Classic FM attacks Radio 3!

[french frank]

Interesting words. His destruction of daytime R3 is about as subtle as a flying mallet!

I meant that he was saying that our argument was more subtle and complex than: We want 100% classical music. We don't want that speechy stuff. We don't want that worldy music stuff - it gets in the way of our classic listening. We don't want that jazz. (More complex as in: Absolutely the opposite.)

We know what the arguments are on both sides.

I shall now retire, put together all the latest evidence and use it to reinforce the points we've already made to the Trust. People may be interested in this extract from the Trust's review:

"17 Over recent years, BBC management has made changes to the tone, content and schedule of Radio 3 in order to make the station more accessible and welcoming to potential listeners, particularly in peak-time slots (breakfast and drive time) as these are the key entry points for potential listeners.

18 In its submission to this review RadioCentre states that certain elements of the Radio 3 schedule point to an increasing popularisation of the service and indicate a dilution of its core public service output. They believe that this is occurring particularly in Radio 3’’s breakfast and drive-time programming. Similar views were expressed by the Friends of Radio 3 listener group, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer organisation and the Incorporated Society of Musicians. In addition, a very small minority of respondents to our public consultation suggested that Radio 3 was not as good as it used to be and that there had been a reduction in quality. However, the vast majority of respondents did not raise this concern.

19 We acknowledge that the editorial policy that BBC management has pursued in recent years –– to develop a more welcoming and accessible tone in the peak-time listening slots –– has changed the nature of the programmes during these hours. We believe that this has been a legitimate attempt to appeal to potential listeners and has helped to maintain reach and listening in challenging circumstances. However, we accept that, for a small minority of Radio 3’’s audience, the changes that have been made to the Radio 3 breakfast and drive-time programmes may not be welcome or appreciated.

20 We have found no compelling evidence in our review that the quality of Radio 3 output is diminishing, or that these changes have alienated the core audience or reduced the delivery of public value in any way..."


Consequently, they endorsed the proposals to continue with the policy that all these groups were complaining about.

[Nick Armstrong]

about as subtle as a flying mallet!

Made me LOL that, cloughster! Thanks!

[EdgeleyRob]

I've green arrowed,appreciate all your hard work FF

[rank_and_file]

ff

In post 3 you say “it is our policy to deal directly with the BBC.” That, I must confess, is news to me.

Despite our efforts over the years, and yours in particular, and the man hours of effort, that policy has got us nowhere. In fact, Radio 2.5 has been a fact for some time.

The Commercial radio boys are not fools - they know when the BBC is attacking their output.

The only way we are ever going to have any hope of getting Radio 3 back to the standards it used to have is to try and involve the press and ignore the BBC suits as much as possible.

Don’t think Roger Wright is your friend or ours: he hates us.

[doversoul1]

ff
The only way we are ever going to have any hope of getting Radio 3 back to the standards it used to have is to try and involve the press and ignore the BBC suits as much as possible.

Involving the press/media is an extremely dodgy thing to do. It is definitely not something that those who aren’t in the profession/business should ever try to involve themselves.

I think dealing with BBC directly is the best way for FoR3. Although it is a very slow process, at least they are in control.

[french frank]

ff

In post 3 you say “it is our policy to deal directly with the BBC.” That, I must confess, is news to me.

That's the aim stated on our website:

Aims:

We will press Radio 3 to be distinctive, maintaining high artistic and intellectual standards; to recognise that the content will by its nature attract small audiences; and to acknowledge an obligation to build an audience for the content rather than alter the content to build an audience.

We will engage with the BBC and question the policies which we consider jeopardise Radio 3's remit to deliver a high quality service of classical music, spoken arts and a range of intelligent cultural coverage; we will convey listener concerns to BBC management.

Despite our efforts over the years, and yours in particular, and the man hours of effort, that policy has got us nowhere. In fact, Radio 2.5 has been a fact for some time.

The only way we are ever going to have any hope of getting Radio 3 back to the standards it used to have is to try and involve the press and ignore the BBC suits as much as possible.

You seem to believe that the press is on our side. It isn't. Not a single one would support a campaign to 'get Radio 3 back'.

There is, I believe - or was (if was, then very briefly) - a group called something like Brain Up Radio 3. People wanting a more militant campaign might like to seek it out. (Actually, I can only find a domain name: there doesn't seem to be a website).

They (or rather, he) declared that we were too polite and weren't getting anywhere. On the other hand ... that was last May ...

Don’t think Roger Wright is your friend or ours: he hates us.

Well, I've met him on a number of occasions. We don't see eye to eye. But I think it no more true to say he hates us as to say he hates our cat or he thinks our dress sense is terrible (oh ... ).

I think it may be a war of attrition, but the arts - in the Radio 3 sense - don't go away.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Duly upped.

My, what a devious lot the press are. It makes your hair curl.

[Sir Velo]

You seem to believe that the press is on our side. It isn't. Not a single one would support a campaign to 'get Radio 3 back'.

I'm not so sure about this. Some high profile journalists, including Charles Moore and Simon Heffer have criticised Radio 3 in the recent past for its popularising. I think you misunderstand the press if you think that they wouldn't give coverage to any organisation which had a cogent argument against the current regime, particularly so in the current climate where BBC bashing is practically de rigueur for the press. If I may so, you are missing a trick if you don't take this opportunity to use the media to get your message across. Do you honestly believe that Friends' support is as large as it could conceivably be? I frequently see and hear comments which are critical of Radio 3 by people who have no idea of the existence of FoR3.

