It's difficult to find anything redeeming in the Bush administration's foreign policy and the stories that have been coming out of Iraq and Guantanomo Bay make the heart sink to ever greater depths. Radio programmes, such as this, which deconstruct these policies are of course an essential pillar in the democratic process but there are times when I feel that the presenting style is so didactic and preachy that despite the seriousness of the issue I want to switch off. The two interviews in this programme are strong enough in themselves to make one very much aware of what's going on. I don't then need to be prodded in the stomach with a blunt instrument by a street preacher in the guise of a presenter. This is clearly a programme preaching to the converted. Isn't it more important to bring the doubters in to the fold?
I feel that the producer of this programme was so intent on focusing on the horror of internment and torture that he/she forgot about some of the basics of radio making. Who is the interviewer who appears from no-where? I also had to rewind to find out who the interviewee was in the second interview. Very confusing.
The first interviewee, Moazzam Begg was very eloquent but I wanted his story to have more structure. When did his kidnap happen? Where and how? How long was he detained for?
In my book let the interviewee damn with eloquence, facts and experience. That's the power of radio and certainly the strength here. I don't need to be hit on the head with hobnail boots by the presenter.