Suzy Klein appointed as BBC Head of Arts and Classical Music TV

[Serial_Apologist]

I found the tone, expression and language of the BBC’s Press Release made me squirm and writhe. Does the Corporation ever ask an experienced outside authority to read its hype prior to publication?

Well, they had to say something.......

[oddoneout]

I found the tone, expression and language of the BBC’s Press Release made me squirm and writhe. Does the Corporation ever ask an experienced outside authority to read its hype prior to publication?

That might be why it is as it is? It reads as an up to the minute right-on all the current buzz words and phrases present and correct piece of puffery using a lot of words to cover up the lack of content and obfuscate any real intention.

[french frank]

That might be why it is as it is? It reads as an up to the minute right-on all the current buzz words and phrases present and correct piece of puffery using a lot of words to cover up the lack of content and obfuscate any real intention.

The BBC's PR has always been full of hyperbole and self-congratulation. I remember a phrase from an independent review (on the BBC's own case for its new digital radio stations) which described the BBC arguments as "almost entirely devoid of self-criticism"*. I think the problem is that the BBC is so terrified of its powerful critics that it sees self-criticism as possible ammunition against them, and they must trumpet their supposed strong points.

Another saying, by a then controller of BBC Two was that "We don't want critical friends: we want friends." True.

* § 2.3.1 p10

"The BBC submitted extensive written evidence to the DCMS as the basis for this review. This comprised:• A report from the Board of Governors on its supervision of the services.• An overall review of the digital radio services taken as a whole.• Individual accounts of each of the services.These were extremely detailed and almost entirely devoid of self-criticism."

[AuntDaisy]

The BBC's PR has always been full of hyperbole and self-congratulation. I remember a phrase from an independent review (on the BBC's own case for its new digital radio stations) which described the BBC arguments as "almost entirely devoid of self-criticism"*. I think the problem is that the BBC is so terrified of its powerful critics that it sees self-criticism as possible ammunition against them, and they must trumpet their supposed strong points.

Another saying, by a then controller of BBC Two was that "We don't want critical friends: we want friends." True.

* § 2.3.1 p10

"The BBC submitted extensive written evidence to the DCMS as the basis for this review. This comprised:• A report from the Board of Governors on its supervision of the services.• An overall review of the digital radio services taken as a whole.• Individual accounts of each of the services.These were extremely detailed and almost entirely devoid of self-criticism."

Thanks for that link - fascinating & 15 years old.

I stumbled across this rather strange analogy on page 14:

Yet, in my many conversations with the BBC, it became clear that the BBC has had a tendency to overlook the impact of its actions on the commercial market where competitors have to make money to survive. The BBC, Governors and Management alike, has given little thought to the potential discouragement to commercial services from delivering similar services to the BBC because of the BBC’s competitive deployment of resources that no business plan could ever justify. For all its achievements, and, as I shall explain, they are beyond dispute, the greatest problem for the BBC is its attitude to this issue. It cannot see itself as others see it. Some of its more rhetorical competitors like to characterise it as Sher Khan, the ravaging tiger of The Jungle Book, devouring all that is in its path. I do not quite share that view. Rather, to borrow another scene from the Walt Disney film of The Jungle Book, I see the BBC more like the well meaning herd of elephants, stomping through the jungle, trumpeting its achievements, each executive holding onto the tail of the one in front. They are undoubtedly a force for good, but unfortunately can be oblivious as to what might get crushed under their enormous feet.

I wonder how Suzy K would fit into that analogy?

[french frank]

Thanks for that link - fascinating & 15 years old.

I stumbled across this rather strange analogy on page 14:

Rather, to borrow another scene from the Walt Disney film of The Jungle Book, I see the BBC more like the well meaning herd of elephants, stomping through the jungle, trumpeting its achievements, each executive holding onto the tail of the one in front. They are undoubtedly a force for good, but unfortunately can be oblivious as to what might get crushed under their enormous feet.

It's the argument FoR3 and Classic FM tried to make as regards Radio 3. Elephants even rubbing the salt in by imitating CFM when they thought it was a good, popularist idea. (Did no good, though. Govt and Ofcom thought it was a proper aim of a publicly funded service to be popularist.)

