduce not merely a particular discursive content but a communicative manner and style that embodies the shows ethos.’635 The first caller to Phillip Hodson’s or Anna Raeburn’s confessional show was considered to be the most vital, setting the scene for the rest of the show “female, anyone young is great, fresh sounding voice.”636 According to the producers, this “right voice”
is dependent on the time of day, the needs of the show, and the audience demographic. Producers were looking for specific types of callers “you want those voices to constantly reinforce the brand, or the station image or the station audience.”637 Like O’Sullivan and Scannell also found, after listening to shows, callers would learn what it took to get on, “I think people know how to get on air. So if you’re listening in, if you’re female and you sound bouncy and happy you would get on.”
“I remember clearly, there was one producer who would say to me, “How old’s the caller?
How old’s the caller?” You would say they’re mid-twenties. He would say OK. You were judging what would make good radio. You wouldn’t want someone who would waffle and babble.” 638
For callers, and especially male listeners, this was a new opportunity to speak about private or domestic matters – and receive immediate feedback on topics ranging from baldness to premature ejaculation. These were, according to Liza Donoghue, a phone-in producer at Capital Radio (1975-1982), the most common calls during the first years, where 6 telephone lines to each phone operator at the station were constantly flashing with calls “I think a lot of men had nowhere else to go.”639 Yet if we take extracts from Capital FM’s chauvinist franchise application, the phone-in seemed ideally placed to target women. Female listeners were described as ‘sentimental’, ‘fanatical’ ‘escapist’ caring ‘deeply about emotions’ and yearning for happy endings and local stories.640 On the contrary, when reflecting on the history of talk-back radio in Australia, Aitkin and Norrie commented that early on it was seen as a positive educating force, and one that allowed
634 Interview, Phillip Hodson, Tetbury, 2013
635 Scannell 1996, p.118
636 Interview, Former LBC producer, London 2013
637 Interview, Former LBC producer, London 2013
638 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
639 Interview, Liza Donoghue, Bristol 2013
640 Local Radio Workshop 1982, p.75-6
135
house-bound women ‘the opportunity to listen to other housewives questioning, criticising, and discussing, political subjects of interest to them.’641
The themes discussed on local confessional call-in show like Capital and LBC focussed on stereotypically
‘female’ subjects like relationships, emotions and confessions which could be seen to demand a neat and happy ending. There was a bias in the production team towards featuring callers whose issues would be quickly resolved in the allotted time-slot, offering an impression of empowerment “you kind of want a conclusion or you want the listener to go away and think “oh that person has been helped.”642 A satisfactory conclusion to a call would also work to prime the listener to be most ready for the commercial breaks, might help to sell the products and promoted a sense of instant gratification. Yet there seemed to have been a disparity between the imagined and real caller here – attempting to attract the housewife (who was in control of the purse strings) but it appeared to be valued more by the male listener.
Meanwhile, phone operators and producers would never tell a listener the reason they had failed to get on-air.
Instead they would reassure them, blaming time-restrictions or insinuating that there were too many callers.
They felt it was vital not to leave a caller feeling unwanted or rejected. For those who got through the net, personal, first-hand experience was always regarded as desirable.
“So you wouldn’t want someone coming on air and saying, “I want to talk to you about my friend, Jim” when actually what you wanted was Jim to be on the phone talking about his personal experience.” 643
Yet again we find evidence of the foregrounding of entitlement and witnessing, signifying what producers deems a genuine performance.644 Again, like the Radio Ballads, we find that real lived experience comes to be valued by all parties – especially the production team. Callers to talk radio shows like Philip Hodson’s or Anna Raeburn’s intentionally employed witnessing devices to display authenticity. Anne was the first person chosen to feature in an early episode of Capital Open Line from 1977.645 This first caller is chosen to set the tone for other callers, both in subject (public sphere) and in age, and voice (medium related).
Hayes: 3881255. Capital. I believe Ann is our first caller. Hello Ann Ann: hello?
AR: hello
641 Aitkin and Norrie 1973, p.32-38
642 Interview, Former LBC producer, London, 2013
643 Telephone Interview, Ollie Raphael, 2014
644 Building on the work of Montgomery 2001a and Myers 2000
645 Collected from Anna Raeburn, private collection 1977. Date unknown.
136
BH: Yes you‘re talking to Anna now
Anne: It seems a bit trivial now but the fact is‚ I‘m frigid I suppose
AR: Well it can’t be trivial (pause). What do you mean you think you’re frigid? Why do you say frigid I suppose?
Anne: Well my definition of frigidity is not being able to reach orgasm and I never have AR: How old are you?
Anne: I’m 18
A young female listener, coming on to discuss a sexual problem would have been considered as an ideal first call. Brian Hayes acts as a professional catalyst between the inexperienced caller (Anne) and the host (Anna Raeburn) in an attempt to bridge the gap between both the public and private – the studio and an unknown location. Anna Raeburn is emotionally accepting of Anne’s problem, and is set in a position of authority since the caller is requesting help and validation.
Hutchby’s research from 1988 had also asserted that certain devices are intentionally employed to ‘routinely and recursively’ present a sense that interviewees are authentic entitled to tell a story and allowed to be on air.646 By being seen to talk for yourself or recorded doing so, Langer similarly suggests, ‘individuates you, and makes you a personality whether you are the Prime Minister or last week’s national lottery winner.’647 But it is the job of the backroom team to first judge whether these stories are worth the airtime.