At its best, it can assimilate any other formats; juxtapose and merge then to create new perspectives.

It can inform, scrutinise, entertain and excite through an imaginative aural experience.

It is Total Radio.

Yet for some time, feature-makers all over the world have been feeling under threat, beleaguered and insecure, -both for themselves and for the radio form they love so well.

Why?

Once again this year, Prix Europa provided a rare opportunity for practitioners to take stock of the situation, share their personal or national experiences, air their concerns, and propose ways of getting out of their perceived blind alley.

'SOS Feature' did not imply that we are dorwning.

It was rather a timely prod, a jolt, a crack of the whip. It warned : 'Watch it! We have a marvellous tool here.

Let's not neglect it, and waste its potential! Otherwise, all of us, and especially the listeners, will be the losers.'

Around seventy-five programme-makers came along; most of them having flown to Berlin defyning the current miasma of terrorist scare.

It was an evening of statements presented by a wide cross-section of Featurists.

As a form of self- Diagnosis, it concentrated the mind wonderfully, (even though the symptoms described varied personally, but also nationally, across Europe).

Easily the evening could have been a flood of moans and accusations. Refreshingly however, this was stemmed by self-criticism, -by a healthy self-questioning, and an honest admission that we are part of the problem.

Speaker after speaker pleaded guilty to a variety of collective sins : choosing stories that seem to interest us rather than the listener; or often treating them superficially; or falling into the trap of formula programme-making; or caring more for presentation than content; in some cases unwittingly encouraging a stale polarization in the output, thus spawning programmes that are either straight reportage or self-indulgently "arty".

There is still mediocrity and glibness around, we were warned.

Are the important issues that help to explain the world sufficiently addressed ?

Do we communicate effectively enough?

If the feature is "a fragment of reality recreated for radio", does it usually function as 'a witness of the times'?

Authenticity can be compromised by over-editing and technological tinkering.

Perhaps now as never before does the Feature need its magic, its sense of originality, its freshness, to help Good Radio cast its spell on younger listeners as well.

It is a matter of sadness if the Feature is perceived as ' a beautiful landau making its elegant way among speeding cars on the autobahn

Disarming and courageous self-flagellation! But the feature-maker, far from being the only culprit, is also a victim.

Something of an unsung hero, perhaps; certainly someone who doggedly has been cultivating his or her craft, - often in spite of alleged administrative indifference, inadequate resources, limited time and poor pay.

What about these complaints?

In the prevailing system, it was certainly felt, there is a dichotomy, in that the commissioning editor ( or 'producer') for some time now has had "to combine his creative skills with a managerial way of thinking".

For good or ill, gone is the feature-maker's splendid isolation of yore; a poet up in the garret!

But in the real world, passion for one's craft is not enough.

It takes time to compose a decent feature; time to think and research, often to travel to different locations, to listen, to select, to edit, to compile, to re-mix.

By all accounts, (including my own experience as a freelance), this time is poorly paid for.

Funding was also identified as being at the root of several complaints about studio facilities, and their availability.

Perhaps the point should be made that a feature need not to be an élitist, 'high-falutin' form of radio.

In this fairly typical year, for instance, the vast majority of features were stories of human interest; about what is going on in our societies, in the lives of some fellow-humans, and in our individual lives.

Some features may / must deal also with the cultural landscape around us.

We need thought-provoking, beautifully-crafted, imaginative radio programmes that are interesting and a joy to listen to.

As wholly commercial broadcasters may not provide this wider range of choice, the intelligent listener expects the tax-or-licence-funded national broadcasters to offer good, challenging, 'custom-made programmes, rather than competitive mass-production'.

This year too we heard some excellent specimens of the species; and indeed there was a nice symbolism in the two winners :

the first one by a veteran feature-maker,

the second one by a young newcomer.

But in a competition no one expects every single programme to be of the highest standard, -and the truth is that there were several cases where the language of radio, the grammar, the magic somehow didn't quite coalesce to produce that particular excitement we feel when the feature is 'on song'.

One common denominator among those attending the "S.O.S. Feature" evening, was the fact that we were all essentially powerless programme-makers.

I really wish that some of the high-powered people who have it in their gift not only to tighten but also to loosen the purse-strings, - could be urged to come to Prix Europa, to take part in our discussions, and have a chat with the common herd of programme-makers. I'm sure we'll all be thrilled to meet them over a glass of German wine next year.

Times have moved on; crafted radio has lost its sense of occasion; listening habits and expectations have changed.

And yet, the Prognosis for the Radio Feature is good.

It may be a traditional form, but it is not condemned to be old-fashioned.

It has plenty of flexibility, vitality and sap to be able to adapt, renovate, reinvent itself, move with the times, widen its audience appeal.

To identify any weaknesses is to take the first step towards getting rid of them.

So what's the Therapy? (Good word, 'therapy'; not only does it imply that maybe we ought to have our heads examined, but its original meaning was "waiting on", "serving".)

What can be done then to 'serve' the listener better?

No quick fixes, by all accounts.

We need not only judgement, talent, passion and some money, - but also a different mindset.

There was a unanimous appeal for a re-thinking of Radio Management philosophy; for a reappraisal of the values, the power and priorities of Radio; for simply realistic budgets for radio features, to allow for fairer remuneration, adequate time, better conditions.

Radio authors and feature-makers to be encouraged to address "the concerns of the world", to use the imaginative panoply of radio to dig deeper into stories of the present and of the past; to strive for a balance between form and content and have a wider appeal; to attract younger listeners without condescension.

With improved conditions and stronger programmes, listeners will be tempted, challenged and willing to make their vital contribution.

Voices were also raised in favour of more cross-fertilization between the Feature and Current Affairs documentaries.

More co-productions; workshops; seminars; exchanges of views in contexts like the remarkable forum of the annual International Features Conference.

But there's hardly anything new here, you may protest; most of the points have been rehearsed before.

Well!

Perhaps they cannot be rehearsed often enough!

Maybe they should be addressed to all concerned again and again, (as 'formal appeals', it was suggested), until a concerted effort is made in terms of programme policy, but also financially and artistically.

The Feature deserves to survive.

But it has to be stimulating, eagle-eyed, sparkling, dynamic.

The process from the Idea through to Completion appropriately nurtured.

For its real significance is not in the end the acoustical experience; not its craftsmanship; nor anything 'élitist.

It lies in the fact that it embodies the essence of Good Radio; that it is the lifeblood of Radio; its DNA.

How can then this radio form par excellence be allowed to decline further, to withdraw into some ghetto and wither away?

American Radio (stagnant, commercial-spewing, attention-span-conscious, listener-patronising,) looms as a dreadful warning; an import that Europe can ill afford.

It seems sensible, therefore, that those who control the schedules and the purse, but also the commissioners and the feature-makers themselves, should beware.

The present unsatisfactory state of affairs may continue, but ultimately, I fear, only at the peril of Good Radio itself.

And surely, it needn't come to that.

John Theocharis London, 30-11-2001