I think it may be a war of attrition, but the arts - in the Radio 3 sense - don't go away.

Well he's really taken on board your views about Breakfast and the rest of the daytime schedule hasn't he? I'm afraid when I heard Wright defending the Friends to Damazer the expression "pet savage" and "toothless tiger" came to mind. He's been in the job for 14 years so logic would say he's winning hands down any battle of attrition! I agree with Russ and Rank and File et al; the time has come to realise that the current strategy of dialogue is not working. I appreciate this may well sound unfair, but that is the wider perception.

[french frank]

Sir Velo

If anyone feels they can do better, why don't they start their own group? This is absolutely the time when things might just turn in their favour, while 'the wider perception' is that what we're doing isn't working - and won't work.

I would advise you to write to Heffer and Moore and urge them to lead your campaign (mind you, Heffer's been lunched by the Controller, been given a couple of nice little series and I've only seen his criticisms of Classic FM). And the point is that high profile journalists always have their own agenda. How do you know that what they want is what we want - a broadly based Radio 3 of which classical music has the major role? Will they campaign for drama, jazz and world music? But maybe that isn't what you want either? Perhaps you want round-the-clock classical music? If so, we may have to suffer a few defectors to your new campaign. So be it.

As for potential numbers, do you imagine that the entire Radio 3 audience wants the type of station we do (I mean that FoR3 campaigns for)? Have you read the results of the BBC's public consultation on Radio 3? You might get the impression that there would be a far bigger listenership for a 'Classic FM without ads': after all, even with ads, which people hate, Classic has a much larger audience.

What has happened to Radio 3 is part of a much wider cultural development which has been taking place for decades. Radio 3 is just one small part of it. It's always been at risk and always will be. But good luck to all those who want to try something different.

I would just invite anyone who isn't already a registered supporter to join us.

[doversoul1]

Re: press and media
There are high profile and intelligent journalists who support FoR3 but I doubt they have any editorial power. It’s fine if they come to FoR3 but if FoR3 goes to the media and hand its story to them, and this is what it amounts to, it will become their story. In some cases, getting publicity is very effective, like ‘Bring Petroc Home’ but when you need careful and detailed argument, getting the media involved is the last thing you want. It will be the case of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Where media is concerned, FoR3 is not even an apprentice. Keep well out of it.

[Sir Velo]

And the point is that high profile journalists always have their own agenda. How do you know that what they want is what we want - a broadly based Radio 3 of which classical music has the major role? Will they campaign for drama, jazz and world music? But maybe that isn't what you want either? Perhaps you want round-the-clock classical music? If so, we may have to suffer a few defectors to your new campaign. So be it.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm saying that the press will give exposure to alternative viewpoints, regardless of whether they agree with all aspects of it. You say that you don't want to use the press, but the alternative is (as we have seen with this article and with the Damazer/Wright interview) that you will be misrepresented. Is this what you want? Surely, it is better to keep up a dialogue with the media and ensure that your viewpoint is correctly reported? I think if you expressed the points which you so cogently make here and on the Friends' home page, you would garner a lot of support. Moreover, it is not necessary for everyone to agree on all aspects of the scheduling. The finer points of scheduling can be debated at a later stage. The essential thing is to get your message across unmediated.

I apologise if my last post appeared to be a personal attack. I certainly wasn't trying to decry the efforts you have made. However, can you really point to any areas in which Wright has demonstrably responded to your points by making substantive (sic) changes to the schedule? As I said before, Wright's defence of FoR3 suggests that he finds this a very nice and cosy relationship which does not challenge him.

[french frank]

I'm saying that the press will give exposure to alternative viewpoints, regardless of whether they agree with all aspects of it. You say that you don't want to use the press, but the alternative is (as we have seen with this article and with the Damazer/Wright interview) that you will be misrepresented. Is this what you want? Surely, it is better to keep up a dialogue with the media and ensure that your viewpoint is correctly reported?

Um, I do have a list of media contacts that I have circulated in the past, including the most influential media commentators.

One of those did mention us in an article about Radio 3: he said we were always bombarding him with press releases (i.e. two or three emails when we had something to say), giving the impression that we were just a nuisance. And he was one of those who - off his own bat - said the kind of things that we would all approve of.

One of our earliest sympathisers replied to an email a few weeks ago saying, Sorry - you say you don't listen any more, you can't criticise. When I said that my personal views were irrelevant because I was speaking for a constituency of Radio 3 listeners, the reply was: So you're just trotting out other people's views?

I explained that he was paid (as a radio critic) to give his own views; my job was to try to discover what a generality of our supporters thought and to fit those ideas into our overall set of principles. I got no reply. Oxbridge educated and he shrugs off the changes as 'one or two banalities'.

As John Drummond said: 'There isn't one Radio 3 audience, there are dozens', and I'm well aware that even on this forum there are those who don't sympathise with our views (never mind how we choose to represent them!).

[amateur51]

I would just invite anyone who isn't already a registered supporter to join us.

I did just that a few days ago & can report than no funds changed hands, the process was painless (just a modest para to write) and apparently I've passed

Join me, why don't you?!

[doversoul1]

Sir Velo

it is better to keep up a dialogue with the media and ensure that your viewpoint is correctly reported?

…to get your message across unmediated

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.

[Russ]

I agree with Russ and Rank and File et al; the time has come to realise that the current strategy of dialogue is not working.

I think that goes considerably beyond what I have been saying. FoR3's policy of dealing directly with the BBC is correct in my view. 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

P.S. I googled 'Brain up Radio 3', and the number one reference was the FoR3 news page...