Read this: 12/03/2021 Radio 4 Feedback

BBC sounds music Radio podcasts to London because of the profile and because it attracts so many strong opinions and the delicacy over it within the BBC it has been a difficult few days.

I'll be asking BBC royal correspondent Jonny dymond.

If anyone really knows what goes on behind closed doors and listeners ask whose side is the BBC on and Radio 4 Series Britain's fascist thread claims fascism runs through this country's history as an unbroken line from the blackshirts to the BNP and beyond.

So who are the fastest today and how can they be record in the age of the internet we have much more complex forms of fascist mobilisation.

It's not necessarily marching down East London in a black shirt is often people from all over the world online using.

Thomas accounts engaging and racist indiscriminately politics so are all racist fascist and vice-a-versa discuss.

We will later and what have we put on mother and daughter review with through this week and start all over again.

I think they might be out of their comfort zones found out later in the program.

I thought I would only watch the first few minutes of that Oprah Winfrey interview with Meghan and Harry but of course I could not take my eyes off it as revelation followed shocking but how much will it should we believe it's like listening to one side in a divorce case and of course on Thursday Prince William said we are very much not a racist family in such situations.

We depend on the BBC royal Correspondents to sort the wheat from the chaff, but do they know what really went on on Wednesday I was joined by the Royal respondents Johnny diamond and I Began by asking him did his jaw dropped as much as the audiences when he watched that interview the meat was just endless sharp intakes of it was absolutely riveting.

I can't believe it will go on for 2-hours without of massive padding, but I don't on it went it was it was strong stuff now some people would say it is a bit of a

The Royal correspondent, you have known this.

Why do why do you think you didn't know the extent of her hurt their hurt? That's a good question.

I mean there's lots and lots that we don't know I mean because this is still a private family performing a public function and the pores of the nature of the public function.

I guess they are able to compartmentalize we are working from the presumption that everything that was said on that cost is true and they have already emerged some errors and inconsistencies.

I I make the point it was an interview not a court deposition or a witness a very different thing but there are grey areas and you know there are clearly different interpretations of events.

I'd like to pick up some of those in the moment, but it can I Focus festival on the scale of the response by the

Media and the BBC because one of our listeners Jennifer making things it has been excessive.

I have had a more or less BBC 3 day today because whenever I have tried to get some music of had one story the dissatisfaction and complaints of the sussexes.

There was a new story there, but it didn't require reporting ad nauseam has happened today and yesterday by the radio TV and online now Johnny down.

You're not responsible deciding what goes in a bullet in but do you think the response overall has been excessive or is this as some people have said the great prices to hit the royal family since 1936.

I didn't it may be the greatest crisis since 1936.

Maybe you generally need a little more perspective than 3 days of exhaustive coverage and complete exhaustion to be able to make that call I totally understand that the Royal story.

Marmite or stronger, I completely get that before it at the job.

I was really not very interested in the Royal story and I'm I'm probably putting a quite politely there so I get that I also get that because we don't tend on Radio 4 in particular radio and general to touch the real story as much as television does certainly as much as the newspaper when a big story comes.

It's suddenly feels like the network which I listen to a lot is drowning in Royal storage if you listen to the 1800 6:00 bulletin on Radio 4.

Yeah the radio stories did quite a few stories based on Monday and Tuesday but then it moved on and I think sometimes people get a disproportionate sense of what we think is vital and important simply because we put at the top of the running order and there are a myriad of reasons and causes the things going at the top of a News Bulletin well, let's look at the detail of your response to the store.

Because one of our listeners, what's the query Susie as ever the BBC is trying to muddy the waters and raise doubts where Harry and Meghan are concerned by saying it is worth remembering.

We are currently only getting one side of the story.

Are you trying to muddy the waters here by just raising doubts about the validity of what in particular the Duchess has said I think there are two parts to that question.

I'm not judging either than one is about the point about it.

There always being another side of the story and is glaringly obvious that literally in the minutes and hours after one is reporting an interview.

You're not going to have a response from the other side and it's simply a fundamental of journalism.

I know people doubt it, but please believe me that you try and go and get the other sides opinion and you represent.

The peace in doing so you're not questioning her honesty.

This is the way she sees it as like to win.

This is what to an accident I see different things and there is you won't be surprised to your listeners that there are doubts as to whether there is such a thing as objective truth now.

I don't want to get too deep into the system illogical hole here, but this is only journalism after all but it is important to remind people that the right of reply has not been made to what are very great accusations the second point is by picking over the interview.

