Last word additions to closed thread by 'The Management'

[Dave2002]

You've lost me.

I'm trying to ascertain whether we should be more or less tolerant of presenters who make mistakes. At the equivalent of £30k per year perhaps some tolerance should be granted, whereas at £100+ k per year one might expect a closer approximation to perfection. Most of us do make mistakes from time to time.

I think some BBC presenters may get paid a lot, but some R3 presenters may get fairly little.

[P. G. Tipps]

I'm trying to ascertain whether we should be more or less tolerant of presenters who make mistakes. At the equivalent of £30k per year perhaps some tolerance should be granted, whereas at £100+ k per year one might expect a closer approximation to perfection. Most of us do make mistakes from time to time.

I think some BBC presenters may get paid a lot, but some R3 presenters may get fairly little.

Whilst to some in our society £30k might seem a veritable fortune you do have a point there. However similar allowances for poor performance are rarely, if ever, afforded to, say, supermarket employees on real poverty wages.

Nevertheless, the point is valid. There is nothing wrong with 'R3'. The public radio station is a truly excellent idea! Also, one can hardly blame employees for lack of expertise if those who appoint them and pay their wages appear content with their (employees') performance. In other words it is those who are themselves paid (very highly) to be responsible for the overall station quality who should be held to account.

Assuming that responsible managers are not completely stupid ... which is a reasonable assumption ... one can only logically deduce that this apparent tolerance of mediocre employee performance is not entirely accidental. Indeed the suspicion of some (me!) is that this is all part of a quite deliberate 'dumbing-down' process to avoid popular cries of 'elitism'. That certainly fits with the general ethos of modern society where nothing or nobody must be considered 'better' or 'superior' to anything or anybody else. 'Equality' rules! The listener must not be made to feel more ignorant than the presenter.

So maybe it's really some of our own fault as well.

[ahinton]

Whilst to some in our society £30k might seem a veritable fortune you do have a point there. However similar allowances for poor performance are rarely, if ever, afforded to, say, supermarket employees on real poverty wages.

Nevertheless, the point is valid. There is nothing wrong with 'R3'. The public radio station is a truly excellent idea! Also, one can hardly blame employees for lack of expertise if those who appoint them and pay their wages appear content with their (employees') performance. In other words it is those who are themselves paid (very highly) to be responsible for the overall station quality who should be held to account.

I think that this point has already been made, but it's certainly a valid one.

Assuming that responsible managers are not completely stupid ... which is a reasonable assumption ... one can only logically deduce that this apparent tolerance of mediocre employee performance is not entirely accidental. Indeed the suspicion of some (me!) is that this is all part of a quite deliberate 'dumbing-down' process to avoid popular cries of 'elitism'. That certainly fits with the general ethos of modern society where nothing or nobody must be considered 'better' or 'superior' to anything or anybody else. 'Equality' rules! The listener must not be made to feel more ignorant than the presenter.

Whilst not seeking to exonerate R3 from accusations of dumbing down, I don't think that this is right; how would making gaffes like the ones pointed up by FF conatitute any kind of defence against accusations of élitism? I don't really see the logic behind that one.

So maybe it's really some of our own fault as well.

What have you or I done wrong that might have caused or encouraged this kind of thing?

[P. G. Tipps]

I think that this point has already been made, but it's certainly a valid one.

Apologies for any needless repetition!

Whilst not seeking to exonerate R3 from accusations of dumbing down, I don't think that this is right; how would making gaffes like the ones pointed up by FF conatitute any kind of defence against accusations of élitism? I don't really see the logic behind that one.

'Gaffes' are the logical result of ignorance or carelessness. Of course none of us knows everything or are ever-careful and we all make gaffes from time to time. However, the amateur listener like myself can reasonably expect a professional presenter to be up to speed with basic facts about a particular subject before broadcasting. Nowadays it seems that management actively encourage presenters to adopt a 'chatty' everyday tone which is supposed to attract new listeners and, sadly, accurate factual information is no longer the highest priority that it once used to be. We also see this in many other areas of society. Shop-workers, for instance, are no longer taught product knowledge but simply instructed to constantly parrot 'have a nice day' and 'can I help you pack?' to each and every customer irrespective of circumstances. Again, 'equality' rules!

