Enthusiastic presenters

[Panjandrum]

Just because a few people complain doesn't make them right, particularly if they are selfish moans and whinges which would deprive a vast majority of a service they are happy with.

Good to see a BBC spokesperson contributing a thoughtful response to this thread; or is this another of Cavatina's multiple personae? Care to say what research you have done to support the view that the vast majority are happy with the "service" R3 provides?

[french frank]

Ossie, aeolium always expresses these things so much better than I do. Perhaps you would find time to respond to him?

Just because a few people complain doesn't make them right

I made no reference to anyone being 'right' or 'wrong' but 'likely to have a justifiable case': one that can be argued and supported by evidence. 'Well, I'm happy and you're a load of selfish old whingers' doesn't constitute an argument.

particularly if they are selfish moans and whinges which would deprive a vast majority of a service they are happy with.

You avoid the point. They may be even happier with a better service. They may be less happy if you were to tell them that what they had just been told was wrong.

It isn't acceptable for the oldies to say "this is our little clique, Radio 3 is for us, we like outmoded, old fashioned things, if you don't like what we like go somewhere else until you get old as well."

This is simply a fanciful way of distorting the arguments.

Or we can say "Standards of presentation on Radio 3 are being brought up to date."

We're clearly at cross purposes: what are these up to date standards of presentation which you're referring to?

This isn't University Challenge so how do you/we know if the unidentified "theys" are knowledgeable or not.

We listen to what they say ...

I don't know which presenters you've heard declaring themselves knowledgeable; it seems a funny thing to do.

I apologise for a grammatical error in my earlier post: I meant they don't become knowledgeable because someone (else) - in this case cavatina - declares that they are knowledgeable.

Oh, and by the way, you replied to another poster's suggestion that presenters often simply came up with a line or two of Wikipedia, "That is so obviously total and utter nonsense that you have derailed the rest of you post, which I now can't be bothered to read." I've had the fascinating experience of listening to a recording where a presenter declaimed three whole minutes of Wikipedia, with minimal changes, source unacknowledged. We can all read Wikipedia if we want to.

I mentioned re the Parry TV film that I was impressed with David Owen Norris's contribution, where it was obvious that he had things of his own to say, things that were valuable because we wouldn't get those ideas from any other source. That is what I call a knowledgeable presenter (he was also enthusiastic). Do you really think that that is old-fashioned? Would you really want to deprive other listeners of that level of expertise just because you personally don't appreciate it?

[Word]

Off topic but it should be pointed out that anything worthwhile in Wikipedia is likely to have been plagiarised from another source, which itself may or may not be freely quotable. The only exceptions would be when subject matter experts happen to enjoy editing Wikipedia.

[Dave2002]

I have met a few BBC presenters, including Michael Fish the weatherman, and Howard Stableford of Tomorow's World and other programmes, Howard admitted that he did not know a lot about what he was presenting, and that essentially he had a sort of acting job. He said he could answer questions which were set up in advance, but if someone asked a question where a "real" scientist or engineer could answer he'd have a problem. I didn't like him any less for admitting that. There may be a few people who present programmes on TV or radio who really do know what they're talking about, but it may not always be necessary. Indeed, someone who does know may turn out to be just boring. Very few people have good presentation skills as well as being knowledgeable.

[Serial_Apologist]

I have met a few BBC presenters, including Michael Fish the weatherman, and Howard Stableford of Tomorow's World and other programmes, Howard admitted that he did not know a lot about what he was presenting, and that essentially he had a sort of acting job. He said he could answer questions which were set up in advance, but if someone asked a question where a "real" scientist or engineer could answer he'd have a problem. I didn't like him any less for admitting that. There may be a few people who present programmes on TV or radio who really do know what they're talking about, but it may not always be necessary. Indeed, someone who does know may turn out to be just boring. Very few people have good presentation skills as well as being knowledgeable.

The last point is true - but in the end I'd still prefer to hear someone who was "boring" but knowledgeable about the subject matter: after all, they inform.

[doversoul1]

Dave2002

Very few people have good presentation skills as well as being knowledgeable.

I expect Radio3 presenters to be those few people. That’s what makes Radio3 such a distinct radio station. Or it did…

[french frank]

Off topic but it should be pointed out that anything worthwhile in Wikipedia is likely to have been plagiarised from another source, which itself may or may not be freely quotable. The only exceptions would be when subject matter experts happen to enjoy editing Wikipedia.

