Los científicos como asesores: la «ciencia reguladora»

Similar to writing letters, calls or faxes to radio stations during the 1970’s were made from a place of safety inside the home, although privacy was not always guaranteed in a domestic setting. Cordless handsets were unusual and so, to avoid the risks of being overhead or to gain access to a telephone, listeners often went away from the home or office to phone boxes.⁶⁰⁵ Here more private calls could be made in enclosed space, publically seen by others, publically heard by others on air, but not directly overheard by those sharing their immediate space⁶⁰⁶. The telephone was used as an intimate and largely anonymous resource by the lonely or isolated, connected in time to their community and their radio station of choice, yet distanced spatially from others. Rather than the prospect of seeing a counsellor or doctor face-to-face, the non-permanence of live calls, existing in a linear schedule with no option of podcasting or repeats, meant further sense of anonymity and freedom was permissible.

Many clients aren’t ready to face a counsellor in person. Young people are often more comfortable with the familiar intimacy of the phone than other forms of communicating.

My “counselling service” penetrated brick walls and the common family barriers. I was also able to offer a service on the spot, in a crisis whereas Relate-Marriage Guidance would probably have a 20-week waiting list. ⁶⁰⁷

Scholars are quick to point out that a poor phone line and the relative inexperience of the caller mean that those phoning-in are considered to be at a disadvantage. Broadcasting from the confines of a spotless studio is seen to place the more ‘professional’ host in a position of power. Karathanasopoulou⁶⁰⁸ has commented that Scannell’s description of early radio broadcasting is indicative of the fact that interference (or problems with reception on call in shows) is frequently seen as undesirable and unwelcome. Hutchby has shared this sentiment, noting that it is implicit that ‘sterile’ or noise-free studio sound is considered to be a positive entity.

604 Interview, Anna Raeburn, London, 2012

605 Listeners would also use fax machines

606 The phone box, and its relation to other interview content (investigative journalism, politics) deserves further thought.

607 Email correspondence, Phillip Hodson, 2013

608 Karathanasopoulou 2013

127

The hosts voice and presence remain consistent throughout the show, while callers’ voices vary widely. This asymmetry is reinforced, in the hearing, by the fact that callers’ voices are broadcast with telephone quality, with the attendant distortion and extraneous noise, while the host’s voice comes across in the richness of full broadcast quality. ⁶⁰⁹

In 1981, the Local Radio Workshop had also printed their assessment of a small selection of programmes broadcast by Capital Radio and LBC. The report also dismissed the inferior quality of the telephone line, believing that callers were at a disadvantage due to the poor quality of sound. They were also critical of the amount of ‘inadequate’ time given to callers of call in shows, proclaiming it should not be taken seriously in an attempt to help people, and fuelled a sense of voyeurism. They also believed the presenter and adviser (i.e.

Philip Hodson and Anna Raeburn) to be ‘detached figures of authority.’⁶¹⁰ The LRW also expressed displeasure that callers were regularly cut-off or interrupted, and conversations are often cut short. These telephone interviews were seen to offer little chance of confidentiality, little opportunity to gather background information, and a heavy screening process.

Due to the time delay, listeners had to be regularly prompted to turn all other broadcasting equipment off (after all this delay needed to be masked), but there was no guarantee this would happen. Below we see how Brian Hayes (driving the desk) and Anna Raeburn (the advisor) attempted to direct their caller, Maureen in 1975.⁶¹¹

Brian: Maureen you are on the line now to talk to Anna Raeburn. Maureen hello Caller: Hello?

Brian: Yes. Yes talk to Anna now Caller: Oh. Er hello Anna?

Anna: Yes

Caller: Erm my problem is er ok. Hello?

Anna: Yes?

Caller: Hello Anna?

Anna: Yes

Brian: Maureen do you have your radio on?

Caller: My problem is Anna is about a book wot I found under ...yes.

609 Hutchby 2001, p.495

610 Local Radio Workshop 1982, p.43

611 Anna Raeburn, personal collection. Recording taken from 1975. Exact date unknown.

128

Brian: Er Maureen can you hear me?

Caller: Its a bad line

Brian: Well the problem is I think Maureen is that you have your radio on. Would you please ask somebody to turn your radio off because it will confuse you.

Caller: It‘s off

Brian: Right its off now. Now can you hear me alright?

Caller: Yes

Brian: Ok now would you explain your problem to Anna.

Caller: Anna?

Anna: Yes

Caller: Erm my problem it started about a year ago Anna: Yes

Caller: Erm I went into hospital and when I came out I discovered that there was dirty books lying around in my flat

It is through such on-air reminders that Maureen and other contributors in call-in or face to face interviews are taught to become aware that they must speak to two audiences – in this case the studio (Anna, Brian plus ‘the Doc’) and the wider listening audience. Maureen must be urged to remember the performative element of her call. Here Hayes now performs a gatekeeping duty, trying to teach the caller, and future caller, the ‘correct’

way to appear on air. It would be natural here to assume that Maureen is put at a disadvantage – she is not able to fully engage with the conventions of ‘successful’ callers who should know to turn down their radio – and it takes over a minute to get to the story of her call. Yet conversely, the nature of live radio meant that callers could change topic, lie to the production team or challenge the answers. But one might also argue that this more chaotic, unrehearsed and unpredictable by-product of the phone-in plays a pivotal and powerful role in communicating a sense of liveness. Indeed, a sense of genuine veracity is conveyed here, mirroring the complex structure of everyday speech – interruptions, confusion, hesitation all which are far removed from the edited Ballads or the scripted early episodes of Desert Island Discs. And perhaps this played an important part of its success.

In a way, this type of call has contributed to radio’s authenticity. If I adopt Karathanasopoulou’s recent observations and apply them to these examples of the early problem phone-in, we can perhaps respect the telephone’s status as a ‘medium of magic and intimacy.’⁶¹² Instead, the motivation for this type of interaction,

612 Karathanasopoulou 2013, p.1

129

from callers like Maureen or Andrew reveal the need for connection and advice – where being correct, cool or in control was not the priority. Rather callers are rewarded, at times, for showing vulnerability and authenticity. They have a specific reason to call, they are able to question the ‘experts’ themselves and this type of talk would mirror the chaos of not only ordinary conversation, but ordinary telephone conversation, which they would be familiar with. I suggest that these early phone-in interviews in fact served a great deal of purpose to the caller, by providing them with much needed information and the opportunity to voice their experiences and opinions. However, as I now start to uncover, there were a number of stringent gatekeeping processes in place, to allow or exclude access to this on-air space.

One of the reasons operators, producers or hosts would instruct callers like Maureen, was due to the power of the voice to reveal or hide key clues which might help the presenter to get to the ‘truth’ of a problem: Phillip Hodson and Anna Raeburn both recall paying exact attention to the unstructured intricacies of the callers voice.

“You need to be able to hear these minutiae, these tiny tiny things, and pick up on them.

You need to be able to hear that hesitation. You need to be able to hear the voice move up into the throat and go down again, and think, “What was that? What did I say to her, what did she say to me, that she felt uncomfortable about then?” ⁶¹³

The rate of breathing, the pitch of the voice, the accent, the speed of talking, the pauses, the speech modulation, the vocabulary, the grammar, the thought order, the metaphors and the self-reflection all must be picked up by the presenter and the listener – and poor telephone reception might inhibit the transmission of these vital clues.