R4 Feedback covers Radio 3 - again

[aeolium]

ff, I agree that both those are possible replies, but AFAIK they are not actual ones from the R3 executive!! I have seen or heard both of them at some point from journalists or people commenting about R3, especially those who seem to be supportive of the new style. But what I would like to see is a clear exposition by RW of his vision for R3 and how he proposes to realize it. It shouldn't be too difficult, and he is paid a hell of a lot - why doesn't he set out his position clearly? Simply making changes to schedules and changing the presentational style of programmes without a clear and explicit justification is not good enough, imo.

[DracoM]

Would just like to endorse Frances_iom's descriptions of RW's infamous 'Feedback' performance. Exactly as I remember it. Indeed, I had the BBC in my study with me recording a bit for a Feedback ref R3 and the power and content of the messageboards, and they spent ages taping comments which amounted to very much what FF said above. I did not know it then but the Feedback we were taping for in my house was RW's appearance on the programme. He was simply embarrassingly appalling in facing the specific questions Bolton put to him based on the edited package of listener reactions, and since then I can hardly think of a single occasion on which he has been cornered on live radio by independent, and well-informed listeners / critics, unless he has been with R3's tame presenters who know which side their bread is buttered and simply serve up lobs. 'I do not recognise that' became a phrase hugely bandied about on the old mbs, and stems from a CEO who sounds as if he has been insulated from REAL listener reaction by assiduous apparatchiks hovering round as a protection squad, and either genuinely does NOT realise that that is what is being said on the streets, or does not want to hear. Take your pick.

[cavatina]

Draco: [...] a CEO who sounds as if he has been insulated from REAL listener reaction by assiduous apparatchiks hovering round as a protection squad, and either genuinely does NOT realise that that is what is being said on the streets, or does not want to hear. Take your pick.

I'm telling you he absolutely wasn't insulated this summer--and heard everyone out at length in nauseating detail, whether they were saying anything worth hearing or not.

I suspect you must have missed his first appearance on feedback some years ago (the older version that had a real bite - not the current 'house magazine' style) when he couldn't or wouldn't discuss his changes, falling back on repeated "I can't accept that" to such an extent that Roger Bolton (think I have name correct) got exasperated and asked him to answer the questions - since then RW has never put himself in such a situation again.

If he hasn't bleeped up in years, I guess that means he's just smart that way. Not to mention the fact that he's had years of practice at being charmingly glib and affable (or is that "affably glib and charming"?) and playing everyone in the media like Alfred Brendel on his favourite Steinway.

If FoR3 goes head to head with him on a chat show, you'll never win and are almost certain to be eaten alive-- but R3 doesn't want to be seen with you as it gives your criticism too much credibility. Hence the long-distance hatchet job. You know, my first reaction to reading FF's suspicions about R3 interference was "paranoid much?" but the more I think about it, the more I suspect she's probably right. It might be time to play hardball, but I still think it's an excellent opportunity if you figure out how to capitalize on it.

french frank:
But what I found odd was that I was asked on the phone earlier in the day what points I wanted to make, to give them an idea of the direction of the discussion - but when I arrived with my 'idiot cards' I was informed that I would be answering the BBC's questions given that they weren't present to answer themselves. As I've said, I'm deeply suspicious as to whether they were on hand and discussing it just before I was brought in, especially as I was asked a question apparently about what I'd just overheard.

That really does sound the perfect nightmare. At least you got out the message that your group exists...did the forum come up? Maybe you'll have a few new posters out of it.

[french frank]

cavatina

Thank you for your contributions but they are in danger of becoming a distraction to this discussion. I would be grateful if you would concentrate your attention elsewhere just at the moment.

[cavatina]

Fair enough; it's your forum.

[french frank]

ff, I agree that both those are possible replies, but AFAIK they are not actual ones from the R3 executive!! I have seen or heard both of them at some point from journalists or people commenting about R3, especially those who seem to be supportive of the new style. But what I would like to see is a clear exposition by RW of his vision for R3 and how he proposes to realize it. It shouldn't be too difficult, and he is paid a hell of a lot - why doesn't he set out his position clearly? Simply making changes to schedules and changing the presentational style of programmes without a clear and explicit justification is not good enough, imo.