True, but as long as sources are not quoted verbatim - and are clearly acknowledged - that's perfectly allowable. As you half imply, not everything is 'worthwhile' and I'm not too keen on the wide use of Wikipedia as a linked source for so much of the Radio 3 website. But still ...

I agree with Dave2002 that not all programmes need experts of the David Owen Norris calibre, but this is where I would distinguish between announcers and presenters. Music sequence programmes, for example, don't necessarily need expert presenters. However, I would still expect announcers to get their facts right. It is part of the job.

There are also mistakes and mistakes. Heard ol' Skelly on continuity the other day announce (if I've got it the right way round) a piece by Saint-Saëns and then playing something by Fauré. No prob: when it finished, he apologised for the mistake and played a short piece by Saint-Saëns. That was very professionally handled. Could have been good team work if the producer noticed it, doesn't matter. But that kind of mistake was inadvertence, not ignorance, and will always happen. Not preparing scripts properly is less excusable.

[Word]

But then there is also ignorance and ignorance. Some people may have the most detailed knowledge in a given area yet appear ignorant of what others consider commonplace. (Who hasn't stood before a High Court judge who appeared out of touch with reality? )

As you point out, different programmes make different demands of a presenter and, personally, I think it good that there isn't a single, 'identikit' Radio 3 presenter. (For example, I don't think Breakfast suits RC and I'm hopeful that the new programme will be a better fit for him and perhaps PT for Breakfast. From everything I have read he has both an impressive breadth and depth of knowledge yet on the few opportunities I have had to listen to the programme, weekday Breakfast hasn't really appealed.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Just because a few people complain doesn't make them right, particularly if they are selfish moans and whinges which would deprive a vast majority of a service they are happy with. It isn't acceptable for the oldies to say "this is our little clique, Radio 3 is for us, we like outmoded, old fashioned things...

Good heavens! I didn't know it was possible to get away with that sort of ageism nowadays. What exactly is an "oldie"? Is it someone who you consider to be "past it" or someone who speaks with the wisdom of experience?

[cavatina]

It's not good enough to say that the flaws are 'tiny' - they are basic errors of fact and are numerous and egregious, as has been documented time and again on this forum. It is a key responsibility of the presenters to ensure that the information they provide is factually accurate, as I presume they write their own scripts (that has I think been the case ever since John Drummond was controller). If they are not doing that, then they are not doing their job.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but in this case, misusing the word "literally" in the heat of the moment is-- literally-- a tiny flaw. Do you honestly believe it was scripted that way? Somehow, I doubt it.

[...] I'm equally certain that among those who criticise there are people who would do an excellent job.

Maybe so, but until somebody at a major network actually hires them, it's all armchair analysis and "backseat driving".

Statistically, the minority who complain are much more likely to have a justifiable case than the majority who don't, simply because the majority doesn't actually disagree with the minority - they just don't have any opinion at all.

Strong passions don't always correlate with sound reasoning. If anything, you could make the case for a negative correlation: the more vehement you are about an issue, the more your critical faculties tend to go out the window.

I find that, taken together, the individual details which you seem to suggest people should keep to themselves very interesting in trying to understand the kind of presentation that people seem to either want or dislike. It isn't the individual detail, it's the general picture.

It wouldn't be hard for everyone posting here to quickly reach a consensus about what qualities we'd like to see in a presenter. However, any kind of "general picture" we'd form would be radically out of step with the millions of people who listen to Radio 3 because we're not remotely like "most people". And to take the line that "our opinions matter more because we've thought deeply about these issues and care about them more than the average listener" is problematic, to say the least.

[cavatina]

Cavatina, I suppose I must reluctantly congratulate you on your managing to "Americanise" the posts about K Derham, presenters generally, the BBC, and many other posts about the Proms, and I suppose it gives us all a new light into the way the American mind works. Your thirst for experiences is admirable, and I think we should all benefit from your wide and expert knowledge of all things, including feet.

Hey, now there's a better-than-average troll--you got my blood pressure up and I think my nostrils flared a little, but it wasn't quite up to a level that would make me bite. 7/10.

I would write you an impassioned, self-righteously indignant reply-- but in all, I'm sure it would be a better use of my time to exercise my overheated imagination with stimulating new masterworks from the dress-shoe-and-baked-goods fetish genre like Black Mario Calugi Oxfords vs. Blueberry Pie.

