Originally posted by french frank
View Post
Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostIn fact mindfulness is an extremely useful , relatively easy to learn series of techniques / modes of experiencing that are pretty much proven to relieve anxiety and mild depression. It has very little to do directly with chanting or , sadly , listening to music.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostI still prefer my original title for this thread - a programme surely in the wrong station !
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cloughie View PostNot on the wrong station - just that the tired formula that replaced CD Masters, which was not broke so should never have been fixed, now is well and truly broke, should now be replaced with, I suggest, CD Masters 2022!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oddoneout View PostTrouble is that CD Masters 2022 wouldn't be the old version, it would be a new improved updated woke diverse - add whatever current tick boxes - version. That wouldn't achieve much - replace a programme [B]that many like
Radio 3 will analyse the figures and will know that some switch off after 5-15 minutes, but if it means rethinking the whole programme and coming up with something that fewer people will listen to it won't be worth the candle. Au contraire, the answer is to make it even worse for the 5-minuters.
It's a style of broadcasting appealing to mass audiences, slightly adapted; whereas the Third/R3 was not for a mass audience. Picking out - as people inevitably do - that there are still gems is for optimists, as more and more airtime falls to the mass audience programmes.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostWell, the fact that many like it ensures its continuance, especially when boosted by those who don't like it but still listen to it. Just listen for a continuous 5 minutes and you're just as important for the programme's listening figures as those who listen for the whole 3 hours.
Radio 3 will analyse the figures and will know that some switch off after 5-15 minutes, but if it means rethinking the whole programme and coming up with something that fewer people will listen to it won't be worth the candle. Au contraire, the answer is to make it even worse for the 5-minuters.
It's a style of broadcasting appealing to mass audiences, slightly adapted; whereas the Third/R3 was not for a mass audience. Picking out - as people inevitably do - that there are still gems is for optimists, as more and more airtime falls to the mass audience programmes.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI d9nt think Radio figures have anything like that degree of precision. I think all they can tell is the number who have listened for a m8n 15 minute period and even those figures have a huge margin of error.
The amount of data issued to stations is huge. We would have been allowed to buy it (costing £1,000s) but you still need the software to process it, with 99% of it being totally irrelevant as it covers all the stations and all the programmes. The BBC's argument that the information is commercially sensitive is worse than disingenuous since all their competitors (like CFM) already have it. One journalist I was in touch with said that if he wanted BBC figures he asked Classic FM, and if he wanted CFM's figures he asked the BBC.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostThat's what the publicly released (free) figures show. The stations are given a breakdown by 15-minute segments. I got a look at some CFM figures which showed that.
The amount of data issued to stations is huge. We would have been allowed to buy it (costing £1,000s) but you still need the software to process it, with 99% of it being totally irrelevant as it covers all the stations and all the programmes. The BBC's argument that the information is commercially sensitive is worse than disingenuous since all their competitors (like CFM) already have it. One journalist I was in touch with said that if he wanted BBC figures he asked Classic FM, and if he wanted CFM's figures he asked the BBC.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI would imagine a good lawyer could discredit the BBC excuse of commercial confidentiality as fallacious.
Their other argument was that under their contract with RAJAR they were unable to provide us with what would be free figures as that would undermine RAJAR's financial viability. I rang RAJAR and they were incredulous: "They're the BBC's figures. Why should RAJAR care what they do with them?"It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostWe approached the Information Commissioner about it and were told that a disproportionate number of complaints under the FoI Act were then against the BBC. They agreed with us that the tiny amount of data (which licence fee payers pay for) should be released and contacted the BBC, extracting agreement to give us the information by a certain date. We were then in touch with the BBC directly who dithered and then said they'd changed their mind. After two years battling, we gave up, since the figures were out of date anyway.
Their other argument was that under their contract with RAJAR they were unable to provide us with what would be free figures as that would undermine RAJAR's financial viability. I rang RAJAR and they were incredulous: "They're the BBC's figures. Why should RAJAR care what they do with them?"
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostThe challenge could nevertheless have established the precedent necessary, even though giving up was obviously understandable under the circumstances. The BBC might pre-emptively have backed off, rather than face possible public ridicule - especially over the matter you indicate next:.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
One other factor is the impact of public release of the figures on the presenters .I know that sounds a bit wet but negative headlines put pressure on very exposed individuals. These things take time to fix and keeping up presenter morale is key.of course in telly things are a bit more brutal
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostOne other factor is the impact of public release of the figures on the presenters .I know that sounds a bit wet but negative headlines put pressure on very exposed individuals. These things take time to fix and keeping up presenter morale is key.of course in telly things are a bit more brutal
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment