A Sincere Thank You

[Guest]

The time has come for me to acknowledge publicly the debt of gratitude that I owe to the Controller of Radio 3. Had it not been for the increasingly bizarre changes foisted on 'Breakfast', I would not have discovered the (largely) unalloyed pleasure of starting my listening day 6 times a week with the 'Today' programme. This has led me to discover other features of the Radio 4 schedule: comedy (some awful, some e.g. 'Bleak Expectations', absolutely wonderful), drama, documentaries, From Our Own Correspondent, quizzes.... I write this without a sense of irony, but with a touch of sadness. I still listen to Radio 3 at other times, most often between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. - but I always check the Radio 4 schedules first.

[Paul Sherratt]

Radio 4 ?

They're all talk ...

[2LO]

If you'd been listening to R3 at 8.00 this morning you'd have missed the important item about our hulture secretary on R4.

As it was I was brushing my teeth at the time, with R4 on, and all I remember was hearing a lot of coughing and then some discussion of Freudian slips. A Breakfast presenter mispronouncing Poulenc or something wouldn't have got a whole page in the Evening Standard this evening.

[french frank]

A Breakfast presenter mispronouncing Poulenc or something wouldn't have got a whole page in the Evening Standard this evening.

Press always have their priorities wrong ...

[DracoM]

I've never really wanted to think this, but it struck me as I listened just now to Rob Cowan burbling on about send in your favourite Mozart requests, and get on to the website for the updated charts etc, just what a terribly dull thing the R3 programme controllers have locked that programme and Rob into. Ever tail-chasing like a R1 / R2 DJ. And the thought came that the real worry for the BBC is that actually 80% of the Breakfast audience simply don't care enough about the 'product' to communicate.

For most of them it's just a bit more wallpaper, and now that the messageboard's running commentary has gone, the Controllers are freed from the sense that part of the audience is actually looking over their shoulder, offering a critique that might assist them to improve, and what is more that by and large it was the knowledgeable part of that audience who were doing the scrutinising. Now, the model that is evolved will be almost entirely without regular audience scrutiny or interest. I cannot think that that is a good way for a media platform to develop in an age of such fierce competition.

So by axing the mbs, the BBC have cut themselves off from the daily rigour and engagement of arguably their most assiduous addicts/fans/critics. And the more I think about it, the more bizarre and wrong-headed a decision it seems for an Arts organisation [sic] to quite deliberately make absolutely sure that a very active part of their core audience is prevented from giving them feedback. Can you imagine any other Arts-based or even commercial concern eg John Lewis etc taking significant steps to limit the nature of the customers who try to come through the doors?

What FF has very finely done in shaping this Forum is to provide a live, informed, alert and appreciative core of the interested and committed, and if the BBC and its R3 presenters have any sense they will not only sneak in and view, but even assume names and participate in the debate unfettered by corporation straitjackets.

[Stillhomewardbound]

If you'd been listening to R3 at 8.00 this morning you'd have missed the important item about our hulture secretary on R4.

As it was I was brushing my teeth at the time, with R4 on, and all I remember was hearing a lot of coughing and then some discussion of Freudian slips. A Breakfast presenter mispronouncing Poulenc or something wouldn't have got a whole page in the Evening Standard this evening.

I read that report in the Standard which was completely OTT. A lot of schoolboy sniggering. Pretty immature, especially as it was clear what happened.

The most common slip a broadcaster will make will be by virtue of the mind reading ahead on the script. Naughtie managed to call Jeremy Hunt a 'see you next tuesday' because he got snagged up on his title 'Culture Secretary'.

Len Jackson, an excellent announcer and reader who trained me on occasion, he said, the moment you slip up, forget it as quickly as possible, put it to the back of the mind, otherwise, like tripping over shoelaces one fall will follow another.

[Norfolk Born]

Years ago, a group of broadcasters based at Anglia TV in Norwich were asked to contribute to a special feature commemorating the retirement of local weatherman Michael Hunt. Each was asked to begin his or her contribution with: 'What do I remember most about Mike Hunt? Well......' Not all of them realized what they'd been led into but, to their credit, none of them backed out.

[BetweenTheStaves]

I found this morning that I was shouting at the radio a bit too much...like you, R3, 'Send us your favourite Mozart'.......noooo.o.o.o R4 - Howard League for Penal Reform..........'call me Mr Gunn'....enough, stop all that hand-wringing, R2 ...chuckle-brother Chris......oh, Sir Terry, we miss you....R1....best not go there...can't understand what on earth they're saying...ClassicFM....ooh goodie, Howard Goodall, the Worlds' Number One composer.....reaches for the OFF button. Must lie down.

[MickyD]

DracoM,

Brilliantly put - I do hope someone from R3 reads your message, but even if they do I wonder if they will take any notice or care.

[johnb]

In the role of devil's advocate, can I put a different point of view (one which the R3 management might or might not have)?

I only looked at the Performance, CD Review and Platform 3 message boards so what I say might not be representative of all the Radio 3 MB, however:-

At a rough guess, about a third of all the posts consisted of rants and arguments about disparate subjects which had nothing to do with Radio 3 or the BBC (and they were often very unpleasant arguments at that).

Of the posts relating to music only a minority concerned music actually broadcast on Radio 3. Whole days would go by without a mention of anything broadcast.

It is a good thing to have a general arts/music forum only loosely associated with Radio 3 but providing a such a message board where only the minority of postings relate to Radio 3 and which is often used by posters for their own self-indulgence is not part of the BBC's remit.

There were probably about 100 active posters and, of those, the majority of the postings were probably made by about 30 individuals. I suspect the attitude of the Radio 3 management to the message boards was that they were something to be glanced over for form's sake (sometimes, but not very often, there were good suggestions and valid criticisms) but they were largely to be disregarded, especially as the small number of people posting were totally unrepresentative of the Radio 3 audience and they mainly indulged in whinging and making petty (and often very unpleasant) criticisms.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Johnb, you make a valid point. I've often thought the same. Indeed, when I started a thread about a programme on Sunday, there were precisely zero responses. However, I think the comments regarding Breakfast need to be made. I believe it has become dumbed down to attempt to complete with CFM; and I believe this to be a mistake, removing listeners' choice.

Radio 3 needs to be imaginative, and listen to all points of view, including our own. We, in turn, need to be more constructive with less whinging. I say this in full knowledge that only a few moments ago, I make an attack on one of the Radio Times journalists on another thread (but I shall try to do better).

[johnb]

EA,

I completely agree with what you say about Breakfast and would extend the point to Classical Collection (though to a slightly lesser extent).

PS I had expected to be roundly lambasted for what I wrote.

[Martin]

Johnb - you make some very good points about the old message board. And EA, I agree about Breakfast: it's the wrong way to do it.

[Keybawd]

A lot of the messages may have been petty, silly, repetitive even rude. But there was still a core of intelligent and informed comment. I believe it a terrible mistake for the BBC to cut off this source of feedback. Now they have no one looking over their shoulder. And I fear they will continue down the road of giving the public what they think the public wants or what they want the public to want.

[french frank]

what they think the public wants or what they want the public to want.

Or, what they think there is a public for, and a public which it suits them to try to attract for reasons which somehow never get openly discussed.