R4 Feedback covers Radio 3 - again

[cavatina]

Sorry? Did someone say personal attacks?

Addressing the fact that the media often gets it wrong and grossly mischaracterises someone is not a personal attack in the slightest. The rest of you need to quit talking about me, and focus on the issues.

[Nick Armstrong]

Addressing the fact that the media often gets it wrong and grossly mischaracterises someone is not a personal attack in the slightest. The rest of you need to quit talking about me, and focus on the issues.

Maybe stop drawing attention to yourself too?

[cavatina]

Maybe stop drawing attention to yourself too?

I made an impersonal constructive comment. Talk about the issues.

[Anna]

The rest of you need to quit talking about me, and focus on the issues.

God Forbid we were talking about you (much as you would like that), no we were talking about a particularly snide attack on french frank that you had posted, as you have done numerous times in the past towards her and the fact that so many of us are united in what we think should, perhaps, make you think as well about the persona you project on this MB

[cavatina]

It wasn't snide or "an attack" at all; it was constructive criticism. Talk about the issues.

[vinteuil]

cavatina - I had assumed you were bright enough - and that you might possibly learn something about how you appear, if you were to re-read this thread and the unanimous comments about your approach...

[cavatina]

cavatina - I had assumed you were bright enough - and that you might possibly learn something about how you appear, if you were to re-read this thread and the unanimous comments about your approach...

Bullying and peer pressure stopped working on me in elementary school. Talk about the issues.

[vinteuil]

ah well, the invincible unteachable cavatina will continue her way.

Sad, really.

[Simon]

Cavatina's right on this one. Be objective, people.

OK the wording could be different, but s/he's not attacking ff at all - simply making a point that if we look at it objectively is almost certainly true. There will be people - within the BBC for sure - who see ff not as we do, but as some fussy elitist. Indeed we've all had conversations about elitism on here for years, and others have accused many of us here of precisely that - largely unjustifiably, I think, though there have been a couple on here who I have considered a bit snobby at times.

I didn't catch it ff, but I'm sure you'll have made your points calmly, rationally and clearly. Thanks for being there to do it.

[Anna]

Bullying and peer pressure stopped working on me in elementary school.

But you sure learnt enough to put it into practice on others.

[french frank]

It's just that given the way you present yourself, you're not likely to reach anyone who doesn't already "get it", which is why you end up being grossly mis-characterised and written off as an elitist fussbudget when that's nothing to do with your real focus and message.

Well, I'm not sure that I have ever been personally presented in that way.

But it is sheer naivety on your part, in my view, not to realise that the media line up with their friends. I'm sorry that the Indie and The Guardian go with the BBC establishment and we're left with The Telegraph, The (Sunday) Times and good ol' Private Eye to balance things out. [I wish it were the other way round.] The journalists who write as they find and will stick their necks out are few.

I suspect Roger will set up various straw men and there won't be any way to challenge him - except that you lot will be able to write in when he finally does appear

It wasn't that I got much of a grilling, just that there wasn't time for me to make my points, the studio having been booked for 12.30-1pm and they didn't get in touch from London until 12.50pm.

I was asked what questions I would like put to Roger and managed:

"Basically, the BBC is chasing ratings, unfairly competing with Classic FM with public funds and committing cultural vandalism: would you agree?"

and

"Shouldn't you be fighting Radio 3's corner to revert it to a serious minority station (with a varied content), pursuing depth rather than breadth, instead of yet another 'distinctive' popular appeal station like Classic FM?"



Simon - it was a recording, possibly for tomorrow. But if 'Roger' was RW in the background briefing the presenter, we could have done the programme together

[Serial_Apologist]

But you sure learnt enough to put it into practice on others.

That would be poetic justice, one guesses

[charles t]

Cavatina: Agreed = it's kinda nasty at times here.

[Please see an attempt to focus on more ultimate considerations on: Cheers.

[Serial_Apologist]

I was asked what questions I would like put to Roger and managed:

"Basically, the BBC is chasing ratings, unfairly competing with Classic FM with public funds and committing cultural vandalism: would you agree?"

and

"Shouldn't you be fighting Radio 3's corner to revert it to a serious minority station (with a varied content), pursuing depth rather than breadth, instead of yet another 'distinctive' popular appeal station like Classic FM?"

I cannot come up with a better wording than those two questions, FF, particularly in view of the way in which one has to pose questions of this kind in nutshells, in, er, timesaving situations of this kind.

You could always, I suppose, ask at the Bristol School of, er...

[french frank]

Enough, peeps. To the matter in hand. I'm sorry that it was all so quick, I didn't have time to consult and ask for suggestions as to what questions to ask. Not that they would necessarily be asked, anyway.

[S-A, like most of the BBC's buildings, BH in Bristol has been given a multi-million pound facelift - though it still has the inevitable internal corridors leading to sound-proofed studios.]