When I wrote to the Trust to object to their 'endorsement' (=rubber-stamping) of the R3 strategy, this is part of the reply I received:

[4 March 2011]

"We note your strong objection to the Trust's conclusions in our recent service licence review and in particular our endorsement of BBC management's strategy of looking for ways to broaden Radio 3's appeal.

It is because we believe that Radio 3 is such a high quality and distinctive service that we want it to be heard by as broad an audience as possible. Our report shows that there are people who would appreciate this content but don't currently listen. We think that is a shame, given that it is a national network and plays an important part in our national life. Radio 3 offers programmes and content that are not available elsewhere and does so with an intelligent, thought provoking and passionate tone. Therefore, we would welcome more listeners to such exemplary public service broadcasting.

The evidence gathered in our review suggested that some audiences perceive Radio 3 to be a little inaccessible and daunting at times. While some may see this as a strength of the station, we believe that it is right that Radio 3 look for ways to be more welcoming and and accessible, to encourage people to sample this content."


My recent letter to Lord Patten says the Trust's review was flawed and inadequate and asked them whether they were even aware of certain points about Radio 3. It also protests that management's submission, with its evidence for changing the station, is being withheld from public scrutiny. It is therefore impossible to challenge their proposals on the arguments, since we don't know what they are.

[DracoM]

Bluddy hell! Blink and you missed it!

15 minutes of what turned out to be an outrageous promo, yes even MORE bluddy promo for that Grossmann novel adaptation, and our FF is given about fifteen seconds to serve up lobs for RW to spend ten days or so working out his responses. Gosh what a challenge that will be for him.

What a simply appalling, grovelling, undisguised, lick-spittle of a programme Feedback has become.

[salymap]

Congratulations FF for what you did manage to say, salymap

[Norfolk Born]

I think FF did very well to at least give a sense, in the limited time available, of the feelings of some Radio 3 listeners. Like her, I've gone from several hours a day listening to almost nothing. Never mind, I'm recording what sounds like a wonderful play with Richard Briers currently on Radio 4, and still have to catch up with the first episode of what looks like a very promising comedy, also on Radio 4, broadcast last night. And then, at 6.30 this evening, it's 'The News Quiz' (that's a superior version of HIGNFY).

[aeolium]

ff, I see the Trust emphasised the 'greater accessibility' argument, although that again is an argument used by a supposedly independent body. That reply in itself seems to betray the utterly compromised position the Trust inhabits (whether Patten will be able to change that is to be seen) and you were right to complain about it. You also mention that the management's submission was being withheld from public scrutiny. That is exactly my point: how is it possible that a public service organisation should hide its justifications from the very public that pays for it?

Btw, you did well in the minute that Bolton allowed you (I see only one of the questions was used). As Draco says, what a feeble programme that has become.

[mangerton]

FF, well done in the short time allowed you both to prepare and to speak. It will be interesting to hear what RW comes up with in the "several weeks" at his disposal.

There's nothing like a level playing field, is there?

[Anna]

Well, what a disappointment that the segment only stretched to about 3 minutes in total. However, he said R. Wright would be in the studio in a few weeks time to answer any questions (and questions were invited) so it's obvious the plan has to be to email/write to Feedback with the questions we want answering and if enough people do that (concentrating on just two or three issues) then RW surely has to give some concrete answers?

[Curalach]

FF, well done in the short time allowed you both to prepare and to speak.

I agree. Well done indeed.

[Wallace]

Hello
I heard you on Feedback and dropped by to say well done. 0630 to 0900 is now rather nasty (while 0900-1200 has become somewhat low-rent) Someone needs to challenge what these people are doing. Keep up the good work. I thought you got the message over perfectly. The role of R3 as a public service broadcaster should be to set a standard to which others can aspire, not to chase ratings by going down market.

[Norfolk Born]

[QUOTE=Anna;84269]Well, what a disappointment that the segment only stretched to about 3 minutes in total. However, he said R. Wright would be in the studio in a few weeks time to answer any questions (and questions were invited) so it's obvious the plan has to be to email/write to Feedback with the questions we want answering and if enough people do that (concentrating on just two or three issues) then RW surely has to give some concrete answers?[/QUOTE]
Don't bank on it, love! I suspect he's already got his answers ready and will mould the questions to fit. Remember:
ROGER IS (W)RIGHT ... ROGER IS RIGHT ... ROGER IS ALWAYS RIGHT ... (and the clocks are just starting to strike thirteen).