Classic FM attacks Radio 3!

[MickyD]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...-one-direction

Thanks Mercia, I was sure the story had appeared elsewhere.

[cloughie]

Thanks Mercia, I was sure the story had appeared elsewhere.

#4?

[french frank]

I may have missed something but I've not really seen any significant changes for the better on R3 as a result of this board's existence and I think that R3 may have just possibly borrowed, without permission, ideas from CFM. I'm with mercia on this one but maybe someone in the FoR3 cabinet can enlighten me as to the softly softly approach.

What you've (possibly) missed is the agenda behind this article - the Daily Mail's and (more legitimately) Global Radio's. Anything to do, I wonder, with the celebration of 90 years of BBC radio today?

And, again, in spite of the fact that I declined to comment (having been directed by the journalist to an article in yesterday's Guardian which I presumed was the source of the Mail article but which was very different from this one), the article uses us to add weight to the story. As Roger Wright said in a rather different recent context: it's more subtle and complex than they suggest.

Supporters are kept informed of our activities through a regular newsletter; and they contribute feedback and suggestions whenever they wish.

[cloughie]

What you've (possibly) missed is the agenda behind this article - the Daily Mail's and (more legitimately) Global Radio's. Anything to do, I wonder, with the celebration of 90 years of BBC radio today?

And, again, in spite of the fact that I declined to comment (having been directed by the journalist to an article in yesterday's Guardian which I presumed was the source of the Mail article but which was very different from this one), the article uses us to add weight to the story. As Roger Wright said in a rather different recent context: it's more subtle and complex than they suggest.
Supporters are kept informed of our activities through a regular newsletter; and they contribute feedback and suggestions whenever they wish.

Interesting words. His destruction of daytime R3 is about as subtle as a flying mallet!
In this situation I see you have the choice of saying nothing and being quoted out of context from previous or being interviewed and then your comments being misused. So maybe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_V2_4771_Green_Arrow

is yours.

[Anna]

Not wishing to divert, but having just read the Mail article:-

"He added: 'It's now possible to listen to Radio 3 between 6:30am and 4:30pm and hear only one hour that's not presented by a former Classic FM presenter. Radio 3 has introduced listener requests on the phone every day - copying the format pioneered by Classic FM"

Is it true that all daytime R3 presenters are ex-CFM? (If so I had not realised) and his assertion that R3 has introduced listener requests - surely that's only one instance per day, i.e. Your Call?

Duly clicked green and red arrows, frenchie now has 138!

[aeolium]

Did it only appear in the Daily Mail, I wonder?

Now in a Telegraph blog. Is this a pincer movement?

Whatever the merits of the points made in the article, the fact is that the Telegraph (and very probably the Mail too, though I don't check its online content) leaps on every opportunity to criticise and undermine the BBC and publishes articles by people like James Delingpole who does not conceal his loathing for the BBC as an institution. That to me renders their critical articles of no more worth than commentaries by Fox News about Democratic politicians - they are fatally weakened by a partisan agenda rather than a genuine concern for high quality.

[Bryn]

Not wishing to divert, but having just read the Mail article:-

"He added: 'It's now possible to listen to Radio 3 between 6:30am and 4:30pm and hear only one hour that's not presented by a former Classic FM presenter. Radio 3 has introduced listener requests on the phone every day - copying the format pioneered by Classic FM"

Is it true that all daytime R3 presenters are ex-CFM? (If so I had not realised) and his assertion that R3 has introduced listener requests - surely that's only one instance per day, i.e. Your Call?

Duly clicked green and red arrows, frenchie now has 138!

Ah, read it carefully, it says it is "possible", not that it is always the case. Doc Walker has never worked for CFM.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

Not wishing to divert, but having just read the Mail article:-

"He added: 'It's now possible to listen to Radio 3 between 6:30am and 4:30pm and hear only one hour that's not presented by a former Classic FM presenter. Radio 3 has introduced listener requests on the phone every day - copying the format pioneered by Classic FM"

Is it true that all daytime R3 presenters are ex-CFM? (If so I had not realised) and his assertion that R3 has introduced listener requests - surely that's only one instance per day, i.e. Your Call?

