Last word additions to closed thread by 'The Management'

[Sir Velo]

Two of them were 'non' Radio 3 presenters put in charge of regular Radio 3 programmes - which is a criticism of Radio 3 for employing them to do the job, not the presenters for not knowing their stuff.

Surely someone whose profession is that of being a presenter should be sufficiently professional to check their facts and/ or pronunciation? Ignorance is no excuse.

[Dave2002]

Surely someone whose profession is that of being a presenter should be sufficiently professional to check their facts and/ or pronunciation? Ignorance is no excuse.

How much do they get paid?

[P. G. Tipps]

I suppose one could start a thread titled "Your Hunded Best Cuts." and I, for one, would start with Schubert's Great C major and all of the Bruckner scherzos

Actually I tend to agree with you about Anton's scherzos (or 'scherzi' to please Flossie!)

I'm not a huge fan either ... In fact some of them nearly bore me to death.

But I believe that's just part the of composer's cunning plan to make sure that we appreciate the glorious sublimity that follows all the more!

[Sir Velo]

How much do they get paid?

You've lost me.

[Beef Oven!]

I have to say that I'm not entirely surprised that they did not all emanate from the same source and that, had Beefo been correct in that they had done so, the culprit ought at the very least to have been upbraided for repeated incompetence. I agree with the rest of what you write here and it certainly creates a bad impression not only of certain presenters but also of what's expected of them by those who engage them.

I don't agree. It's R3's fault for not selecting the right people for the job. It's not the individual's fault.

[french frank]

Surely someone whose profession is that of being a presenter should be sufficiently professional to check their facts and/ or pronunciation? Ignorance is no excuse.

In a perfect world. But if you pick presenters who don't know that they don't know, they don't think to check. Most people, occasionally, think they know things but are mistaken.

No, it's Radio 3. They should listen to the performance, assess it - and drop the presenter. They DO have competent presenters: they should make better use of them.

[mercia]

I think I may need some guidance about "slagging off" presenters. I think we've been told that "slagging off" is a bad thing, but it seems to be perfectly OK to point out the shortcomings of presenters. At what point does the latter turn into "slagging off" ?

[french frank]

At what point does the latter turn into "slagging off" ?

When the comments relate to subjective opinion on a named presenter's voice, supposed personality, intellectual capacity, motivation &c, where there is no evidence to back it up.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...who confidently tells us that Smetana was from the Czech Republic, though 'back in his day, of course, it was called Czechoslovakia'.

I don"t remember that one. However, on reading this post, it prompted me to find the exact locations of Bohemia and Moravia.

[french frank]

I don"t remember that one. However, on reading this post, it prompted me to find the exact locations of Bohemia and Moravia.

Plus the exact date when Czechoslovakia was founded?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Plus the exact date when Czechoslovakia was founded?

Indeed, yes.

[Beef Oven!]

In a perfect world. But if you pick presenters who don't know that they don't know, they don't think to check. Most people, occasionally, think they know things but are mistaken.

No, it's Radio 3. They should listen to the performance, assess it - and drop the presenter. They DO have competent presenters: they should make better use of them.

I don't think that finding out whether a presenter can make a decent enough fist of basic/background subject information should be left to the operational/live situation.

It would be simple enough to quality assure this matter ahead of going 'live'. With the examples that have been given, they could have been covered off in a simple preparatory discussion to ascertain whether the presenter has got the basics on the subject area. This sort of preparation goes on every day up and down the country in all businesses - why can't R3 do it?

[french frank]

I don't think that finding out whether a presenter can make a decent enough fist of basic/background subject information should be left to the operational/live situation.

It would be simple enough to quality assure this matter ahead of going 'live'. With the examples that have been given, they could have been covered off in a simple preparatory discussion to ascertain whether the presenter has got the basics on the subject area. This sort of preparation goes on every day up and down the country in all businesses - why can't R3 do it?

Again, this is what SHOULD happen - of course. In the real world there seems to be a clear lack of competent broadcasters whose primary interest is classical music. Not necessarily in a highly specialised way but someone who knows enough to know what they don't know. And how to find out.

Then again, listeners are notoriously picky where it comes to presenters, their voices and manner as much as their knowledge. I remember SMP got her job by winning a sort of Radio 3 talent competition to find a new presenter.

It's my impression that Radio 3 has in recent times put knowledge of the classical repertoire fairly low down on the list of priorities when signing up new presenters.

[Bryn]

Again, this is what SHOULD happen - of course. In the real world there seems to be a clear lack of competent broadcasters whose primary interest is classical music. Not necessarily in a highly specialised way but someone who knows enough to know what they don't know. And how to find out.

Then again, listeners are notoriously picky where it comes to presenters, their voices and manner as much as their knowledge. I remember SMP got her job by winning a sort of Radio 3 talent competition to find a new presenter.

It's my impression that Radio 3 has in recent times put knowledge of the classical repertoire fairly low down on the list of priorities when signing up new presenters.

Yes, SMP won a 'talent contest', but her principal qualification for that contest was her background in musicology. Like most Radio 3 presenters she is very well qualified re. knowledge of the music she presents.

[ahinton]

I don't agree. It's R3's fault for not selecting the right people for the job. It's not the individual's fault.

I agree and disagree - but it's my agreement that's the more important; whilst it is the fault of the individuals' (not "individuals'", you note, since FF has clarified that four were at fault here, not just one) in accepting the rôles concerned, it is, of course, as you rightly point out, R3's fault for selecting the wrong people.