What should a 'cultural network' be doing?

[french frank]

I posted a new quote on our (FoR3) Facebook page and it occurred to me that there are some issues that arise from the topic. The quote was from the Preface to The Envy of the World by Humphrey Carpenter.

"The BBC has never sat down to define 'culture' or what a 'cultural network' should be doing. Nor has it really ever faced up to the fact that, if such a network is to do its job properly, it will, by definition, only have a very small audience."

As for defining 'culture', that way madness probably lies, at least as far as this topic is concerned. The immediate response might be 'It depends what you mean by culture?' But I can think of three more precise topics which might be worth pursuing:

1. What should a 'cultural network' - in a general sense - be doing?

2. Given that this is 2014, not 1954, how should it , and how should it not, 'modernise'?

3. How do you persuade the general public that having a very small audience doesn't mean anyone is 'excluded'; or that the service is just for a closed elite that wants to keep the rest of them out?

I have some thoughts but I'm going to have an early night ... (I was up early).

[Flosshilde]

It does indeed depend on what you mean by culture, but I would have thought that, under any definition, Radio 6 is a 'cultural network'.

What should a cultural network be doing? Diseminating, promoting, developing, encouraging, culture?

[Gordon]

It does indeed depend on what you mean by culture, but I would have thought that, under any definition, Radio 6 is a 'cultural network'.

What should a cultural network be doing? Diseminating, promoting, developing, encouraging, culture?

Quite so! But the word is a looking glass word and one that makes some people reach for their holsters. The Asian network is/was "cultural" as is Radio Cymru and Alba. Anyone is allowed to listen to those stations even though they were established for a particular audience which is not a universal one but they may not understand what they are hearing!! Now Radio 3 is, for some, not unlike that!!

[Honoured Guest]

It's worth remembering that Humphrey Carpenter was referring to the Third Programme, which only broadcast in the evening. There's no radio equivalent today! A 24/7 radio station is a different kettle of fish because programmes at many times of day are in part performing a social function - (by which I mean that an ideal cultural Breakfast would still be an accompaniment to breakfast routines) - whereas the Third Programme assumed that all its programming would be given full attention by its listeners.

I suppose that the nearest modern equivalent would be the early aims of BBC4 television, although its output was always compromised by the channel's total low budget, and it's much more seriously hampered now by more recent budget cuts, removing all original history and drama, for example.

[Serial_Apologist]

Equipping people with various means for critiqueing culture, especially their own, would be my answer

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i will read the book, strangely completely ignorant of its existence.... thanks for the pointer ...

[mercia]

Re: 3. - why does the "general public" need to be persuaded .......... of anything at all .... ?

[french frank]

It's worth remembering that Humphrey Carpenter was referring to the Third Programme, which only broadcast in the evening. There's no radio equivalent today!

As I'm sure you know, it was a book commissioned by Radio 3 Controller, Nicholas Kenyon in 1993, and first published in 1996. In that year Through the Night was also introduced which made the station a fully operational 24-hour service. The subtitle is 'Fifty years of the BBC Third Programme and Radio 3'. The quote continues in the present tense. You are probably confusing the book itself with the title used, which was indeed a quotation that referred to the Third Programme back in 1957.

Radio 3 responded (c. 2004) to a complaint (not my complaint!) that 'loutish rock and roll' on the Andy Kershaw show by a Radio 1 featured Britpop group was entirely appropriate for a 'cultural network'. That is not something I completely disagree with, by the way: I merely quote the example to illustrate that the BBC still regarded the station as a 'cultural network'.

I'm not sure that 6 Music is a 'cultural network' in the same sense: isn't it just a music station (albeit music that fits into a particular category)? If that is a 'cultural network', then the term has no meaning: so is Radio 1.

[french frank]

Re: 3. - why does the "general public" need to be persuaded .......... of anything at all .... ?

Well, one could ignore the general statements which have been made (a few of them were quoted by the BBC Trust in its review of Radio 3) and carry on as usual. I think the idea should be dispelled because it isn't true.

