Sam Jackson's reply

[french frank]

I'm starting a new thread here to encourage comment. The first point I want to make is that I personally always had cordial and civilised meetings with both Roger Wright and Alan Davey. This forum has often proved a millstone around our necks because comments published here were assumed to have been made by FoR3 supporters and endorsed or approved by FoR3 when they were not. More often than not they were posted by listeners who had no connection with FoR3 other than that they made use of this free public forum. I shall make the point to Sam Jackson that to attribute anything posted here to FoR3 is like attributing anything posted on the old BBC R3 messageboards to the BBC. We host this public forum just as the BBC hosted the messageboards.

This was one of Sam Jackson's comments:

"The final point I would make is this: in our public discourse, it is all too easy to abandon civility. On the occasional times that I have been alerted to comments on your forum, I have seen numerous remarks – sometimes insulting, overly personal or derogatory, at that – inferring that I or my colleagues do not care about Radio 3. I can assure you: we care very deeply, and every decision we make – whether that be around the schedule, the placement of trails, the music we play, or the presenters we hire – is informed by a deep desire to serve our audience well. That phrase ‘the audience’ can, of course, be interpreted in so many different ways: it is the core, longer-term Radio 3 listener but it is also the person who only tunes in to the station occasionally. It is the recently retired person who has only just discovered classical music; it is the younger listener who loves jazz; it is many more people besides."

[Andrew Slater]

Impressive promptitude!

[LMcD]

I don't think we've been saying that Mr Jackson doesn't care about Radio 3, rather that he doesn't seem to understand it.

[french frank]

I don't think we've been saying that Mr Jackson doesn't care about Radio 3, rather that he doesn't seem to understand it.

No, I don't remember that being discussed. But in any case as Prof Joad would have said: "It depends what you mean by Radio 3." And what you want from it and intend for it. Therein lies the problem. Should the station attempt to be many things to many people or should it be in some sense a 'specialist' station? By that I mean specialising in a small number of areas (classical, jazz, world, drama and related features/documentaries) for listeners with a special interest in them. That was the remit of the Third Programme and Radio 3 when it first started.

Should it be a challenge or easy entertainment? When I first started listening to Discovering Music a lot of it was over my head but that was the challenge. More recently people were asked to tune in to R3 and say how they found it. "Discovering Music`? It was over my head.I don't think I'd listen to it." A solution? Drop Discovering Music completely - too esoteric for some listeners.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Not sure calling him “Wacko” is likely to win any friends or that calling the running of a trail between programmes “insane “ is the right way to conduct an argument.
Although I don’t agree with some of the recent changes to the schedule I would never think he doesn’t “care “ about R3. He probably thinks about little else.

[oddoneout]

I don't think we've been saying that Mr Jackson doesn't care about Radio 3, rather that he doesn't seem to understand it.

Yes, and that apparent lack of understanding causes great frustration in us the listeners, which can result in the kind of comments SJ finds insulting etc.From what I have occasionally had the misfortune to read or hear of on other platforms on issues that people feel strongly about I suspect that forumite comments are pretty tame.
I would like to pick up on this phrase

informed by a deep desire to serve our audience well

. They may have the desire, but what do they do to ascertain they are actually serving their audience well? And is that audience the existing one or the one they want to have? We may be very few, but are those of us who express our dissatisfaction and unhappiness on here totally unrepresentative?

[french frank]

Not sure calling him “Wacko” is likely to win any friends or that calling the running of a trail between programmes “insane “ is the right way to conduct an argument.
Although I don’t agree with some of the recent changes to the schedule I would never think he doesn’t “care “ about R3. He probably thinks about little else.

First points taken but moderators here would be taken to task if they tut-tutted and removed every reference that was disapproved of. Each individual poster is responsible for what they post; no one else should be blamed.

Second point: what IS Radio 3 for? SJ also says: "[Radio 3]is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer." It does seem that Radio 3 is required to be a much broader church than Radios 1 or 2. There is no sense that BBC management is prepared to articulate exactly what Radio 3 is expected to do. Broad church? Panoply? That could include anything at all for anyone at all.

[AuntDaisy]

I'm starting a new thread here to encourage comment. The first point I want to make is that I personally always had cordial and civilised meetings with both Roger Wright and Alan Davey. This forum has often proved a millstone around our necks because comments published here were assumed to have been made by FoR3 supporters and endorsed or approved by FoR3 when they were not. More often than not they were posted by listeners who had no connection with FoR3 other than that they made use of this free public forum. I shall make the point to Sam Jackson that to attribute anything posted here to FoR3 is like attributing anything posted on the old BBC R3 messageboards to the BBC. We host this public forum just as the BBC hosted the messageboards.

This was one of Sam Jackson's comments:

"The final point I would make is this: in our public discourse, it is all too easy to abandon civility. On the occasional times that I have been alerted to comments on your forum, I have seen numerous remarks – sometimes insulting, overly personal or derogatory, at that – inferring that I or my colleagues do not care about Radio 3. I can assure you: we care very deeply, and every decision we make – whether that be around the schedule, the placement of trails, the music we play, or the presenters we hire – is informed by a deep desire to serve our audience well. That phrase ‘the audience’ can, of course, be interpreted in so many different ways: it is the core, longer-term Radio 3 listener but it is also the person who only tunes in to the station occasionally. It is the recently retired person who has only just discovered classical music; it is the younger listener who loves jazz; it is many more people besides."

Civility is all very well and proper - particularly when you can meet someone in a civilised way.
But people are angry and feelings run deep about Our Radio 3 & Our BBC. Given his salary (remuneration) & position, taking a bit of criticism should be in the job description...
Most of us are warning that losing parts of the established audience is a risk, and are voicing unhappiness with changes that we were never consulted on & see no reason for.
It's not all negativity, and, where R3 does well, plenty of people comment on it.