Just what I think your question is suggesting we do to needlessly.

We are casting doubt creating division, etc.

Etc, and you know I can I can see that I can understand where it comes from a disagree with it.

I think when you make a series of statements allegations claims whatever and we're

I mean within the space of the program actually I was turning to colleagues and saying hang on that doesn't quite work with that that has to be picked up on albeit.

I think in given the circumstances a respectful way and that's what I thought to do all along and I've done my very best to get back in touch with the people who can speak for the Duke and Duchess and save these are the criticism.

How do you respond and to represent those but it's very difficult isn't it on an issue like this.

What struck me is the generational response is very different young people sympathizing with Megan older people less so the issue of race which people rushed to the Barricades it's very difficult for you.

It's difficult for me.

Isn't it as a white man and rather old white man to actually say well.

It's not necessarily racist.

Is it it might be to speculate about the colour of the child from a mixed-race relationship.

It could certainly be evidence of racist.

It might be simple curiosity purely badly expressed, but it's difficult to say this in this sort of emotional atmosphere.

We now face every time extraordinarily careful with my language there categories of stories kinds of stories were think it's right for a correspondent to say without being prompted by outside as well hang on that doesn't make sense this doesn't make sense their judgements made every second in the language that I use even in describing the allegation or stay and about what conversations have been had you know describing it for example saying a racist allegation is obviously a value judgement about what we're discussing and what how people perceive it people are going to perceive it differently according to their Circumstance is it particularly difficult because I'm a white man and then I'll be lying if I said I hadn't thought about it someone tweeted.

Me there on p.m.

The other day.

I used the phrase tarred with the same brush and I thought yes that was a completely inappropriate phrase to use giving this story so I'm thinking about it more definitely I don't shy away from it because I do think part of being a journalist.

Is is being a stroppy burger and probably not the extended time with my colleagues in breakfast television I would be interested to know what sort of access does Jonny dymond have to roll sources and is information given is on the record.

What's on at the Robertson not always on the record, but when we talk about royal sources is one of the problems here.

Is it does it turn to roll sources that a group of people around Her Majesty the Queen and The Power of people around Prince Charles and then a group of people around certainly Prince William is there such a thing as a Royal sauce.

If I get All the President's Men and don't want to chat in grotesque detail about the people that I speak with on the question of off the record on the record of course they're off the record briefing.

It's part of the sort of dirty deal done between journalists and institutions and has been for as far as I'm aware a pretty long time.

It's a way of giving a briefing which is liable and somewhat unaccountable and that is a place that you have to tussle as a journalist Staveley unaccountability of the briefing as to you know royal so be careful again try to be careful about how I describe the sources that I have such that they don't all sounds as if I'm you know ringing up the Private Secretary to the Queen and having a chat and is this one of the most difficult areas still to report in British Public life or generally that he's can't get at the truth.

They let me preface it with.

I have friends and colleagues around the world being assaulted being jailed and being killed.

This is not a tough beat that having been said the lack of information the accretion of tradition this division between what they see as public and private it makes the job a very strange one and it because of the profile and because it attracts so many strong opinions and the delicacy over it within the BBC it has been a difficult few days my thanks to Jonny dymond BBC royal correspondent.

Please do let us know your thoughts on that interview or of course anything else to do with BBC Radio this is how you get in touch you can send an email to feedback and bbc.co.uk the addresses feedback PO Box 672 34 London se1p 4ax you can follow our activity on.

By using at BBC R4 feedbag, or you can call us and leave a phone message on 03333440524 on some mobile networks all those details for on our website this week or asking to BBC Radio listeners to step out of their comfort service and listen to a program that wouldn't normally be on their radar this week.

We have a mother and daughter in Gloucester and Elena in Bristol so Sarah what are your top three programs the ones you really enjoy listening to the Archers from correspondent and the News Quiz and Eleanor about you.

I would have to choose for Today programme I like to listen to Westminster as well on a Sunday and

I really like Tim keys late night.

Poetry programme as well broadcast on Radio 4 at lunch time the being various Editions some of being called dog poo and the challenge of navigation naked mole rats and life extension only asked you to do was entitled ants and social distancing and how do you describe the programme explain what it's about say the premise of the program is raiding mother nature's medicine cabinet to cure things in human Society and it sounded to me like a podcast what you can't expect and therefore I suspect is very much and directed at somebody of your age.

Do you think the style and the approach worked? I think it definitely was pitched.

You know someone who doesn't really listen to Radio 4.