To quote from the same source: " ...the young and the not so well educated may be introduced to good music and speech - as happened spectacularly in the early years of the Third.

"This is a prime function of public service broadcasting, and an absolutely vital task for the cultural health of the country, which is not performed by any other cultural organisation or elsewhere in the media.[...] Other radio and TV networks only give glimpses [of such arts subjects], and newspapers and magazines treat them chiefly as material for upmarket gossip. To lose Radio 3's [sic] direct dissemination of the arts, its constant promotion and relays of live music around the country, and its discussion of vital issues in intellectual life, would be a disastrous blow to Britain."

Ironically, as the BBC has expanded with ever more full- and part-time services, Radio 3 is reverting to being part-time again. But that would return to the question of 'modernisation': what is beneficial/useful/necessary, what isn't. And at what point does it clash with the aim of a 'cultural network' that takes its output seriously?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Quite so! But the word is a looking glass word and one that makes some people reach for their holsters. The Asian network is/was "cultural" as is Radio Cymru and Alba. Anyone is allowed to listen to those stations even though they were established for a particular audience which is not a universal one but they may not understand what they are hearing!! Now Radio 3 is, for some, not unlike that!!

- all Radio stations are "cultural". Waiting for a hospital appointment this morning, they had Radio 2 on; it struck me how exactly right they had "pitched" the content and presentation styles to cater for their audience (and I quite enjoyed listening to it!) - I couldn't help wishing that there was an equivalent identification with the needs and tastes of the R3 audience (as there used to be), instead of this search for "new" audience(s). Quite rightly, nobody at the Beeb would consider altering the content of R2 to attract a different type of listener - nobody should be scared of attracting small audiences for a different type of culture.

[VodkaDilc]

I wondered if there would be a reference here to the item I heard on the Steve Hewlett programme on R4 yesterday. I gather there was a meeting in Oxford and I half-heard a reference to a hypothetical future where the licence fee just covered anything not provided by commercial broadcasters - such as (and I recall this phrase) "R3 and the orchestras". Can FF or someone else give some background to the Oxford meeting yesterday and to what was suggested on the R4 programme?

There was also extensive discussion of the loophole where internet-only BBC viewers/listeners do not have to pay the licence fee - and the urgency of addressing this problem (did I really use that awful verb? - sorry). The young in particular are good at getting free access to most things on the internet. Could there be a tidal wave of legitimate non-licence payers in the near future?

[french frank]

I'll listen to the programme, Vodka (as a legitimate non licence-payer! ). I hadn't heard of the meeting. What is 'the Steve Hewlett programme'?

[aeolium]

The discussion on the Media Show can be heard (it is the first item) here.

The DG's speech to the Oxford Media Convention in which he defends the BBC and the licence fee (and suggests that it should be extended to cover all iplayer access) is here:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/26/tony-hall-bbc-admired-world

And here is an article by one critic of the licence fee which suggests that technological change will eventually make it impossible to sustain:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/24/tony-hall-bbc-subscription-service-licence-fee?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

I'm not sure that a restrictive concept of "culture" in the T S Eliot sense is tenable now, in which case perhaps it's better to look at what the different parts of the BBC should be doing that might distinguish it (as a public service broadcaster) from what commercial providers offer.

[french frank]

Thanks for the links. Not sure that I agree exactly with your comment about TSE and 'culture'. The exact concept may have shifted, but part of the problem is that the primary meaning seems now to be the sociological one: for example, radio stations aimed at a definable demographic (R1 the prime example: a substantial percentage of the target age listens to it, or to a commercial station not unlike it, or to similar material accessible other than through the radio). Radio Cymru, Alba, Radio nan Gaidheal, the Asian Network are aimed at a different kind of demographic, not (necessarily) age-related.

[VodkaDilc]

I'll listen to the programme, Vodka (as a legitimate non licence-payer! ). I hadn't heard of the meeting. What is 'the Steve Hewlett programme'?

Sorry to be so vague. I always try to catch SH's programme on R4 at 4.30 on Wednesdays, but never remember its name. It looks as if the next message gives all the details.