What have you or I done wrong that might have caused or encouraged this kind of thing?

We are part of modern society, aren't we, ahinton?

Of course you and I may not be personally to blame but, as part of society, we must accept our share of responsibility in exactly the same way as I believe that R3 Management should accept responsibility for lower employee standards! As Dave2002 indirectly hints presenters are not really paid to be held to account for sloppy performance in any case, that is for those higher much up the pay-grade who are paid by us to take ultimate responsibility.

In my view this is a "cultural", societal thing, not confined by any means to R3.

[Hornspieler]

'Gaffes' are the logical result of ignorance or carelessness. Of course none of us knows everything or are ever-careful and we all make gaffes from time to time. However, the amateur listener like myself can reasonably expect a professional presenter to be up to speed with basic facts about a particular subject before broadcasting. Nowadays it seems that management actively encourage presenters to adopt a 'chatty' everyday tone which is supposed to attract new listeners and, sadly, accurate factual information is no longer the highest priority that it once used to be. We also see this in many other areas of society. Shop-workers, for instance, are no longer taught product knowledge but simply instructed to constantly parrot 'have a nice day' and 'can I help you pack?' to each and every customer irrespective of circumstances. Again, 'equality' rules!




We are part of modern society, aren't we, ahinton?

Of course you and I may not be personally to blame but, as part of society, we must accept our share of responsibility in exactly the same way as I believe that R3 Management should accept responsibility for lower employee standards! As Dave2002 indirectly hints presenters are not really paid to be held to account for sloppy performance in any case, that is for those higher much up the pay-grade who are paid by us to take ultimate responsibility.

In my view this is a "cultural", societal thing, not confined by any means to R3.

Forgive me for quoting from my own Hornspieler and the 3 B's thread.

Douglas Vaughan, our local announcer was once described by Eleanor Warren, the Head of Music Programmes, Radio Three as "...the finest voice on radio"

But more than that. He prepared his own script with the greatest care, seeking out all the information he could find about the programme, the Artists involved and the works performed.

He would then type out his script and underline the essentials, so his final script would look something like this:

"In that performance of Beethoven's Fifth symphony, the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra was conducted by Paavo Berglund

The concert was recorded before an invited audience in the Winter Gardens Bournemouth."
In his delivery, he would put an emphasis on those underlined words.
How many of our present-day announcers are as clear in their pronouncements as that?

Every transmission is (or should be) the responsibility of the PRODUCER of the programme to ensure accuracy and it is he/she who should check the Presenter's factual knowledge of the programme, bearing in mind that the Presenter is the only link (apart from the music itself) with the listener.

The lack of basic musical knowledge among some of the regular Radio 3 announcers is just one of the symptons of the deterioration of the BBC administration over the last twenty five years.

HS

[french frank]

Noting Hornspieler's above - Amen :-)

I gave up trying to work out which posts to copy or move from this thread to a more relevant one, but let discussion continue.

Looking through, I see Bryn picked up on my point about SMP's 'talent competition'. I want to make it clear that it wasn't to decry her musical knowledge: quite the reverse. 'Winning' a place on merit seems an ideal process, and many of those about whom doubts have been expressed would be very unlikely to enter such a competition in an area for which they weren't highly qualified.

My impression is that during the previous regime people were approached and offered jobs; in the case of the local radio presenters, possibly on a trial basis - and they were found wanting and not used again. In certain other cases I'd suspect that a) they were sought out and b) their musical knowledge was not always the prime consideration.

What I think presenters themselves should be aware of is not unfairly apportioned blame from nonentities like us, but damage to their professional standing as broadcasters.

All that said, there would seem to have been an element of force majeure in the case of certain appointments. My advice to Alan Davey would be to devise a new strategy for the recruitment of new classical music 'talent' (as the industry describes presenters). It's that important.

