The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[kernelbogey]

I didn't criticise (anonymously) the anonymous critic, but more lamented the fact that these platforms which reach large audiences can be used as loudspeakers to 'broadcast' casual thoughts under the guise of 'criticism'. Radio 3 chooses to air such comments, not - in my view to add to critical debate - but to spice up the programme. I'm not into 'shock jocks' either but people do find them entertaining.

To be fair to Martin Handley (and to his producer) I think he was rather shocked about the vehemance of the anonymous criticism of a piece which he personally had found quite restful.

[LMcD]

To be fair to Martin Handley (and to his producer) I think he was rather shocked about the vehemance of the anonymous criticism of a piece which he personally had found quite restful.

I think you're right - but it's genuine reactions like that which, for me and I suspect others, make him such a delightful and rewarding Sunday morning companion. If the secret of broadcasting is the same as that of oratory, namely to convince somebody that it is he or she, alone, to whom the speaker is talking, then Mr H discovered it years ago and we've benefitted greatly from that discovery.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

??? I can't say;: it's more a matter of the terms in which one offers one's remarks (anonymous or not). I didn't criticise (anonymously) the anonymous critic, but more lamented the fact that these platforms which reach large audiences can be used as loudspeakers to 'broadcast' casual thoughts under the guise of 'criticism'. Radio 3 chooses to air such comments, not - in my view to add to critical debate - but to spice up the programme. I'm not into 'shock jocks' either but people do find them entertaining.

I’m rather shocked that the BBC would even consider broadcasting an anonymous comment.

[AuntDaisy]

A source close to the Prime Minister?

[antongould]

I think you're right - but it's genuine reactions like that which, for me and I suspect others, make him such a delightful and rewarding Sunday morning companion. If the secret of broadcasting is the same as that of oratory, namely to convince somebody that it is he or she, alone, to whom the speaker is talking, then Mr H discovered it years ago and we've benefitted greatly from that discovery.

….. and definitely next week a Saturday morning companion …… Betty has confirmed that she is off next week and that the show will be “ … in more than capable hands …. “

[kernelbogey]

I think you're right - but it's genuine reactions like that which, for me and I suspect others, make him such a delightful and rewarding Sunday morning companion. If the secret of broadcasting is the same as that of oratory, namely to convince somebody that it is he or she, alone, to whom the speaker is talking, then Mr H discovered it years ago and we've benefitted greatly from that discovery.

I agree with all of that (though my arguing this here once was described as a solipsistic response: so be it). I think Jonathan Swayne has that skill too.

[french frank]

Not at all I was being facetious . A bald two sentence criticism of any work of art is bound to sound superficial . The problem is the broadcasters don’t have time to air a more lengthy considered piece. The real problem is not criticism but that everything is either “brilliant” or “fantastic” which in its own way as reductive as a short brutal put-down and of no use to the creative artist.

I wasn't 100% sure! The 'problem' is no problem in reality. They don't have time for a more considered piece, but Breakfast isn't that sort of programme. Whether there needs to be this constant soliciting of comments or 'reckons' is another matter: I agree with Mitchell and Webb, but the BBC thinks they 'liven up' the broadcast. And some listeners enjoy hearing them, just as some people watching Wimbledon enjoyed seeing McEnroe's regular tantrums which to others simply interrupted the play, very, very tediously - the moreso for having the BBC broadcasting them again during every news bulletin. Since there's no way the listener can know who the commenter is, whether 'Anonymous', 'angry red hen' or Mr Michael Brown (of 6 Acacia Avenue, Frinton-on-Sea, CO110 9BW), I don't see that anonymity matters anyway in these circumstances.

'Brilliant, 'fantastic' and 'amazing' are just one more example of the lowering of the intellectual standards which I have to accept either doesn't bother people or is welcomed. All that means is that people enjoy different things (just to preempt the non sequitur of 'Are you calling me stupid?')

[LMcD]

I wasn't 100% sure! The 'problem' is no problem in reality. They don't have time for a more considered piece, but Breakfast isn't that sort of programme. Whether there needs to be this constant soliciting of comments or 'reckons' is another matter: I agree with Mitchell and Webb, but the BBC thinks they 'liven up' the broadcast. And some listeners enjoy hearing them, just as some people watching Wimbledon enjoyed seeing McEnroe's regular tantrums which to others simply interrupted the play, very, very tediously - the moreso for having the BBC broadcasting them again during every news bulletin. Since there's no way the listener can know who the commenter is, whether 'Anonymous', 'angry red hen' or Mr Michael Brown (of 6 Acacia Avenue, Frinton-on-Sea, CO110 9BW), I don't see that anonymity matters anyway in these circumstances.

'Brilliant, 'fantastic' and 'amazing' are just one more example of the lowering of the intellectual standards which I have to accept either doesn't bother people or is welcomed. All that means is that people enjoy different things (just to preempt the non sequitur of 'Are you calling me stupid?')