Anyway, well done for eliciting a respsonse - I hope we'll hear more later...

[french frank]

I don't think we've been saying that Mr Jackson doesn't care about Radio 3, rather that he doesn't seem to understand it.

I wouldn't put it that way. He understands what he feels Radio 3 should be and how it should achieve that. What I want is a precise statement of what R3 should be and what it shouldn't. I suspect that some things which he thinks it shouldn't be are what many of us feel it should. It's very easy to dismiss this as a matter of differing taste. Yes but only to a limited degree. What tastes should Radio 3 cater for?

[Ein Heldenleben]

First points taken but moderators here would be taken to task if they tut-tutted and removed every reference that was disapproved of. Each individual poster is responsible for what they post; no one else should be blamed.

Second point: what IS Radio 3 for? SJ also says: "[Radio 3]is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer." It does seem that Radio 3 is required to be a much broader church than Radios 1 or 2. There is no sense that BBC management is prepared to articulate exactly what Radio 3 is expected to do. Broad cgurch? Panoply? That could include anything at all for anyone at all.

Yes- you can’t police everything obviously. Having been on the receiving end of a fair few complaints over the years it’s much more effective if you keep the tone polite and amass some evidence. (And that goes for responding to them) . On the wider question it’s not really possible to “win “ an argument on the editorial direction of Radio 3 as , to be honest as long as they stay within OFCOM licence terms , there aren’t any real grounds for complaint that can be arbitrated on . Complaining about an excessive amount of trails or a particularly cluttered programme junction is pretty much a waste of time - it’s a matter of opinion.

[AuntDaisy]

Possibly off-topic, but I just did a search for "Wacko" on the forum - either I've counted wrongly or there are only ~2 references to his nibs. (And there's also one to Jimmy Edwards' Whack-O!")

[oddoneout]

First points taken but moderators here would be taken to task if they tut-tutted and removed every reference that was disapproved of. Each individual poster is responsible for what they post; no one else should be blamed.

Second point: what IS Radio 3 for? SJ also says: "[Radio 3]is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer." It does seem that Radio 3 is required to be a much broader church than Radios 1 or 2. There is no sense that BBC management is prepared to articulate exactly what Radio 3 is expected to do. Broad church? Panoply? That could include anything at all for anyone at all.

Taken at face value I don't have too much issue with this; I am less exercised than some about the kinds of music now broadcast on R3. However I would question the extent to which variety applies to formats. Hours of the daytime output seems to be of the bits'n'pieces format - bits of music, bits of speech, bits of advertising. Having one or two complete and/or longer works in the afternoon slot doesn't really constitute variety in that overall format IMO. In terms of the regular weekday schedules the only "meat" is the evening concert. The difficulty with that blanket bitty approach is that it makes it impossible to deliver what(musically) should still be at the heart of R3, which is complete works by composers across the 8 or 9 centuries and many countries that are available to us, because so much time is taken up with the bits'n'pieces format it leaves little space for full works and that leads to very much reduced choice in terms of what works are broadcast. That's the main reason I don't often listen to the evening concerts now - the works I would like to hear don't often seem to get a look in, and the demise of the (proper) afternoon concert further reduces choice.
Is there any mention in SJ's reply about what might be called the education side of R3?

[french frank]

On the wider question it’s not really possible to “win “ an argument on the editorial direction of Radio 3 as , to be honest as long as they stay within OFCOM licence terms , there aren’t any real grounds for complaint that can be arbitrated on .

I've never really seen the FoR3 argument as a complaint. Merely informed analysis which is put before BBC managers. Of course, in the end it will be the triumph of a sort of 'force majeure'. But which side will constitute that force? I don't understand entirely what motivates people to do the things they do: I expect reasoned argument to win; or perhaps I should say, sadly, I have little real confidence that reasoned argument will prevail but it doesn't do to assume it won't.

Complaining about an excessive amount of trails or a particularly cluttered programme junction is pretty much a waste of time - it’s a matter of opinion.

I'm not a great believer in the 'waste of time' reason for inaction. If the worst result is that one has wasted one's time that can be tolerated.

[AuntDaisy]

I wouldn't put it that way. He understands what he feels Radio 3 should be and how it should achieve that. What I want is a precise statement of what R3 should be and what it shouldn't. I suspect that some things which he thinks it shouldn't be are what many of us feel it should. It's very easy to dismiss this as a matter of differing taste. Yes but only to a limited degree. What tastes should Radio 3 cater for?

I suspect SJ, like other managers, and possibly even R3 itself, has a list of targets to meet - but are they made public?
Would a FOI request be relevant? (I tried one re. BBC Sounds account linking and age discrimination, but it never came to anything.)

[oddoneout]

Yes- you can’t police everything obviously. Having been on the receiving end of a fair few complaints over the years it’s much more effective if you keep the tone polite and amass some evidence. (And that goes for responding to them) . On the wider question it’s not really possible to “win “ an argument on the editorial direction of Radio 3 as , to be honest as long as they stay within OFCOM licence terms , there aren’t any real grounds for complaint that can be arbitrated on . Complaining about an excessive amount of trails or a particularly cluttered programme junction is pretty much a waste of time - it’s a matter of opinion.

Isn't all discussion about R3 a matter of opinion? Complaining about the trails may be a waste of time, but their presence (and consequent irritation factor - particularly the adverts - sorry trails) are relatively recent and I think questioning their presence and seemingly increasing frequency in various guises is justified. Yes I know there are driving factors beyond the control of presenters etc, but is that really a good reason for keeping quiet about how much they annoy people, and the extent to which they dictate programme format - favouring bitsn'pieces so that they can be accommodated.