Is the BBC a bee hive for bigoted opinion? My instinct would be to say no, but I do remember the disappointment when at 18, after a few months of listening to Radio 4, I first heard the programme "Any Answers". My illusion that all fellow listeners would be liberal-minded, be them socialist or capitalist in their economics, was SHATTERED!! In the meantime, I have learnt to find much of it quite funny - when you hear a person calling from a distant village with their opinion on multiracialism in London's Brick Lane and ideas of muslim=terrorist, a cackle often results and I think "Tell da geezer in Yorkshire fi gwan Dimbelby!".

"World, have your say" (WHYS) has a similar format, but it is on the BBC World Service, hence it is an opportunity not just for Britons to air their "thoughts", but the concept goes global. It is highly unfortunate that this programme does not have a listen again function (not to "appreciate" their comments a second time but to be able to transcribe the arguments heard for further post analysis).

Yesterday's topic was the pros and cons of "dialogue". One caller had just rung in to say that dialogue means trying to understand the demands of the other to try and reach agreement. When the host Ros Atkins (who is deserved of much credit for blatantly being biased against the ultra-cons) supposed the next caller would not agree with the last (because the presenter is given an outline of upcoming callers' general stance through his or her earpiece), this new caller indeed started with "On the contrary", said how he agreed with Bush's "diplomacy" and then went on to talk about his understanding of compromise and how both parties need to be ready to give things up and thus it's surely not possible to negotiate with Hamas and Hizbolah etc., because apparently, according to the conviction of this caller and others like him Hamas are incapable of surrendering anything (the catalyst for this debate on WHYS was Bush's talk in Israel earlier in the week - his comparisons of the Iranian government to Hitler.) ...

Principally influenced by Carl Roger's "On becoming a Person", here are a few of my principles on dialogue:

- I hesitate to use the word "compromise" with regard to dialogue, because it suggests that both parties have to lose out. I think it is sometimes possible for all parties to be 100% satisfied if only it was clearer (to all) what one desires.

- (As discussed by the first caller described above) seek to comprehend what your interlocutor(s) actually wants. They may initially only give you a very vague notion of this.

- People in arguments tend to exagerrate things. Falando com o meu amigo J the other day, we agreed that people are often scared of losing something in discussions. Detailed and more extensive questioning from all parties achieves two things 1) it shows you are considerate to their needs and 2) it helps to unravel exactly what it is that the other person(s) want(s) which, as stated, is often less than clearly formulated due to defensiveness.

- Try so hard to understand the other person's perspective that you would be willing to concede your own. Willing is different to instantly doing. Furthermore, I return to my belief that many people fail to properly listen for fear of not having their own point heard: if you have clearly rationalised your own standpoint, you should not have any concern in exploring others' ideas.

- Discussions can often become or even start a little heated. It might appeal to retort with unfriendly comments to unfriendly comments, but, as far as I have ever experienced, this only leads to the comments becoming even unfriendlier (in the short-term). When the unfriendly comments start, another option is 'sie am Arsch vorbeigehen zu lassen' (to let them go past your arse) and help your fellow interlocutor(s) to calm down and return to the topic at hand. "You can also kill a person with kindness" said his most exalted worthiness Bob Dylan in the film "No Direction Home".

- Letting things go is, however, a little more intricate than ignoring stuff which more or often than not conduces pent up anger. Fundamentally, it consists of two parts:1) decide for yourself whether the unfriendly comment(s) has / have any truth in them (OK, so you have to be objective) and then act on the comment(s) as appropriate or indeed discard 2) if the comments have such a serious impact on the issue or your relationship, do not curse the world and all its inhabitants for this (minor) injustice, but look to do something constructive. Concentrating IN YOUR THOUGHTS on positve solutions rather than negative damning is as relaxing as.

- Be prepared for all this to take time. Discussions are a forum where even the most impatient among us (i.e. me) need to allow others time (to on occasion go away and) to process all the thoughts and suggestions made.

My definition of dialogue is different to yours Mr Bush supporter.

The day I achieve all the above on all occasions will be marvellous. At best I could say that I am working on it.

Further disclaimers: 

* There are probably more ideas to add to this ...

** Things naturally become a lot more complicated when one party threatens or uses violence (in the room). ... worth considering Habermas' theory of"ideal communication situation" and achieving freedom of speech in the first place.

*** Thirdly and most importantly: international diplomacy works entirely differently to the soundbites one hears in the media from Bush and other prominent leaders. In the background, real diplomats and other foreign office negotiators deal in most likely in a far more pragmatic manner with all sorts of groups including those with contacts to Hamas etc..Bearing that in mind the guy on the radio and indeed I myself are discussing a non-reality. Nonetheless, I felt I had to air the above ideas.

The World, Have Your Say blog is at:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/

Or you can listen to it live at 7 p.m. CET