It is possible if the line-up included Petroc presenting Breakfast, Rob on Essential Classics and Katie Derham on Afternoon on 3 duties (the hour not included being Composer of the Week).

[cloughie]

Ah, read it carefully, it says it is "possible", not that it is always the case. Doc Walker has never worked for CFM.

How about Donald Mc, Penny Gore, SMP, Louise Fryer?

[gingerjon]

It's more than likely that every single one of the Classic FM presenters has worked for the BBC at some point in their careers.

[Mr Pee]

the article seems to express many of the views held hereabouts, I'm surprised it isn't being welcomed

Green up arrow to that.

[Russ]

I understand ff's reluctance to get muddied in the waters of a specific Daily Mail 'slagging the BBC' operation, but like the recent Wright-Damazer exchange, this episode does again raise the question of what the 'FoR3 position' is and its inability to respond quickly to media events. I feel FoR3 should no longer adopt a stance of steering clear of the press, and I can't see its current mode of being passive and insular serves any useful mission, if only because it will continue to be prey to media-invented FoR3 constructions, as can be seen in the Mail article. Mercia is absolutely right to raise the 'Radio 2.5' issue because that has undoubtely featured heavily in the discussions on this forum, along with a continuing question over the breakfast format, which is at the heart of the Global Radio jibe.

FoR3 needs to up its PR game and profile.

Russ

[teamsaint]

I get really very angry when people in powerful, influential decisions, use that power as a personal plaything,and use that power to pursue their own selfish ends, regardless of who or what gets hurt or damaged along the way.

You see it all over the place , day after day.

Edit...It was the green arrow, wasn't it......?!

[french frank]

FoR3 needs to up its PR game and profile.

Maybe we need a professional press officer.

The fact is that the press always have their own agenda. The journalists, on the whole, don't listen to Radio 3. They don't know the issues. They just want a good story with a punch-up somewhere.

When we started we were chased by the press (our 'PR' was admired by one radio commentator, even though it was non existent). All that happened was that we got the profile the press invented for us. They get in touch when they sniff trouble and want to use us as part of the dissent/anger.

We had dirty tricks played on us, false claims and vague speculations about what we might have said - but didn't. We have a website: it lays out exactly the principles on which our approach is based. If even someone like Damazer doesn't take the trouble to read it what likelihood that a journalist will do so? When we start talking about our views, they just get bored.

Haven't looked further up this thread, but another article in The Telegraph.

In light of the latest news, we shall resume our complaint to the Trust over their Radio 3 review which in our view wilfully ignored the evidence of dissatisfaction which they collected in their public consultation - and even gave the impression that Classic FM supported their view that Radio 3 and Classic FM were completely different. RadioCentre, in fact, wrote a letter to the Chairman (Sir Michael Lyons) effectively saying that this was not so.

But, please: journalists have their own opinions. They aren't interested in ours - they just want to manipulate to fit their own agenda, as must be obvious from the Daily Mail story.

[french frank]

Now in a Telegraph blog. Is this a pincer movement?

Whatever the merits of the points made in the article, the fact is that the Telegraph (and very probably the Mail too, though I don't check its online content) leaps on every opportunity to criticise and undermine the BBC and publishes articles by people like James Delingpole who does not conceal his loathing for the BBC as an institution. That to me renders their critical articles of no more worth than commentaries by Fox News about Democratic politicians - they are fatally weakened by a partisan agenda rather than a genuine concern for high quality.

Sorry - didn't see that you'd already mentioned the Telegraph blog.

But, yes, agreed 100%.

It's a difficult path - all the more difficult because, as you say, the points they make are partly true. But let's not forget all the programmes that are unaffected by CFM-itis. And, on the other hand, look at the comments from people indignantly denying that there is the remotest similarity between the two.

We have a very detailed, precise line of argument and, thank you very much, I don't want the press 'publicising' it for us.