No distractions

1  Earlier today, I listened to an exchange on the Today programme about the trial of the man who has admitted the charge of multiple murder.  There were three contributors: the Today interviewer,  an authoritative man, a medical professional who could talk about the effect of the trial on people in Norway and a legal professional, one who could talk about the trial.  


2  What was striking was the nature of the exchange, which may have run for about three minutes. There were no distractions.  Neither of the two contributors sought to score a point over the other. Both spoke clearly.  Both, if clarity and evenness of speech is a guide, knew what they were talking about.  The complemented each other.  Meanwhile, the questioner put the questions clearly.  Whilst the questions were intended to challenge, there was no sense of a questioner seeking to circumscribe, to pin down, a responder who was seeking to avoid a direct answer.  The questions were put clearly.  The replies were as clear.


3  How refreshing was one listener's response.  All three players (questioner and responders) were seeking to illuminate.  All spoke clear.  None repeated; none needed to: it was sufficient to say something once, just once.  


4  And there were no pictures to get in the way.  It would have been irrelevant, it would have been a distraction, to have seen any of the contributors.  What mattered was what was said not what the speaker looked like.  Further, there were no interruptions.  The two respondents spoke to the point, knowledgeably, unhesitatingly, fluently.


5  Ah, said the listener, what a contrast to the exchanges on Any Questions yesterday evening.  Repetitions, interruptions, an absence of calm.