Radio Review

Robert Hanks
Tuesday 26 March 1996 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Experience suggests that, while animals may sometimes look great, they're rarely up to much as conversationalists, despite everything Dr Dolittle had to say on the subject. This is why they don't come across well on radio, and why radio nature programmes are so very different in tone and scale from those on screen: television goes for the spectacular and the exotic, for nature untamed and untainted by people; it can afford just to stand back and stare, open-mouthed, at the strangeness and beauty of animals.

Radio has to keep talking, though. Hence it adopts a more contemplative style and focuses more - though not exclusively - on human relationships with animals. Programmes made on this basis can be brilliant (Radio 4's Natural History Programme is regularly compulsive); but it can also make for programmes that seem to forget how extraordinarily interesting animals are for their own sakes, and not because of anything they do to us or we think about them.

That's the trap fallen into by Venom, four programmes described as "a cultural and natural history of venomous animals". It seems a bit mean to put spiders, the subject of the first programme, in this category - they get a bad enough press as it is, and most of them aren't remotely poisonous (12 species out of a total of 34,000 was the figure cited). But the real problem was that the programme was too concerned with the supposed scariness of spiders, and it got hopelessly cluttered by supposedly eerie music and arachnophobe soundbites; consequently, the naked fascination of the spider world was lost.

If Venom allowed nature to be overshadowed by human considerations, The New Sexual Nature, also on Radio 4, makes the opposite mistake. The premise of the series is that you can understand human sexuality through analogy with the animal world - a premise that wears thinner with every episode. Last week's programme, on how we select a mate, ended with Gillian Rice, the GP presenter, rebelling against biological determinism - she married her husband because he had a good sense of humour, not because she thought he would help her to propagate her DNA.

In last night's programme, things got further out of hand: the theme was how animals select the sex of their offspring - coypus, for instance, can spontaneously abort predominantly female litters.

Humans, on the other hand, can't select the sex of their offspring at all, leaving the programme with no perceivable point. If radio series were governed by biological laws, this one would be extinct by now.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in