Music Matters : Jenni Murray's Women Composers.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Not on what are perceived as Womens issues perhaps( and rightly) , but I’d suggest that , by omission at least , that BBC journalists back away from confrontation much too often .

Challenge is perhaps a better word. And I would agree with you - there’s too little of that . But to challenge you need time , resources for research and an understanding of when challenge starts revealing what you privately think. It’s much easier to do the so called “one up one down and what of the future” ? Interview.
Anyway I had the luxury of generally doing a half hour recording and cutting out three clips. Respect for those that do extended interviews live - it’s bad enough producing them.Though moderately exciting …
PS - relevant evidence the superb Walden / Thatcher C4 doc. The resources that must have gone into producing Weekend World. All those ITV cam ops on weekend triple overtime …of course Thatch put a stop to all that .

[Ein Heldenleben]

What is, these days? :-) I don't think I'll pursue this particular line, much though I find it a rich source of material.

For what it’s worth I think you are right re more derogatory terms for women. What’s really interesting also is why some epithets appear “ non transferable” gender -wise as when Joan Rivers called Brigitte Nielsen a C as host on her OWN chat show. Shocking - but really it just seemed weird. Also not very hospitable. There’s a Ph.D thesis in this.

[Serial_Apologist]

For what it’s worth I think you are right re more derogatory terms for women. What’s really interesting also is why some epithets appear “ non transferable” gender -wise as when Joan Rivers called Brigitte Nielsen a C as host on her OWN chat show. Shocking - but really it just seemed weird. Also not very hospitable. There’s a Ph.D thesis in this.

The return of a word degrading to women by referencing them through everyone-knows-what, even on the left but especially coming from women, has been among the most depressing things to have re-reared its ugly head in the past couple of decades (in my experience) - only augmented by the numbers of people from ethnic minorities joining in support for the likes of Trump and Farage. There was a time when I would rightly have been verbally torn to shreds for uttering THAT word.

[teamsaint]

Challenge is perhaps a better word. And I would agree with you - there’s too little of that . But to challenge you need time , resources for research and an understanding of when challenge starts revealing what you privately think. It’s much easier to do the so called “one up one down and what of the future” ? Interview.
Anyway I had the luxury of generally doing a half hour recording and cutting out three clips. Respect for those that do extended interviews live - it’s bad enough producing them.Though moderately exciting …
PS - relevant evidence the superb Walden / Thatcher C4 doc. The resources that must have gone into producing Weekend World. All those ITV cam ops on weekend triple overtime …of course Thatch put a stop to all that .

The pressures that journalists work under are probably easier to see in national and especially local newspapers, where staff levels are clearly very low, and syndication is the norm, I would think.

Your insider views of practical issues are very enlightening, and points about research etc are really significant. We have just published a pretty controversial book on a subject rooted in science, and it is clear from our experience that much of the research prior to TV and other interviews is not done in the depth that one would like, and that attempts at " balance" can be lazy, unnecessary or worse. C'est la Vie, but I think that the public ( us) sometimes have a rose tinted view of how editorial rigour plays out in the real world of " respectable" media.

Incidentally, re your point about issues that concerns the public when asked, a complaint of mine is how many of these are presented too often in terms of generational conflict, and not in terms of , say , class ( or inherited wealth), or as you say, regional inequality. Of course class and generational issues aren't entirely separate, but the manner of presentation matters, and the print media ( all of them) absolutely love generational conflict. The broadcast media may not be that much better, but then I don't watch it now, , other than the occasional catch up.

[Serial_Apologist]

Challenge is perhaps a better word. And I would agree with you - there’s too little of that . But to challenge you need time , resources for research and an understanding of when challenge starts revealing what you privately think.

It might be thought rational that the purportedly accountable broadcasting media be expected to oversee comprehensively in the mode of academic research institutions, in contrast with the competing businesses interests; but the truth that the world of business acts most effectively on its own behalf as a single class is important to get across. Remember Brecht's wonderful allusion to factory chimneys smoking for as long as everything, with workforce compliance, goes their way?

[Serial_Apologist]

The pressures that journalists work under are probably easier to see in national and especially local newspapers, where staff levels are clearly very low, and syndication is the norm, I would think.

Your insider views of practical issues are very enlightening, and points about research etc are really significant. We have just published a pretty controversial book on a subject rooted in science, and it is clear from our experience that much of the research prior to TV and other interviews is not done in the depth that one would like, and that attempts at " balance" can be lazy, unnecessary or worse. C'est la Vie, but I think that the public ( us) sometimes have a rose tinted view of how editorial rigour plays out in the real world of " respectable" media.

All this is absolutely true.

