Classic FM attacks Radio 3!

[Keith Braidwood]

Perhaps Mr Miron is correct in stating that Radio 3 has a number of ex-Classic FM presenters. But they are EX-Classic FM. This does not mean they will bring, or have brought, the CFM work ethos to R3. And yes, Radio 3 now has a chart, but comparing the two is a waste of time and effort as CFM's contains film soundtracks, those hideous manufactured 'pop-classical' bands and much else unfit for human consumption. I don't particularly like R3's Essential Classics, the title itself smacks of a classical compilation you would find in the £2 bin at a supermarket, but at least the presenters are knowledgeable. I tend not to listen to the Breakfast programme as it conflicts with R4's Today programme.

Does FoR3 have a Twitter account or a Facebook page? I'm don't have the latter but the former is very useful for getting news and views across. I came to the Friends of Radio 3 site, and this forum of course, by sheer chance while wondering what others thought of the 'new' format with Breakfast and Essential Classics. The more support we get for Radio 3 the better and social media will certainly help.

[gingerjon]

You can bet if Radio 3 broadcast only complete classical pieces of significance framed by an intellectual discussion of meaning and context that Classic FM and the Daily Mail would be lambasting the BBC for its elitism.

[Sir Velo]

Sir Velo


Sorry to keep chipping in but do you seriously believe that this is a realistic hope? You are talking about the media of all things.

Doversoul, believe me I am not naive enough to appreciate that the media has its own agenda. What I was trying to express is that it is better to speak to journalists when they come calling, than to ignore them and tell them that we don't deal with them. They will only write what they wish anyway, so you might as well speak to them. That way, there is at least some chance of your POV being presented accurately. After all, we do want people to know the arguments don't we?

The question these recent media skirmishes raises is whether it should deal only with the BBC, and I would like to see FoR3 becoming a little more adept and responsive in the wider media area. I am not in favour of starting 'another group', and am quite happy to support FoR3 (and have just registered my support). My simple motive for registering my support is not to change FoR3's 'positions', but to gain a better transparency of them.

Russ, I think if you read my posts through fully you will see that our views are closer than you imagine, although I don't agree that the dialogue with the BBC is working. However, I agree that the formation of a rival group would not serve any beneficial purpose.

[3rd Viennese School]

Is this Daily Mail thing just yet another attempt at Public Sector bashing? We here at the NHS know their game!!

3VS

[doversoul1]

Sir Velo


But I still believe that it is better to be able to say ‘I did not talk to you’ than having to say ‘But that’s not what I said’

[Russ]

Russ, I think if you read my posts through fully you will see that our views are closer than you imagine, although I don't agree that the dialogue with the BBC is working.

I too suspect our views are not divergent, Sir V, but in a sense that's my point - unless FoR3 members can test their views against each other in a consensus-forming fashion, we'll still be in a bit of a muddle, with no one quite knowing quite what can be said to external bodies. On the matter of the continuing dialogue with the BBC, there is a big difference between being able to transmit a nuanced view to the R3 Controller and getting the BBC Trust to correctly translate and endorse such a view. The latter process is vexing to say the least: David Liddiment (the Trust's sole judge and jury when it comes to issuing general edicts to R3) seems unusually adept at missing the mark sometimes, even when trying to balance a large number of input positions from various bodies.

Russ

[Lateralthinking1]

"If you look at the changing programmes Radio 3 has done"..........with such a wonderful grasp of the language, he must be in line to be the BBC DG! I am no expert in grammar, and have never claimed to be, but those in charge of broadcasting now speak less convincingly than the average geezer with a barrow. Few seem to see the irony.

I note FoR3's defence of R3 as intentionally difficult. There are though questions to be asked of CFM. Specifically, can someone please explain to me how the philosophy of private sector radio works. I am genuinely puzzled that it is justified on the grounds of competition and is endorsed by its supporters when it complains that others are being competitive.

[cloughie]

You can bet if Radio 3 broadcast only complete classical pieces of significance framed by an intellectual discussion of meaning and context that Classic FM and the Daily Mail would be lambasting the BBC for its elitism.

Yes but wouldn't it be good to put them in that position?

[rank_and_file]

ff

I have just been rereading the Daily Mail article, and, was I not to know the background of the 15 word “quote,” I would have thought it a positive mention towards the aims of FoR3. Therefore I am surprised at the lengths you have gone to dissociate yourself from the mention. I doubt if John Steven is going to rush to you again for a quote, however accurate your response to his journalism.

When we started out on this endeavour years ago to steer the output of Radio 3 back to its previous high levels, whilst approaches to the BBC would be paramount, I do not remember us ever saying we would ignore the press. In fact, I don’t think we knew many people in the press then.

I have just looked back to your last FoR3 newsletter (update October 12) where you say in the second paragraph the same sort of thing as the article describes. I just wonder whether an abridged/revised version of these newsletters could be emailed to the appropriate press? You never know when they are looking for a story to run and a reliable source. (I would guess that the newsletters are being leaked to Wright anyway.)

I do take on board (doversoul) that to be quoted in the press in the form and context that you/we desire is very rarely achieved, but very often exposure is no bad thing.

[french frank]

When we started out on this endeavour years ago to steer the output of Radio 3 back to its previous high levels, whilst approaches to the BBC would be paramount, I do not remember us ever saying we would ignore the press. In fact, I don’t think we knew many people in the press then.

That was the point I made in an earlier post, we did just that. What happens then is that the journalists took our quote back to a BBC spokesperson and we were flattened because, as often as not, the journalists misunderstood what we were saying, misrepresented it to the BBC who were then only too pleased to tell them what idiots we were.