[french frank]

This from another thread:

Quote Originally Posted by french frank

I would sack any Radio 3 presenter who referred to the Hovis symphony

Reply from ahinton: Oh, don't encourage them, FF! If it hasn't already happened (given the gaffes to which you've drawn attention elsewhere), it's probably just waiting in the wings for a suitably wrong opportunity.

Yes it has happened, but I'm fairly sure the somewhat arch comment assumed the kind of audience who would need the steer to enable them to realise why it was vaguely familiar

[P. G. Tipps]

Forgive me for quoting from my own Hornspieler and the 3 B's thread.



Every transmission is (or should be) the responsibility of the PRODUCER of the programme to ensure accuracy and it is he/she who should check the Presenter's factual knowledge of the programme, bearing in mind that the Presenter is the only link (apart from the music itself) with the listener.

The lack of basic musical knowledge among some of the regular Radio 3 announcers is just one of the symptons of the deterioration of the BBC administration over the last twenty five years.

HS

That last sentence basically confirms what I've been saying?

Yes, of course, a producer is responsible for his/her output. My dictionary definition of 'producer' is as follows:

'a person responsible for the financial and managerial aspects of the making of a film or broadcast or for staging a play, opera, etc.'

So we both seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong!) that the ultimate responsibility for poor presentation lies with management/producer and not the presenter?

I find it impossible to blame any particular presenter if his/her performance is deemed to be acceptable by those who hire and fire and sanction the appropriate salaries?

After all most of us have to work to please the boss!

[Hornspieler]

That last sentence basically confirms what I've been saying?

Yes, of course, a producer is responsible for his/her output. My dictionary definition of 'producer' is as follows:

'a person responsible for the financial and managerial aspects of the making of a film or broadcast or for staging a play, opera, etc.'

So we both seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong!) that the ultimate responsibility for poor presentation lies with management/producer and not the presenter?

I find it impossible to blame any particular presenter if his/her performance is deemed to be acceptable by those who hire and fire and sanction the appropriate salaries?

After all most of us have to work to please the boss!

Think back to the days of Richard Baker or Patricia Hughes. That was the standard of presentation that the BBC no longer lives up to.

HS

[mercia]

with all due respect to the late Ms Hughes, I'm not convinced that her musical knowledge was any greater than today's presenters, but she could certainly read a script in a posh voice - which in those days seemed to be the number one priority

[Nick Armstrong]

Think back to the days of Richard Baker or Patricia Hughes. That was the standard of presentation that the BBC no longer lives up to.

HS

Oh yes it does - sometimes... Skelly, Gore, Fryer, Handley...*

I bet there were some stuffed shirts (& blouses) back then that weren't up to Hughes and Baker standards.

I'd take Ian Skelly over Richard Baker any day of the week.


.


* a number of other very good R3 presenters are currently available.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

with all due respect to the late Ms Hughes, I'm not convinced that her musical knowledge was any greater than today's presenters, but she could certainly read a script in a posh voice - which in those days seemed to be the number one priority

- the only presenter from the '70s whose presentation style seemed to tell me "this isn't for you, little man".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd take Ian Skelly over Richard Baker any day of the week.

[DracoM]

Verity Sharp, John Shea, Alyn Shipton, Jonathan Swain..................as well?

[Sir Velo]

That last sentence basically confirms what I've been saying?

Yes, of course, a producer is responsible for his/her output. My dictionary definition of 'producer' is as follows:

'a person responsible for the financial and managerial aspects of the making of a film or broadcast or for staging a play, opera, etc.'

So we both seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong!) that the ultimate responsibility for poor presentation lies with management/producer and not the presenter?

I find it impossible to blame any particular presenter if his/her performance is deemed to be acceptable by those who hire and fire and sanction the appropriate salaries?

After all most of us have to work to please the boss!

Do you blame the restaurant owner for shoddy table service, or the garage proprietor when the mechanic fails to tighten your car's wheelnuts back on?

Remember these announcers are getting bl**dy well paid; if they can't even be bothered to check their facts it seems its about time they were served with the return of their P45.