The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

It was therefore reasonable to infer that a comparison with PT was intended in your post, albeit you didn't mention his name.

I quite understand that the inference seemd reasonable in the circumstances even though, in the event, it was mistaken and no 'barb' was intended at any presenter, named or unnamed.

I may have mentioned that I met Petroc (when he was presenting a Radio 3 programme in Bristol) and I mentioned the propensity of some posters to express their criticisms in a personal fashion, and that this being a public forum this was probably inevitable even though I was myself embarrassed by it. His attitude was to shrug it off with a smile. The controller has also, in the past, agreed that if one runs a public forum (like the BBC's as well as this one) such comments had to be tolerated with equanimity.

And I note that IS's egregious Yo Yo Ma error has been met with silence or indulgence. I'm guessing that, if it had fallen from PT's lips, the reaction would have been different.

Your guess may well be correct, or again mistaken. Though in declaring in some general way that double standards and prejudice were operating one really has to go back and show that the same individuals took one view in the case of Petroc and the opposite view in the case of Ian, rather than that two opposing views were expressed on the same forum. However, issues of liking and disliking are not generally governed by rational consideration of standards or judgement.

[teamsaint]

Your analysis comment was in reply to (and quoted) mine, which raised the issue of double standards with particular reference to PT (who is routinely abused on these pages). It was therefore reasonable to infer that a comparison with PT was intended in your post, albeit you didn't mention his name.

And I note that IS's egregious Yo Yo Ma error has been met with silence or indulgence. I'm guessing that, if it had fallen from PT's lips, the reaction would have been different.

I don't think that is especially the case. He gets a bit of stick, but that goes with the territory..
I would say that most people think that it his " Breakfast" brief that is the issue. The same might be said for Doc Walker and Rucksack Rob on EC

[antongould]

I don't think that is especially the case. He gets a bit of stick, but that goes with the territory..
I would say that most people think that it his " Breakfast" brief that is the issue. The same might be said for Doc Walker and Rucksack Rob on EC

Words of wisdom from a Southampton supporter - more than a little scary - and more fair comment from Wor Leader above. I treat the IS slip and the infamous SMP Delius CU exactly the same - bound to happen and would happen a lot more if I, and possibly others here assembled, sat in the chair.

[Honoured Guest]

I treat the IS slip and the infamous SMP Delius CU exactly the same - bound to happen and would happen a lot more if I, and possibly others here assembled, sat in the chair.

Yes, I agree about casting stones BUT it was IS who I posted about in February when he made a series of silly errors one evening when not presenting but simply announcing recorded programmes and saying what was to be on the following week's programme. This seemed so unprofessional to me that I wondered whether anyone knew whether he was doing it deliberately (perhaps as a bet or to alleviate boredom or to express his personal contempt for either The Wire or for its audience, who knows?)

Tonight the announcer made three basic howler errors that I noticed. Is this usual? Or is he ill? Or did he do it for a bet? Or did his scriptwriter play a practical joke on him? Whatever the reason, it's shoddy broadcasting.

19:30 He tells us that tonight's The Wire is set in Georgetown in Cardiff. In fact, it's set in Grangetown in Cardiff.

21:45 Announcing the play, he names the writer as Daffydd James. In fact, it's Dafydd James.

22:30 He tells us next week's The Wire is written by Patrick McCable. In fact, it's by Patrick McCabe.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The general matiness of presenters on radio is presumably intended to put listeners at ease. Have they ever thought that it may well have the opposite effect? When presesnters refer to one another by the their first names only, there is an assumption that listeners know these because they are part of the ever-so-cosy club. Thus the new listeners who Radio 3 is hell-bent on appealing to, are in fact excluded from the clique.
Today the presenter of Afternoon on 3 referred to "Shaun", without bothering to tell us who this individual was, or by the further explanation of a surname, which common courtesy would demand.

[french frank]

The general matiness of presenters on radio is presumably intended to put listeners at ease. Have they ever thought that it may well have the opposite effect? When presesnters refer to one another by the their first names only, there is an assumption that listeners know these because they are part of the ever-so-cosy club.