[AuntDaisy]

It's the argument FoR3 and Classic FM tried to make as regards Radio 3. Elephants even rubbing the salt in by imitating CFM when they thought it was a good, popularist idea. (Did no good, though. Govt and Ofcom thought it was a proper aim of a publicly funded service to be popularist.)

As somebody already pointed out, Yes Minister has an answer "Bernard, subsidy is for art… for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want: it is for what the people don’t want but ought to have!"

[oddoneout]

Another saying, by a then controller of BBC Two was that "We don't want critical friends: we want friends." True.

To my mind that displays an unfortunate ignorance of the role of a critical friend within an organisation. When I was a school governor it was made very clear that being a critical friend was an important, if sometimes difficult, part of our role. Perhaps the problem is that "critical/criticism" is almost always seen as a negative exercise.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

To my mind that displays an unfortunate ignorance of the role of a critical friend within an organisation. When I was a school governor it was made very clear that being a critical friend was an important, if sometimes difficult, part of our role. Perhaps the problem is that "critical/criticism" is almost always seen as a negative exercise.

Yes. Critical friends help us to learn. A friend who tells us only what we want to hear isn't much use.

[french frank]

Yes. Critical friends help us to learn. A friend who tells us only what we want to hear isn't much use.

As I suggested earlier, the BBC is particularly sensitive to criticism and doesn't distinguish between criticism from well-wishers and attacks from those who would be happy to see it taken over - either by private enterprise or the government.

[kernelbogey]

I've a hunch Oliver Dowden and co might see her as 'one of them' - and she might well not be.

("Not tryin' to be funny or anything'" )

[muzzer]

Apologies, haven’t read the whole thread but I hope this will keep her off the air and championing the cause as an administrator as she is clearly well qualified for that, I genuinely wish her well. Any jobs going for Sean Rafferty?

[DracoM]

Sorry but for me SR and / or K Derham are instant turn-offs.

[Stanfordian]

Thanks for that link - fascinating & 15 years old.

I stumbled across this rather strange analogy on page 14:

I wonder how Suzy K would fit into that analogy?

More likely she might leave the damage of a herd of elephants.

KD

[french frank]

I'm less concerned about the popularity of presenters with their listeners as the BBC's criteria for engaging them. I can't say that Rob Cowan's manner was my cup of tea, but he knew his stuff (and still does, of course). As far as I can see he didn't go to Oxford and get a First in Music; I'd guess he didn't go to university at all. But his strongest point was that he was devoted to classical music and had a lifetime's experience of listening. My guess is that any time you dropped in on him, you'd be likely to find him with his headphones on listening to classical music.

Getting a First for your graduate degree simply means you studied your 3-year course syllabus more or less diligently and were quite lucky with the exam questions you got. It shows no depth of knowledge, nor even a continuing interest in the subject. Rob may be well off the scale in this respect, but too many current R3 presenters are pretty nearly off the scale at the other end.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm less concerned about the popularity of presenters with their listeners as the BBC's criteria for engaging them. I can't say that Rob Cowan's manner was my cup of tea, but he knew his stuff (and still does, of course). As far as I can see he didn't go to Oxford and get a First in Music; I'd guess he didn't go to university at all. But his strongest point was that he was devoted to classical music and had a lifetime's experience of listening. My guess is that any time you dropped in on him, you'd be likely to find him with his headphones on listening to classical music.


Getting a First for your graduate degree simply means you studied your 3-year course syllabus more or less diligently and were quite lucky with the exam questions you got. It shows no depth of knowledge, nor even a continuing interest in the subject. Rob may be well off the scale in this respect, but too many current R3 presenters are pretty nearly off the scale at the other end.

I think it’s a bit harder to get a first in music at Oxford than just being lucky with questions ! There is a composition paper/ module and unseen music analysis of quite obscure works . Last year 76% of finalists got firsts there (which seems very high but I think there almost as many faculty members than undergrads so the amount of tuition available is extraordinary )
But in the year Suzy graduated it was 26 percent . I can tell you that modern day music undergrads work way harder than they did 40 years ago…