My occasional contributions to 'Breakfast' and other Radio 3 programmes are always made in my full name, to the broadcasting of which I have no objection whatever - but then, I never contact a programme in order to complain about anything! I didn't think much of the 'Durham' piece, but it hardly occupied a significant proportion of my day.

[french frank]

My occasional contributions to 'Breakfast' and other Radio 3 programmes are always made in my full name…

But knowing both your real name and your pseudonym here, for instance, betrays to me little of any relevance beyond what you post. Your comments aren't linked, in my mind, to an individual, real, living person. You are the name you adopt.

Some years ago, a supporter asked for her name to be removed from the page listing all our (hundreds of) supporters. She was still a supporter and wanted to keep receiving the newsletters, but did not wish her name to be publicised 'for reasons of privacy.' In the world of the internet this struck me as particularly odd. I don't remember what her name was, but it was something like 'Mary Scott' or 'Jane Cooper'.

[LMcD]

But knowing both your real name and your pseudonym here, for instance, betrays to me little of any relevance beyond what you post. Your comments aren't linked, in my mind, to an individual, real, living person. You are the name you adopt.

Some years ago, a supporter asked for her name to be removed from the page listing all our (hundreds of) supporters. She was still a supporter and wanted to keep receiving the newsletters, but did not wish her name to be publicised 'for reasons of privacy.' In the world of the internet this struck me as particularly odd. I don't remember what her name was, but it was something like 'Mary Scott' or 'Jane Cooper'.

Sorry - I thought I'd written something relevant, but it looks as though I was mistook. I shall retire to the sidelines.

[french frank]

Sorry - I thought I'd written something relevant, but it looks as though I was mistook. I shall retire to the sidelines.

Erm - misapprehension?

To rephrase my point, and speak in general terms this time: What does it matter whether a text or tweet on Radio 3 is attributed to 'Anonymous', 'angry red hen' or Mr Michael Brown (of 6 Acacia Avenue, Frinton-on-Sea, CO110 9BW). The mass - if not every last one - of those listening will not know who that person is. ('Fancy, Mr Brown had a text read out this morning! Who is Mr Brown, by the way?')

[oddoneout]

Erm - misapprehension?

To rephrase my point, and speak in general terms this time: What does it matter whether a text or tweet on Radio 3 is attributed to 'Anonymous', 'angry red hen' or Mr Michael Brown (of 6 Acacia Avenue, Frinton-on-Sea, CO110 9BW). The mass - if not every last one - of those listening will not know who that person is. ('Fancy, Mr Brown had a text read out this morning! Who is Mr Brown, by the way?')

It doesn't matter a jot, but I get a certain amount of pleasure when, as has happened on 2 or 3 occasions, someone I know contributes a suggestion or comment. Then there are the "repeat offenders" whose name (whether real or not, who cares) I might recognise and then wait to see what contribution is forthcoming. I accept that for many it isn't and shouldn't be R3 territory but it adds to the pleasure I and others get from the programme.

[french frank]

it adds to the pleasure I and others get from the programme.

There's no denying that, nor should that be dismissed. It's what the BBC thinks and hopes and that's why it's included.

But referring to the Ivory Gurney thread, when the Third Programme began that kind of programme was exactly what the Third was set up to do, and clearly Radio 3 is still the place to air it, if anywhere. That's not to say that every programme on the Third was as searching (I predict) or erudite. But it was common fare. Now it's maybe 45mins in a week but not every week, and the remaining programming has diminished in seriousness in line with that decline. The BBC doesn't care that there is now an 'underserved' audience - the very audience the Third was set up to serve. To be more precise: it doesn't care about that particular 'underserved' audience.

[antongould]

It doesn't matter a jot, but I get a certain amount of pleasure when, as has happened on 2 or 3 occasions, someone I know contributes a suggestion or comment. Then there are the "repeat offenders" whose name (whether real or not, who cares) I might recognise and then wait to see what contribution is forthcoming. I accept that for many it isn't and shouldn't be R3 territory but it adds to the pleasure I and others get from the programme.

It does indeed OOO

[LMcD]

Erm - misapprehension?

To rephrase my point, and speak in general terms this time: What does it matter whether a text or tweet on Radio 3 is attributed to 'Anonymous', 'angry red hen' or Mr Michael Brown (of 6 Acacia Avenue, Frinton-on-Sea, CO110 9BW). The mass - if not every last one - of those listening will not know who that person is. ('Fancy, Mr Brown had a text read out this morning! Who is Mr Brown, by the way?')

Not for the first time - and probably not the last - I have to confess that I find myself out of my depth as the discussion continues. If I weren't such a relentlessly cheerful person, I might find that somewhat discouraging.