R4 Feedback covers Radio 3 - again

[Frances_iom]

Calum,
...
He has overall responsibility for Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live and the BBC digital radio stations 1Xtra, 6 Music, Radio 7, 5 Live Sports Extra and Asian Network.
He also oversees the three BBC orchestras in England, the BBC Singers, the BBC Proms, Classical Music & Popular Music Television and Radio Resources.
In addition, he is in charge of Radio Drama and Television Music Entertainment and is strategically responsible for all audio across the BBC.

good job that the BBC appointed a person with a demonstrated interest in music + culture and not just a marketing android (I assume he has a low golf handicap ?)

[Russ]

But what other opportunities present themselves??

A 'For3' podcast?

Russ

[cavatina]

I just heard the interview, and have a couple of comments:

I thought it was rather underhanded that he introduced her as "representing the hundreds of members" of "the Friends of Radio 3 message boards", NOT the Friends of Radio 3 public advocacy group. That's a bit of a low blow right there. If you were being taken seriously, they would have mentioned your reports to the Trust...but then, I doubt that was ever part of the point of having you on.

Your payoff question for RW was worthy of Simon Jenkins on a different subject the other day, if you don't mind the comparison - pithy, direct and challenging

Well, I think it was a mistake to end by asking him if he agrees with a rhetorical question instead of pressing for specifics. As it is, RW will just say "no, of course not" and trot out the same old hobby horses we've all heard a hundred times. Not to mention asking him if he thinks he's "guilty of cultural vandalism" is weak because a) aside from the obvious jab, there's no meat to it and b) to use a cricket metaphor, he's going to be able to hit a six off of it.

I mean really, what on earth could he possibly say to that aside from no? "Cultural vandalism? Why YES, absolutely! Here at Radio 3, we're like the BANSKY of cultural vandalism! We made cultural vandalism into a fine art! We're taking a whole rainbow of colorful spray cans to mouldy old ideas and slashing up preconceived notions of what it means to be a classical music listener...oh yes by all means, I'm all in favour of cultural vandalism."

Instead, I would have asked "what concrete steps are you willing to take to demonstrate your commitment to Radio 3's high standards of quality programming, and prove that you're not completely ignoring your educated base of listeners in favour of new audiences?"

You know you're going to get the old wiggle-and-waffle in any event, but at least a question like mine might net you something meaningful you can hold up later. Here's hoping he shakes it up a little.

And for what it's worth, I think you were being hard on yourself; you sounded fine. The main thing I'd practice is making each answer more self-contained. You're probably going to hate this, but here's a link to someone talking about how to deliver your message with--heaven forfend!-- sound bites. Good luck!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

....the medium is the message eh ....

i would have asked Squealer why he has chosen to sacrifice editorial authority in a bid to win access and awareness, when it was the authority that made it worth having in the first place ... he is just playing commercial radio tricks with a public service institution ...[Lord Patten LIKES institutions] i would also ask him if Napoleon and his squad were demanding that £3 be more popular as a condition for his bonus and also cutting his rewards package ....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Spirit of Corpspeak: Speak Not his Name!

[Paul Sherratt]

Bless you, Calum.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/1403.jpg

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... when it comes to the holy burp i'm a coke man meself .... peppy wins on the first hit but after a glass it induces a sugar sickness, those who judge on the whole bottle prefer coke

Napoleon's first external appointment 'tis said

[french frank]

cavatina

Thank you for your comments and FWIW I agree about the 'Do you agree?' - but when you don't have much time to respond: it was 'live' and unprepared as far as I was concerned. It was thank you and goodbye.

I hope, though that my single question won't play too big a part in the forthcoming programme.

(Anyone catch the 'edit' where what I was saying was 'interrupted' with an answer to a different question? Alan B'Stards! )

[Curalach]

cavatina

Thank you and goodbye.

Hear hear.

[french frank]

Curalach

That's very naughty. I genuinely agree with what cavatina was saying.

One relies on the presenter pursuing the points, but perhaps that's unrealistic ...

[cavatina]

If any of you don't think my comments are worth reading, put me in your filter file. Leave the real discussion to people who think it's worth having and talk about the issues.

[Curalach]

ff

Sorry about that. My patience with C's gratuitous advice to everyone else finally snapped. I won't let it happen again . .

[Richard Tarleton]

One relies on the presenter pursuing the points, but perhaps that's unrealistic ...

I wonder if this all boils down to a simple issue - live or pre-recorded? Is it worth even doing the latter, when there's a good chance they'll try to stitch you up at the editing stage? I don't suppose the Feedback format allows for live (I don't often listen).

[cavatina]

I wonder if this all boils down to a simple issue - live or pre-recorded? Is it worth even doing the latter, when there's a good chance they'll try to stitch you up at the editing stage?

On the contrary: pre-recorded interviews represent your best shot at getting your point across effectively because they'll edit out all the imperfections of delivery that are only natural to someone who's inexperienced in front of a microphone. Live, there's no chance for a retake--and if you're hesitant, nervous, or agitated, IT SHOWS.

If you ever got the chance to debate Roger Wright live, I have a feeling he'd stitch you up in real time without even breaking his smile. And as hilarious as that might be to watch, I honestly can't stress enough what a disaster that's likely be for you. Think about it: combine someone who's 1) extremely adept at thinking on his feet with 2) literally hundreds of hours of experience being persuasive in front of a microphone and 3) and the ability to remain 100% pleasant and unflappable no matter what people throw at him?

It all adds up to nobody I'd ever want to debate live, that's for sure.

[Serial_Apologist]

On the contrary: pre-recorded interviews represent your best shot at getting your point across effectively because they'll edit out all the imperfections of delivery that are only natural to someone who's inexperienced in front of a microphone. Live, there's no chance for a retake--and if you're hesitant, nervous, or agitated, IT SHOWS.

If you ever got the chance to debate Roger Wright live, I have a feeling he'd stitch you up in real time without even breaking his smile. And as hilarious as that might be to watch, I honestly can't stress enough what a disaster that's likely be for you. Think about it: combine someone who's 1) extremely adept at thinking on his feet with 2) literally hundreds of hours of experience being persuasive in front of a microphone and 3) and the ability to remain 100% pleasant and unflappable no matter what people throw at him?

It all adds up to nobody I'd ever want to debate live, that's for sure.

That's the irony innit - coming across cleaned up, smooooothed out, and.... banal(ised)