The Foreign Desk, review: A refreshing take on the news, without the aggro

The flagship current affairs programme on online radio station Monocle 24, has dispensed with the ritual of pitting commentators against each other

This week's question was 'Could Donald Trump become US President?' (Getty Images)

Exactly who decided how current affairs should be done? When was it decreed that the binary approach to radio news analysis – bring in two people with opposing views and, with the bit of goading, get them to bark at one another for three minutes – should be the dominant format?

I like a bit of ideological argy-bargy, but there are times when I find something more nuanced is in order. These are the moments when the middle ground is more interesting, and when the belligerent back-and-forth between guests and presenters on Today and its ilk is rather wearisome.

Apparently, I'm not alone. The makers of The Foreign Desk, the flagship current affairs programme on online radio station Monocle 24, has dispensed with the ritual of pitting commentators against each other. Instead they bring in a handful of experts and asks them to calmly share their thoughts. How very refreshing.

Furthermore, rather than picking up on the big news item of the day as prescribed by the BBC, the show tends to focus on a broadly topical issue, zooming in on the hitherto overlooked or unreported part of the story.

The show is presented by journalist Steve Bloomfield, and recent topics have included the significance of polling in the upcoming US elections and the political status of Australia.

This week's show looked at refugee camps and why they don't work as they should. If their name is to be understood, said Bloomfield, they should be places of safety and recovery although, as the camps in Calais and the borders of Syria have shown us, the reality can be different. They are, he said, "places of despair, temporary structures that have become increasingly permanent."

We heard, through his guests Kilian Kleinschmidt, who ran the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan and is one of the world's leading authorities on humanitarian aid, and the writer Ben Rawlence, who spent time in the Dadaab camp in northern Kenya, how the viability of a refugee camp relies on the long-term planning of aid agencies and the compliance and generosity of the host nation. We also heard, through the contributors and through interview clips from refugees, about the hierarchies, societies, economies and urban developments that spring up in the camps, turning them into semi-functioning cities.

This was a half-hour programme devoted entirely to one topic, which meant that, as well as having a conspicuous absence of aggro, it was unusually thoughtful and in-depth. I wonder if the editors of Today have heard it.

The Foreign Desk has also introduced a new feature called "The Explainer" that seeks to answer the basic (but not simple) questions the average listener might ask, but would need to wade through hours of potentially partisan analysis in order to get an answer.

This week's question was "Could Donald Trump become US President?", to which the short answer, chillingly, is "yes", though naturally it was more complicated than that.

Bloomfield's explanation took in Trump's ability to tap into fears of free trade, immigration and women, and to send the Republican establishment into a blind panic. As he saw it, the odds are that he will emerge as the Republican candidate (aaagh), but his chances against the Democratic candidate are slim (phew).

This was, once again, thoughtful, measured and without glibness or condescension. This was my kind of news.