How to . . . moderate a live panel

Some essential do's and dont's.

I’ve had to moderate at hundreds of live events during a career spent mainly as a journalist. You learn a thing or two over the years, mainly from all the things that go wrong. Here are some pointers:

Do take control. From the moment an event organiser asks you to do run a panel – or chair a day or do a depth-interview "fireside chat" – treat it as your session. Consider the quality, quantity and especially suitability of guests and whether you should draft some in or have them on stand-by. Consider who will be attending (regardless of what the publicity says). Consider the venue – especially the stage set-up, AV equipment and preferred format.

While pre-event conference calls and "discussion notes" are now the done thing, nothing beats some prep with your panellists on the day itself. There is often a "speakers room" at a lot of corporate or public sector events. Use it but be aware of who might also be in there – it can also double as a press room.

Do call guests by their names – audience members too if you recognise them at Q&A time. And get those names right. In written content spelling is everything. In a debate it’s all about pronunciation. Spell out names phonetically in front of you if that helps. Definitely finish by thanking guests and referring to them by their full name. (Each guest and the audience will feel the benefit.)

Think of your standards bar for engagement and energy on stage. It should feel more like a CNN debate than a village hall book club. (No offence to book clubs.)

Do take a pencil on stage. I’ve written at length about the rise of tablet computers, which can be great props and practical beyond paper, allowing you to look up information or use Twitter, for example. But try note taking on an iPad on the fly. Try pointing at something. A pencil wins every time.

Don’t let guests introduce themselves or give lengthy summaries. For one, it’ll make you look lazy or unprepared. Nobody sticks to the time you give them and especially with intros being early on you are unlikely to cut in and stop them. And it may well become a procession of one-upmanship. Or selling. Or both. All without tone having been set by you, so it’s wildly inconsistent to boot.

Don’t give guests your questions in advance. Many will be nervous if you don’t tell them what to expect – and telling them what to expect, even giving them an outline of the flow and subject areas is fine. But with precise questions they’ll rehearse answers that then won’t sound natural. They’ll even use those answers for questions which you will have changed slightly on the day. And they’ll (sometimes) get upset if they prepare for questions you never end up asking.

Don’t get wrapped up in "off the record" or Chatham House Rule stuff while on stage. Find out beforehand if the latter applies. Tell your guests there’s really no such thing as the former. The bottom line is that what you or your guests say in public is quotable, usable, permanent. Good luck out there.

Tony Hallett is the author of Everything in Moderation - How to chair, moderate and otherwise lead events

 

Sweet moderation: 2011 Toronto International Film Festival. Credit: Getty Images

Tony Hallett is a former editorial director at CBS Interactive UK and author of "Everything in Moderation"

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496