Maybe you know it's only 14 minutes long the presenters were quite chatty.

Another I thought the sound effects of the start really didn't kind of fit You Know Radio 4 programme it kind of turn me off it.

I felt that patronized actually by the sound effects some what they were trying to do but it did feel a bit sort of unnecessary kinda.

Felt like something that maybe would be aimed at children.

I don't know if it would be aimed at my age and welcome to naturebang.

Let me touch your mother Sarah did you feel patronized by the use of Music and the way the program introduced itself is immediately apparent.

It was only a younger audience because the music was childish the intro music and as well as soon as the present has started to speak they spoke to quickly for me to tune into right from the start that said it is slow down and it'll get better but I find a lot of programs aimed at Young

Porsche the presenter speak to quickly this case were Becky Ripley and Emily night and she said that they really should be talking down two people use the word pattern.

Do you think they have to put on a joke keep busy so style, because they told young people you can't be trusted to just sit back and listen to the interesting information.

They've got well.

Yeah.

I guess that's what I trying to do and I know that you know there's lots of talk all the time about how Radio 4 is going to get younger people to listen, but younger people live BBC sounds and I think whoever wants to listen to Radio 4 will come to it.

I don't think Radio 4 needs to kind of have this type of program in a bit to get younger people to listen.

I'm not sure if it would make young people listen to it.

Did you feel like it was a tool for sixth form teachers or something like that now.

I feel like it would even be younger than that I'm not.

Hoover target audience, was you know I feel like young children might have enjoyed it and I thought the subject matter would have been appropriate for young children did fill out face on Radio 4 surprised to see if it was a Radio 4 programme definitely do feel the two presenters work together because sometimes I mean the Script is written and you believe this and you think actually this spontaneous.

It's their written down but Sarah did it come across as spontaneous the conversation the relationship between the two presenters did sound scripted however, they seem to get very well, then I thought that they had a really good report.

I thought that the lecturer or the professor from Bristol University was absolutely fascinating she spoke about how ants with disease in colonies, and I thought was remarkable the way that they and the way that they live and the way that they are fastidious about cleanliness within the Colony about.

Play use formic acid in the way that we use hand sanitizer to kill germs in the analogy between the way that we live in now.

It's social distancing and the way that they would deal with a pandemic disease in colonies.

I thought was quite amazing even the way that they naturally socially distance when they know that there is illness within the colony and the way that they naturally remove themselves really very interesting surprised about the question.

They set themselves work an amp teachers anything about how to avoid a pandemic or how to survive one.

Do you think they are said that to be honest? I think I mean they did spend time on other subjects.

Obviously it's only 14 minutes long the podcast.

Am I think it probably only talked about ants and social distancing for maybe half of it, but yeah, I didn't realise that varied dead ants in tiny and graves and and also bit off fungal spores.

Members of their colony even if it poses a risk to themselves, I don't know answer could be so selfless.

So no it was they really did we always ask the same thing which is whether or not you would want to have him being put out of your comfort zone to a degree you actually would like to listen to another edition of the program.

So will you be listening to nature bang in the future perhaps to a programme about naked mole rats and life extension to be honest.

I don't think I will nature's not really my bag.

I would never see a programme about nature my boyfriend.

He's an ecologist won't be happy to hear that but no it's not something I'm interested in really and yeah, I did feel that the format was with God for Radio 4 programme.

What about Sarah would you listen again? It's not something that I would have automatically looked at when looking on my BBC sounds up but since hearing.

I've downloaded all of the episodes, am I next when I'm going to listen to is about naked mole rats and life expectancy because I feel that my age that I could do with some good advice to hear is that they've got the wrong they produce the program which is ideally suited for Mothers of a certain age, but not for that 25-year old daughter.

Thank you very much for joining us and becoming a little way out of your comfort zone.

Thank you.

Thank you and you can catch up with naturebang on BBC sounds do elders know if you would like to be put out of your comfort zone.

In the Radio 4 Series Britain's fascist thread historian Camilla Schofield explored a century of British fascism from the formation of the British history in 1923 to Oswald Mosley British Union of fascists the National Front and the BNP the series claims the history of fascism in Britain is an unbroken thread and far from over one of the biggest and most stations in British political history is new to Great Britain is new it will be attacked by some and laptop by others.

Listeners have had plenty to say about the series is a taste hubba st.