Incidentally, re your point about issues that concerns the public when asked, a complaint of mine is how many of these are presented too often in terms of generational conflict, and not in terms of , say , class ( or inherited wealth), or as you say, regional inequality. Of course class and generational issues aren't entirely separate, but the manner of presentation matters, and the print media ( all of them) absolutely love generational conflict. The broadcast media may not be that much better, but then I don't watch it now, , other than the occasional catch up.

It's the old divide-and-rule trick in a new guise, innit?

[Ein Heldenleben]

The pressures that journalists work under are probably easier to see in national and especially local newspapers, where staff levels are clearly very low, and syndication is the norm, I would think.

Your insider views of practical issues are very enlightening, and points about research etc are really significant. We have just published a pretty controversial book on a subject rooted in science, and it is clear from our experience that much of the research prior to TV and other interviews is not done in the depth that one would like, and that attempts at " balance" can be lazy, unnecessary or worse. C'est la Vie, but I think that the public ( us) sometimes have a rose tinted view of how editorial rigour plays out in the real world of " respectable" media.

Incidentally, re your point about issues that concerns the public when asked, a complaint of mine is how many of these are presented too often in terms of generational conflict, and not in terms of , say , class ( or inherited wealth), or as you say, regional inequality. Of course class and generational issues aren't entirely separate, but the manner of presentation matters, and the print media ( all of them) absolutely love generational conflict. The broadcast media may not be that much better, but then I don't watch it now, , other than the occasional catch up.

On local newspapers these days there’s virtually no research time at all - just huge pressure to get clicks. At the other end of the broadcast spectrum programmes like Panorama still have decent research time and resources . The problem is the middle ground where 80’s and 90’s programmes like Newsnight, Weekend world , Public Eye , the BBC network current affairs half hours done from Manchester , World In Action , Tonight , the half hour regional current affairs programmes done by both ITV and the BBC , and The Money Programme have either completely disappeared from the schedules, been massively cut or rebranded as light weight consumer programmes. There is very little in depth analysis of anything on TV a these days. Just short news explainers which don’t have enough time to explain . It is a cultural and political disaster. And the vacuum is filled by the net.

[Serial_Apologist]

On local newspapers these days there’s virtually no research time at all - just huge pressure to get clicks. At the other end of the broadcast spectrum programmes like Panorama still have decent research time and resources . The problem is the middle ground where 80’s and 90’s programmes like Newsnight, Weekend world , Public Eye , the BBC network current affairs half hours done from Manchester , World In Action , Tonight , the half hour regional current affairs programmes done by both ITV and the BBC , and The Money Programme have either completely disappeared from the schedules, been massively cut or rebranded as light weight consumer programmes. There is very little in depth analysis of anything on TV a these days. Just short news explainers which don’t have enough time to explain . It is a cultural and political disaster. And the vacuum is filled by the net.

Aside from Panorama, about which a number of serious misgivings have been voiced here and elsewhere, I go along with this entirely.

[smittims]

I was surprised, ff, to see you don't listen to Woman's Hour. I have done nearly every day for over ten years, since the Jane Garvey/Jenni Murray days, because, rather than despite, the fact that they talk about things which normally wouldn't interest me or with which I would disagree. I do it to broaden my horizons. Yes, a lot of it is silly and trivial (especially on Thirsday and Friday) , and maybe that's what keeps you away. But I think it's important to hear what people believe strongly about. Otherwise I wouldn't take any interest in feminism and its discontents.

The 'emphasis' I was criticising in the Music Matters programme, was the implicit assumption ( I hear this on W.H. too) that if women don't get what they want it must be because of 'misogyny ' (though thankfully this word wasn't invoked this time). There are no end of reasons why composers of both sexes don't suceed or are not remembered . Class privilege, as mentioned here, is undoubtedly one, personality another (Havergal Brian and Fartein Valen were notoriously shy and diffident) ; but linking it to 'the battle of the sexes' is more topical and gets it on air, where a programme about shyness probably wouldn't; any more than a programme about anti-male sexism by women . .

[oddoneout]

On local newspapers these days there’s virtually no research time at all - just huge pressure to get clicks. At the other end of the broadcast spectrum programmes like Panorama still have decent research time and resources . The problem is the middle ground where 80’s and 90’s programmes like Newsnight, Weekend world , Public Eye , the BBC network current affairs half hours done from Manchester , World In Action , Tonight , the half hour regional current affairs programmes done by both ITV and the BBC , and The Money Programme have either completely disappeared from the schedules, been massively cut or rebranded as light weight consumer programmes. There is very little in depth analysis of anything on TV a these days. Just short news explainers which don’t have enough time to explain . It is a cultural and political disaster. And the vacuum is filled by the net.

