A plea to the nation's broadcast interviewers: less is more.

Like many people I listened to the compilation of BBC local radio interviews that the Prime Minister did earlier this week. Clearly, what the world needs is another hot-take; this one is about interview technique, rather than the PM's performance, and the contrast between the regional breakfast presenters and their national counterparts.

What they mostly had in common is that the questions were short and to the point. There was hardly any rambling, multi-clause questions, multi-part questions, general observations and trailing off into forgetfulness.

The more the interviewer talks, the less we get to hear from the interviewee. The more long-winded the questions, the less likely we are to get meaningful answers. (It's for that reason that we don't ask such questions in media interview rehearsals because it's just too easy for the interviewees.)

It's the guest we need to hear from. I don't want the interviewer to show off how knowledgeable they are. (I feel Nicky Campbell used to do this a lot.) I don't want them to be impressing us with how clever they are. (James Naughtie was guilty of this for me.) And I want them to ask a definite question rather than take a gentle amble around all the houses. (Adrian Chiles and Tony Livesey!)

The best I can think of recently is Laura McGhie. I love her direct, brief style. Mishal Husain and Aasmah Mir are other favourites. (Stephen Nolan can also be very good sometimes, especially using silence to great effect, although he also drives me demented other times.) And the local radio presenters were in a similar vein. Perhaps that was a product of them having short slots, but no matter: they still made a choice to use the time well.

Two other things leapt out at me from the discussion about the interview rounds.

The first was 'hard' v 'soft' questions. I'm not interested in either as a listener. I want effective questions that challenge and illuminate. If the 'soft' questions help me to understand something better or expose a weak argument, then great. And if the 'hard' questions just result in a slanging match or a mutual monologue then how are any of us better off. (John Humphries at the end of his time got lost in his own legend and I felt his interviews had become unlistenable.)

The second is the 'gotcha' style of question. (e.g. "Which are you - corrupt or just incompetent?" or the cliche about how much a pint of milk costs.) There was one that nearly worked, when the PM was asked if she slept well, although we never got the natural follow-up which was to highlight that many people would have been too worried to do likewise. Generally, I don't like these for some of the same arguments as above. They can make for good sport and easy headlines, but for me have negligible value.

So...my stylistic preference is: short, clear, direct and incisive questions that give something to the listener, with the occasional silence or interruption. It makes for better listening all round. Hats off to the presenters across the English local stations who showed some of their peers how it should be done.