Albans I felt the Britons fascist thread was a very powerful piece of radio it trace the thread of fascist thought and activism through British politics right up to the present day and in so doing made it easier for listeners to identify when they had 21st century manifestations of fascism and so to reject this punishes propaganda David I hope there'll be a definition of fascism.

It is certainly not synonymous with and it is possible to be non racist but fascist the series was largely based on the work of Dr John mulhall a senior researcher with the charity.

Hope not hate who recently published fascism after the Holocaust he was also interview for the programme when we met on zoom of course ask him first how he defined fascism.

It's a good question.

The definition of fascism has always been a contentious issue.

It never hasn't been even back in the 1920s and 30s leaving the 1940s as early as that George Orwell was asking the question you know what is why don't we have a definition whichever one except and there to be honest with you.

There is still no consensual definition you know lots of historians for example talk about what they call a fascist style and buy this SIM in kind of the Promotion of Unity youth charismatic authoritarian leadership positive use of violence and this kind of coats of Unity energy and purity so there's different kind of elements to it, but broadly speaking as a consensus around some call elements which are fascism is this sense of national rebirth coupled with this ultranationalism authoritarian governments my cold has come in Russia at the moment which have lots of those elements of fascism as you do find it.

So would you say the fascism is not about capitalism or communism? It's about something that might be either of those.

Fundamentally anti-democratic and racist so yeah, I will argue that fascism is fundamentally anti-democratic Andre sister and actually like some people talk about I think this is quite useful.

It's what they call the negations basically what I mean is fascism is Auntie liberalism.

It's anti-communism.

It's Auntie conservatism.

I think it's possible to say there's two forms of different separate things that we should defined differently call different you know the Soviet Union in stalin's Russia in Hitler's Germany were both awful regimes that terrible things but I'm not sure it's particularly useful to say the same thing went in many ways the motivations which drove the politics for so different program for example you at one stage of the conjugated to Enoch Powell clearing the path to fascism no doubt that most people regard his speeches suddenly the rivers of blood speech in Wolverhampton having 968 is as racist but also in the powers of passionate democratic president Defender of

The House of Commons and the parliamentarians, so you didn't call him a fascist by suggesting that you clear the way to fascism when you tell him with something that was inappropriate.

No actually don't be nasty and I think that's the documentary got this really really correct.

There is a link between fascism and more mainstream politics.

There is a movement back and forth there is a commonality of ideas.

No not all people that are for all fascists are racist and some people you know people end up being fascist and they often come through more moderate forms of politics.

Are you saying you think you know what's a fascist? No, no, I don't think you bring up on here by turning Barry Britain's fattest Road is an excellent important and timely review of the power of extreme right in this country it warrants further updates.

The use of social media and things such as the groomery of the young is developed.

This is a threat that is not going away.

Is it now to spot embryonic if you like fashion in the 30s? You could say while wearing black shirts.

It's a little easier to see maybe you would have seen sort of skinheads in the 60s or you could identify but how do you identify now presume? You do think prevalent in the age of the internet.

We have much more complex forms of fascist mobilisation.

It's not necessarily marching down East London in a black shirt is often people from all over the world online using anonymous accounts engaging and racist indiscriminate tree politics, but I certainly agree with the idea that there is a continuity of hatred of a continuity of politics which the documentary makes really clear and despite perhaps fascism might look different in some ways.

This is why it's so important to have these general definitions because so much of the politics on the extreme far right now fits comfortably in these definitions of fascism even though they

Black shirts and they don't see Kyle all of them their politics is reminiscent of in some ways indistinguishable from classical fascism between the views that people have and the reasons why they hold those views which may be the result of social deprivation of a range of things that should be attended to the danger.

Is that by Simply calling someone if you ignore legitimate concerns that they have I think it's important never too kind of rationalize fascism and say it's based on legitimate concerns, but I do agree with you that it's worse and have to be careful about who we call fascist for example when we think about the British National Party which the documentary rightly described as a fascist party and it was obviously the most electoral success full fashion spot in British history was a fascist at the core membership of that party was fascist but not all 500000 people that voted for election a fascist many of those people angry upset disillusioned or ignored by mainstream politics.

Suffering you not economic deprivation all these sorts of issues that made them look to the far-right for an answer essential looking for easy answer to very difficult questions.

It's not right took all of those people fascist half million people that voted for that party will fascist my thanks to Dr John mulhall from hope not hate and that's it for this edition of feedback next week will be discussing David mamet's near the Christopher boys Communion with its director Martin Jarvis do let us know your thoughts until next week.

Please keep safe and help keep other people say goodbye.