This is a minefield. My view is that Stephen Miron's speech will give a boost to our campaign. It's a very valuable piece of evidence that what we've been telling the Trust for months is correct: that the commercial sector thinks Radio 3 is encroaching on Classic FM's territory. Or to put it in the way we prefer: is going after the same audience as Classic FM (whether or not Radio 3 is 'distinctive' from Classic FM is totally irrelevant: there are too many examples which disprove the argument that the stations sound the same).

This is quite the opposite from what RW said in his St Peter's interview - that both the BBC and their commercial colleagues were in agreement that there was 'clear blue water' between the two stations. The commercials clearly DON'T agree - and it's because Radio 3 is publicly aiming for a broader audience. To explain that they aim to draw their new listeners only from Radio 4 and Radio 2 (but not Classic FM) is an absurdity.

But there are legal as well as cultural issues involved. If the BBC doesn't acknowledge that our arguments are backed by ample evidence, and respond, the next step, in my mind, is to place the evidence before the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport. In my position I've no doubt others would have done that some time ago.

I do think that this may be crunchtime. But if the evidence is in our favour, it doesn't matter whether we are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 - especially as, realistically, we are never going to be able to gather the support of more than a small percentage of Radio 3's listenership.

[french frank]

On the subject of Facebook and Twitter: this has come up and been vaguely discussed with people who have had some experience - good and bad - with the social media. In the end I was rather put off the idea.

What is needed is someone/people who are adept at using them who will undertake to run the accounts, but there do need to be checks and balances.

My abiding fault is that I rarely have anything worth saying that can be encompassed in 140 characters ...

[Serial_Apologist]

On the subject of Facebook and Twitter: this has come up and been vaguely discussed with people who have had some experience - good and bad - with the social media. In the end I was rather put off the idea.

What is needed is someone/people who are adept at using them who will undertake to run the accounts, but there do need to be checks and balances.

My abiding fault is that I rarely have anything worth saying that can be encompassed in 140 characters ...

My fault too - the problem is that the "commonsense viewpoint" rarely requires contextualisation, it seems.

As John Humphrys (I think it was) said to Tony Benn ("Interviewing the Interviewers"), "If someone can't put across their point in twenty seconds, it's probably not worth saying".

[french frank]

As John Humphrys (I think it was) said to Tony Benn ("Interviewing the Interviewers"), "If someone can't put across their point in twenty seconds, it's probably not worth saying".

Yuh. The problem with that is that what you leave out gets filled in by other people, wrongly.

[Gordon]

Yuh. The problem with that is that what you leave out gets filled in by other people, wrongly.

Quite so. From long experience of dealing with issues like this and the press the best policy is to avoid it uness you know the journalist personally and even then his/her editor can get in the way. Press releases can be helpful to say what you want in a specific instance but even then words can be selected to suit the journo/editor. As FF says, a minefield, keep out of it.

Our position is a "moral" one based on our general feeling that R3 has lost its intellectual grip in an attempt to be more "accessible"; it's an opinion and one that probably commands minority support among listeners. Appealing from that stance to a regime that is legalistic/formalistic in its constitution admits no ready solution, it can simply disagree and do what it wants with the support of the Trust. It also reeks of intellectual elitism. Elitism in itself is not a bad thing and takes many forms, some more acceptable than others, ask Sir Alex Ferguson or any PL football fan - would they want the "best" players in their team? of course they would. That's elitism. Somehow, when we edge away from the demotic towards anything intellectual the word attracts censure.

As we have discussed several times in the past, to escalate any campaign means a radical change in the way For3 is constituted. We are few in number, not a fully coherent group, we have no formal establishment or "cabinet", no funds, no lobbying policy except insofar that FF has taken the lead on expressing views to the BBC. That is no one's fault, and I mean no disrespect to or criticism of anyone, it is just a reflection of the facts.

As we are now influence is limited. Any "more aggressive" group will need clear and achieveable war aims which have a broad base of support and I'd suggest a war chest to go with it. Serious lobbying costs time and money as does influence. Think of it as a business proposition - what is your product and who will buy it? More to the point, who are your investors and why would they back you for what return??

I, for one, think that in the circumstances FF has done a marvellous job in maintaining pressure on the BBC and the momentum and belief in what FoR3 stands for. If anyone thinks they can do, or could have done, better let them try.

[french frank]

Thanks, Gordon. But I would say that I honestly don't mind any criticisms . I do reconsider on the basis of what people say.

However, newspaper articles have writers and readers - and who the readers are matters. I've just done an analysis of all the comments on the Guardian article (which was first with the story but had fewer details). Very few (five) mentioned Radio 3, and two of those were complimentary, saying there was no comparison between the two stations. Most comments were very hostile towards Global/commercial radio, but focused more on local radio and the pop stations.

I might be tempted to add something (belatedly) to the Telegraph blog which is an opinion piece and quite thoughtful - unlike the Daily Mail's. The comments are focused on Radio 3.

As I've said to others, I think there is capital to be made out of Global's comments, not least because they echo what RadioCentre and Lord (Chris) Smith's report (industry-based but independent in its conclusions) have said. By no means is it true to say - as the Trust almost did - that RadioCentre supported their view - the one which led them to then endorse the policy of 'broadening the station's appeal'. Exactly what Lord Smith said two years ago would be a matter of concern to the commercial radio industry.

["For Radio 3, our main concern is that the service should retain its “quality” positioning and its distinctiveness from Classic FM. If Radio 3 were to broaden its appeal (for example, through more accessible programming - supported by promotional campaigns), this could have a detrimental impact on Classic FM’s audience [...] "

The Trust declared, unilaterally, that there was no evidence that it had had an effect on CFM's audience, and their loss of listeners couldn't be anything to do with Radio 3 ...