Sweet dreams--and you're welcome!

[french frank]

It wouldn't be hard for everyone posting here to quickly reach a consensus about what qualities we'd like to see in a presenter. However, any kind of "general picture" we'd form would be radically out of step with the millions of people who listen to Radio 3 because we're not remotely like "most people".

Unlike you (apparently - from your use of 'we'), I don't think that I belong to some different caste.

And to take the line that "our opinions matter more because we've thought deeply about these issues and care about them more than the average listener" is problematic, to say the least.

You set up straw men by adopting the tactic of inventing words to put in people's mouths and then castigating them for saying/thinking them!

You are happy (i.e. will tolerate, albeit with resignation?) with the 'populist' line of thinking that if the majority want it (whatever 'it' might be) that's what they must be allowed, and the minority must put up with it. If every service of the BBC caters for the broadest possible audience, they are simply multiplying the available choices for the majority and ignoring the minority. That isn't a very good model for public service, in my view.

[Dave2002]

Seems from the discussion so far that there are three kinds of problems - though I'll wait for the Spanish Inquisition to add more.

1. Slips or minor errors, such as the one mentioned ab initio. They can even be funny and entertaining, and in the TV world resulted in more programming. I think such errors sometimes went under the name Colemanballs.

2. Opinions - possibly not genuine. I don't mind an announcer/presenter telling us a performance was "wonderful" if it indeed was, or he/she felt it to be. Often everything these days is hyped up, and saying a performance is going to be wonderful in advance might be tempting fate. Removing all opinions might be a step too far though, and I guess back announcements of the form "that was a really awful performance of Beethoven's 6th, the worst since X's RFH 1997 performance ..." would be totally out of order. There was a time when we would have had something like " That was Beethoven's 6th Symphony, the Pastoral, played by the BBC SO conducted by Norman del Mar, before an audience in the BBC Studios at Maida Vale. Goodnight."

3. Factual errors. These may creep in from time to time, but apparently some people think the number of these has been increasing recently. Many are really not too serious, and often corrected later.

[cavatina]

Unlike you (apparently - from your use of 'we'), I don't think that I belong to some different caste.

Perhaps that's part of the problem: you think a public service radio station should be run to your standards and taste because you see yourself as more representative than you really are.

Oh, and you are a different caste whether you see it or not. No wonder you don't understand why people in the media make fun of you (and write you off) for having been a lecturer in Medieval French. "Har har, look at the fussy egghead."

People like that don't understand your point of view and never will because they're constitutionally incapable of it. When you speak of the "value of culture", you might as well be speaking a foreign language to them; it's a complete failure of communication and understanding.

Maybe I feel this kind of scorn more keenly because anti-intellectualism is far more widespread (and brutal) in the United States than it is over here. As a child, you either learn how to "pass for regular" or get beaten for being different.

You set up straw men by adopting the tactic of inventing words to put in people's mouths and then castigating them for saying/thinking them!

Er...sorry?

You are happy (i.e. will tolerate, albeit with resignation?) with the 'populist' line of thinking that if the majority want it (whatever 'it' might be) that's what they must be allowed, and the minority must put up with it. If every service of the BBC caters for the broadest possible audience, they are simply multiplying the available choices for the majority and ignoring the minority. That isn't a very good model for public service, in my view.

No easy answers for any of this, unfortunately.

[aeolium]

A fourth one could be that the presenter is as a general rule far too obtrusive - because of the BBC policy I mentioned earlier - without adding anything of value or that is unexpected, but usually just providing enthusiasm.

It really is a desperately weak argument to say that listeners who criticise presenters are either envious or out of order because they could do better themselves. You are entitled to criticise a piece of shoddy workmanship in a repair of a shoe without being a cobbler yourself. An old age pensioner who has just watched a dire performance by his local football team does not return home saying "That was awful, but I mustn't criticise them because I couldn't have done better myself". These are people paid to do a job - in some cases very well paid indeed - and we are the people using the service.

And the criticism is not based on some kind of idealised conception of how programmes should be presented. Speaking for myself, I have experienced much better presentation - less obtrusive, more informative, more accurate - by presenters who were very good at presenting as well as being very knowledgeable. But this was in the 1970s and 1980s (up to the end of the Drummond era). There isn't any great mystery about it. As I said earlier, the BBC have created a rod for their own back by putting all the focus on the presenter and requiring him/her to be a 'personality'.