I don't expect much of my local rag these days in terms of research, knowledge or accuracy(used to be different years ago) and an article by someone described as a science correspondent is not one I would read for insight or knowledge. However I don't think much of having to challenge the equivalent person at the Financial Times twice in the space of a few months about lack of very basic knowledge about renewable energy and the National Grid.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I was surprised, ff, to see you don't listen to Woman's Hour. I have done nearly every day for over ten years, since the Jane Garvey/Jenni Murray days, because, rather than despite, the fact that they talk about things which normally wouldn't interest me or with which I would disagree. I do it to broaden my horizons. Yes, a lot of it is silly and trivial (especially on Thirsday and Friday) , and maybe that's what keeps you away. But I think it's important to hear what people believe strongly about. Otherwise I wouldn't take any interest in feminism and its discontents.

The 'emphasis' I was criticising in the Music Matters programme, was the implicit assumption ( I hear this on W.H. too) that if women don't get what they want it must be because of 'misogyny ' (though thankfully this word wasn't invoked this time). There are no end of reasons why composers of both sexes don't suceed or are not remembered . Class privilege, as mentioned here, is undoubtedly one, personality another (Havergal Brian and Fartein Valen were notoriously shy and diffident) ; but linking it to 'the battle of the sexes' is more topical and gets it on air, where a programme about shyness probably wouldn't; any more than a programme about anti-male sexism by women . .

Yes I’d noticed that there were more lifestyle and entertainment pieces these days than I remember but still plenty of serious journalism.
Shyness and the Arts - yes a fascinating topic . The number of times I’ve seen the pushy , assertive and frankly loud mouthed * get on in the media where the more self contained (but often more talented ) don’t progress so quickly. I bet it’s the same in the Arts .

* N.B. of both sexes.

[vinteuil]

Conformity with social norms is not for artists, the art they make, or for those who are influenced by it...

... are you implying that somehow 'artists' are exempt from the social and other moral expectations required from mere civilians?

That is surely a restricted 'romantic' take on the 'artist'. And not one, for example, that my father, an artist, would in any way have countenanced

.

[Ein Heldenleben]

... are you implying that somehow 'artists' are exempt from the social and other moral expectations required from mere civilians?

That is surely a restricted 'romantic' take on the 'artist'. And not one, for example, that my father, an artist, would in any way have countenanced

.

MJ said social and you’ve slipped in moral ..
What is a social norm anyway? Leaving a tip ? Buying a round ? That sounds like your average artist .

[teamsaint]

I don't expect much of my local rag these days in terms of research, knowledge or accuracy(used to be different years ago) and an article by someone described as a science correspondent is not one I would read for insight or knowledge. However I don't think much of having to challenge the equivalent person at the Financial Times twice in the space of a few months about lack of very basic knowledge about renewable energy and the National Grid.

And that is why the Science Media Centre exists, and too often gets away with careless ( at best) attributions of funding sources for their voices. At least that's what Chris van Tulleken thinks, and from what I have seen he has good cause for his concerns.

[french frank]

I was surprised, ff, to see you don't listen to Woman's Hour. I have done nearly every day for over ten years, since the Jane Garvey/Jenni Murray days, because, rather than despite, the fact that they talk about things which normally wouldn't interest me or with which I would disagree. I do it to broaden my horizons. Yes, a lot of it is silly and trivial (especially on Thirsday and Friday) , and maybe that's what keeps you away.

Nothing 'keeps me away' other than a perception that the subjects wouldn't interest me or that if they did I could access the necessary information in another form; but I might be fascinated, just as I might get hooked on The Archers. I broaden my horizons by reading the Daily Mail and Owen Jones in The Guardian

The 'emphasis' I was criticising in the Music Matters programme, was the implicit assumption ( I hear this on W.H. too) that if women don't get what they want it must be because of 'misogyny ' (though thankfully this word wasn't invoked this time). There are no end of reasons why composers of both sexes don't suceed or are not remembered . Class privilege, as mentioned here, is undoubtedly one, personality another (Havergal Brian and Fartein Valen were notoriously shy and diffident) ; but linking it to 'the battle of the sexes' is more topical and gets it on air, where a programme about shyness probably wouldn't; any more than a programme about anti-male sexism by women . .

That may as much be about media presentation in general. I used to be contacted regularly by the press for interviews about FoR3 but if I thought they were interested in conflict, 'listener fury', 'BBC attacked' I felt we would be judged by the way the press treated the story not by what I was saying. I tended to be rather vague and not really know what they were talking about. No story.