The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[soileduk]

白目

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You know what the BBC Trust states to be the BBC's objectives. They differ from what you would wish them to be. End of.

Do you work for the BBC?

[Serial_Apologist]

You know what the BBC Trust states to be the BBC's objectives. They differ from what you would wish them to be. End of.

I know you're not an American from how you spell your nom de plume. But I had had suspicions an old friend from across The Pond had returned, exhibiting the same cocksureness.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/20..._purposes.html

the way I read it, the public purposes are what the BBC theoretically seeks to deliver.

The strategic objectives are really the way in which those purposes are supposed to be delivered.

The first" purpose" manages to be both glib and vaguely Orwellian.
The second , third and fourth seem to be areas of monumental failure, given their budget.
The fifth purpose fails so spectacularly as to be tragicomic.
The sixth they do a bit, not always very well, and so do plenty of other media and communications outlets, often for "free". But they do it better than ITV, to be fair. Which isn't difficult.

If one of the purposes was "to have 24 hour news services endlessly repeating government and establishment views on how our country needs to change for the benefit of those who already have power and wealth," they would have a big success on their hands.

Well said, TS.

[french frank]

You know what the BBC Trust states to be the BBC's objectives. They differ from what you would wish them to be. End of.

Ah, you weren't speaking about objectives for Radio 3? Well, apart from considering the purposes fairly useless (FoR3 suggested alternatives in its submission to the CMSSC), I can't say I disagree with what what they actually say.

As I said, though, I have no idea what Radio 3's 'objectives' are, not least because there have been so many u-turns in the past 15 years.

[Honoured Guest]

I was speaking about BBC objectives which concern music, arts and culture and which concern Radio 3. My understanding is that Radio 3 operates as an element of overall BBC policy. It's not an independent fiefdom subject to the whim of a station controller. I was thinking of the Radio 3 service review and the Delivering Quality First report.

I'm more fortunate than most of you because I can still easily find more than enough programmes of interest to me.

I'm very interested to see how all BBC radio and television services develop over the next few years. My hunch is that there will be significant changes, much shedding of niches, and that you will all look back on today as a golden age!

[french frank]

It's not an independent fiefdom subject to the whim of a station controller.

I wouldn't be so certain. The controller decides station strategy, and in the case of a service like Radio 3 he has the advantage (as did his predecessors) that no one else knows very much about what it does, nor is very interested in it.

[kernelbogey]

Do you work for the BBC?

Honoured Guest: I think it would be a courtesy to answer this question on the boards.

BW, kb

[Honoured Guest]

No, I've never worked for the BBC, directly or as a subcontractor or unpaid.

[Bryn]

No, I've never worked for the BBC, directly or as a subcontractor or unpaid.

The veracity of at least the final "or unpaid" aspect of that claim is called into question by the writer's mode of participation in this very thread, is it not?

[clive heath]

I any case this thread is about one programme only and about the perceived trend away from "a golden age" to a downmarket ratings battle with another supplier. I doubt that is acknowledged in the BBC's objectives.

[cloughie]

I'm very interested to see how all BBC radio and television services develop over the next few years. My hunch is that there will be significant changes, much shedding of niches, and that you will all look back on today as a golden age!

What was it Johnny Mac said - the Golden Age went long ago - what we've got now is a rusty bucket! I've not guessed yet why you are honoured but you appear to have an ear to something or somebody that others on this board do not - have you any connection with courgette?

[french frank]

No, I've never worked for the BBC, directly or as a subcontractor or unpaid.

No connection with the BBC, then. So it boils down to the fact that you, as one individual listener, enjoy plenty on Radio 3 yourself, and you criticise others who are less well catered for than you are?

Is that why you reduce everything we say to a matter of personal taste, rather than principle: because that's the basis on which you work? The BBC tends to do that too, because it discredits the arguments.

Oh, and you take a very close (professional?) interest in the BBC and the way its run.

[Honoured Guest]

I've not guessed yet why you are honoured but you appear to have an ear to something or somebody that others on this board do not

In some civilised societies, visitors from outside are greeted as honoured guests. In barbaric societies, such visitors are met with suspicion and fear.

I do pay attention to trends, news and public reports in broadcasting and arts. Many on this board appear to be partial in their attention, seeing the micro but ignoring the macro.

No connection with the BBC, then. So it boils down to the fact that you, as one individual listener, enjoy plenty on Radio 3 yourself, and you criticise others who are less well catered for than you are?

Is that why you reduce everything we say to a matter of personal taste, rather than principle: because that's the basis on which you work? The BBC tends to do that too, because it discredits the arguments.

Oh, and you take a very close (professional?) interest in the BBC and the way its run.

For me, Radio 3 is just one component of broadcasting and arts. With the mounting cuts to public funding, there will very soon be massive tectonic shifts in UK broadcasting and arts, but I see that as an opportunity to personally refocus, in response to what is available. A big difference between my outlook and many here is that, in general, I trust the broadcasters, artists and administrators to have a degree of sincerity in their activity, throughout changes in funding and objectives.

My main criticism of many here is that they strike me as extraordinarily selfish in recognising that in the past they belonged to a small limited group who were lucky enough to have a fulltime national radio station which superserved them, but they appear to still expect this historical accident to continue, as of right. As I understand it, the current objectives are to retain the previous breadth of output but to focus on making it accessible to as many people as might be interested. So, Radio 3 is no longer an island but is an integrated part of the entire BBC output. So, on this thread, Breakfast is no longer a stream of gramophone records announced by a creamy-voiced drone reading brief scripted bare musicological facts, but is intended to be a gateway to BBC music and arts, open to anyone who cares to listen in. If you have constructive comments for how this could be better achieved, I'm sure they would be gratefully heard.

[Bryn]

[QUOTE=Honoured Guest;380487]

I've not guessed yet why you are honoured but you appear to have an ear to something or somebody that others on this board do not /QUOTE]
In some civilised societies, visitors from outside are greeted as honoured guests. In barbaric societies, such visitors are met with suspicion and fear.

I do pay attention to trends, news and public reports in broadcasting and arts. Many on this board appear to be partial in their attention, seeing the micro but ignoring the macro.

In just which civilised society would a guest have the temerity to self-confer such honour? Surely only an upstart would behave in such a low manner?