It's rather what people have said about certain forums which they see as 'cliquey' because people refer to each other in familiar terms and seem to know each other. Just google 'forum' and 'cliquey'.

At least this forum has any number of cliques to choose from

[Honoured Guest]

... or by the further explanation of a surname, which common courtesy would demand.

Common to very few folk today, I'd have thought, which may be why some of them apparently feel threatened and get so agitated.

And I'd question whether it's ever courteous to demand!

Not that it really matters ...

[Sir Velo]

I think IS is mostly great and I agree about humour but the whole mood is spoiled by his reading the headlines on the quarter hour, more so than possibly with other presenters. Certain news items do not lend themselves to jauntiness, one in particular this morning. You end up with an atmos that is bordering on the irreverent, in a bad way. I cannot understand how no-one at R3 is cringeing at these moments. It's like W1A. But IS generally I think is a breath of fresh air.

I rather like the irreverence. Let's be honest R3 was better, by far, when it was a news free haven.

[Sir Velo]

Incidentally, IS (whose presentation I greatly enjoy) is by no means beyond criticism. On Tuesday he clearly referred to Yo Yo Ma as a 'she'!

IS is well suited to this programme, but his musical knowledge is by no means as encyclopaedic as say Rob Cowan. This week he announced the conductor James Judd as "James Dada" - clearly stumbling over reading his script; and mispronounced Europa Galante, suggesting a lack of previous familiarity with these, by no means, unknown performers. On a previous occasion he pronounced the violinist as "Pinchers" Zukerman.

[french frank]

Most presenters have 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' - though there will probably be as much agreement among listeners in identifying which is which as there is about the 'winner of the string section' in YMotY. The fact appears to be that some people tolerate (or in some cases positively like) what others can't stand. This is where the BBC never loses because they say 'You can't please all the people all the time', which leads to 'And we agree with those who agree with us'.

Those who accept that the Breakfast programme should be somewhat 'lighter' in content cannot (in my view) at the same time carp that the most musically knowledgeable presenters aren't used to present it. That doesn't alter the fact that there should be a general level of competence which is compatible with a station which Mark Thompson once described as one of 'real seriousness'. And that doesn't mean 'No jokes, please'.

De gustibus non disputandum - though ironically the people who are in this instance pointing the accusing finger at a presenter are the ones who seem most disapproving of forum criticisms ...

[muzzer]

For what it's worth I feel that having the headlines read on the quarter hour ruins the flow of the show and further that having them read by the presenter compounds the problem. It is entirely inappropriate for some news items to be read out in the jaunty style which is otherwise a good thing IMHO for the show. It jars. It trivialises the news and the music. They should just leave the news to the half hour. If listeners want news they've got Today.

[cloughie]

For what it's worth I feel that having the headlines read on the quarter hour ruins the flow of the show and further that having them read by the presenter compounds the problem. It is entirely inappropriate for some news items to be read out in the jaunty style which is otherwise a good thing IMHO for the show. It jars. It trivialises the news and the music. They should just leave the news to the half hour. If listeners want news they've got Today.

Absolutely muzzer - R3 is for good music in big chunks - if you want it less serious there's CFM. If you want proper news there's R4 - if you want tabloid news there's R5L. R3 news on the hour is sufficient!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's quite ludicrous that so many radio and TV channels all compete with one another for a finite audience in the morning: BBC 1 vs. ITV and Radios 1 - 5 plus all the commercial and local radio stations.

How do they go about this?
By acting like sheep.

With regard to the TV contest, apparently the BBC is "winning". So the ITV programme must surely be dreadful if it's even worse.

[Black Swan]

Just had a look and I see Tom McKinney is back to present Breakfast this weekend.

[cloughie]

Absolutely muzzer - R3 is for good music in big chunks - if you want it less serious there's CFM. If you want proper news there's R4 - if you want tabloid news there's R5L. R3 news on the hour is sufficient!

.and why the obsession with news from 6.30 - 9.00 then no interest 'til 1.00pm then 5.00pm?