Conversational - One word which sums up what's gone wrong with broadcasting.

[Guest]

The early part of the R4 Today programme today included Justin Webb (surely the best of the newer Today presenters) comparing news items from himself and his father, Peter Woods, over recent decades. Peter Woods, as expected, sounded very much of his period, with a clearly enunciated and somewhat dated style of delivery. Justin Webb himself appeared in an item from some years ago and one from a recent broadcast. His apology for the earlier item when compared with the recent one included the line, "Of course, it's now all so much more conversational". I can't be alone in finding his earlier style much more informative and pleasurable to hear.

It occured to me that this word summed up the main way in which speech on the radio (and television, I suppose) has gone downhill. Justin Webb's earlier piece, so quickly condemned by the man himself, struck me as perfect. It's the conversational ramblings which make me reach for the essentail off-button. The constant repetition of the names of the reporter and the presenter, suggesting a conversation between them (and excluding the listener) is an especially irritating aspect of this trend. ("You should be addressing me - not each other" is something I regularly shout at the radio.)

This all applies to R3 as well, of course. By coincidence, I was able to listen to CD Review (I think it's changed its name, but I forget what it's called now), for the first time for several years. This same "conversational" style has been the main reason for avoiding it. When it came to Building a Library, I was hovering over the off-switch, expecting a rambling chat between the reviewer and the programme's host. Instead, there was a wonderfully succinct survey of Dowland's Lachrimae by a very erudite and captivating expert. It was skilfully scripted - not a word was wasted. Such a coincidence that this should appear after the trend towards the conversational was identified by Justin Webb.

Does anyone agree that a well-scripted programme is much more valuable than many hours of "conversation"? Of course, nothing will change, whatever the listener thinks.

[doversoul1]

Does anyone agree that a well-scripted programme is much more valuable than many hours of "conversation"? Of course, nothing will change, whatever the listener thinks.

That is the very reason I value Early Music Late and most editions of Early Music Show.

[french frank]

[Does anyone agree that a well-scripted programme is much more valuable than many hours of "conversation"?

That's what students said they preferred in a lecture. The badly prepared lecturers who knew their stuff but hadn't prepared what they were going to say and wandered off topic were hard to follow. A properly constructed 'script' which made specific points in a logical order (and to time) was more popular.

I think the BBC does want to avoid this 'talking head' style of presentation, though I'm sure it can be done without too much formality.

[kernelbogey]

I haven't listened to Today regularly since Jack de Manio left. True statement, although the second clause is not causative. I don't like being talked at in the morning.

But the conversational trope VodkaDilk highlights is endemic in BBC tv News presentation (and for all I know on ITN, though not so evident on the impeccable Channel 4 News): 'So now over to our special correspondent Fred Blogs who is in Palermo right now. I think the failure of the macaroni crop is a major crisis for Sicily, Fred?'....'Yes that's right, George....' etc

Or even the (financial, sporting, engineering or whatever) special editor being interviewed by the newsreader.

Does anyone agree that a well-scripted programme is much more valuable than many hours of "conversation"?

Yes!

[oddoneout]

I think the BBC does want to avoid this 'talking head' style of presentation, though I'm sure it can be done without too much formality.

I wonder if the BBC fears/believes that today's goldfish attention span audience is unable to cope with the lack of pictures on the radio and therefore needs some way of staying engaged? Ironically, for me it's the 'talking head' TV presenters that I find the most interesting and watchable. I don't need histrionics,emoting and 'bigging up' to understand or appreciate what I am seeing on screen, and in the same way I don't need 'conversational' to stay engaged in radio. I have always had something of a problem hearing speech clearly, and in recent years that has got markedly worse so this new style means I miss a good deal of what (little in some cases) information is being conveyed.

[Pianorak]

The early part of the R4 Today programme today included Justin Webb (surely the best of the newer Today presenters) comparing news items from himself and his father, Peter Woods, over recent decades. Peter Woods, as expected, sounded very much of his period, with a clearly enunciated and somewhat dated style of delivery. Justin Webb himself appeared in an item from some years ago and one from a recent broadcast. His apology for the earlier item when compared with the recent one included the line, "Of course, it's now all so much more conversational". I can't be alone in finding his earlier style much more informative and pleasurable to hear.

That is precisely what went through my mind listening to the Today Programme this morning! At least in my case, perhaps a generation gap?

[DracoM]

....................but compare ANY of the Today team with Eddie Mair..? No competition IMO.

[Lat-Literal]

The early part of the R4 Today programme today included Justin Webb (surely the best of the newer Today presenters) comparing news items from himself and his father, Peter Woods, over recent decades. Peter Woods, as expected, sounded very much of his period, with a clearly enunciated and somewhat dated style of delivery. Justin Webb himself appeared in an item from some years ago and one from a recent broadcast. His apology for the earlier item when compared with the recent one included the line, "Of course, it's now all so much more conversational". I can't be alone in finding his earlier style much more informative and pleasurable to hear.

It occured to me that this word summed up the main way in which speech on the radio (and television, I suppose) has gone downhill. Justin Webb's earlier piece, so quickly condemned by the man himself, struck me as perfect. It's the conversational ramblings which make me reach for the essentail off-button. The constant repetition of the names of the reporter and the presenter, suggesting a conversation between them (and excluding the listener) is an especially irritating aspect of this trend. ("You should be addressing me - not each other" is something I regularly shout at the radio.)

This all applies to R3 as well, of course. By coincidence, I was able to listen to CD Review (I think it's changed its name, but I forget what it's called now), for the first time for several years. This same "conversational" style has been the main reason for avoiding it. When it came to Building a Library, I was hovering over the off-switch, expecting a rambling chat between the reviewer and the programme's host. Instead, there was a wonderfully succinct survey of Dowland's Lachrimae by a very erudite and captivating expert. It was skilfully scripted - not a word was wasted. Such a coincidence that this should appear after the trend towards the conversational was identified by Justin Webb.

Does anyone agree that a well-scripted programme is much more valuable than many hours of "conversation"? Of course, nothing will change, whatever the listener thinks.

Yes.

I had no idea that Justin Webb was the son of Peter Woods.

It isn't in his voice.

(But there is a halfway house - John Timpson who probably co-hosted with Jack de Manio was a very good broadcaster - ditto Nick Clarke)

[LMcD]

One word?
Interaction...

[Ferretfancy]

One word?
Interaction...

I hesitate to say this, but as far as Radio 4 is concerned I would say that stereo broadcasting is not always helpful. The tendency to turn everything into a panel discussion with contributor's voices spread across the sound stage causes a lot of aural distraction and the babble seems worse when heard in mono on a smaller set up. Balance suffers and the engineering is often a bit casual. I suspect that most of us would rather hear what people have to say in a discussion or interview rather than knowing where they are sitting at the table.

[french frank]

'Conversational' - a word that cropped up today in a blog to which the blogger drew my attention:

"But pot-pourri programming inevitably falls back on the well-tried formulae of popular radio. This means above all having an easy conversational style ("as if they were sitting in my own kitchen"), a relentlessly upbeat tone, and maintaining as much musical variety as possible by playing single movements or excerpts from longer works.

"These days you don't often hear a complete symphony, chamber work or song cycle outside the official "concert slots" in the afternoons or evenings. Is it unkind to hint at "easy-listening" here, easy in the sense of not demanding too much of the listener whose attention spans are presumed not to exceed a few minutes? Or does cost come into it? It's not that there isn't a place for this kind of broadcasting. But there's too much of it. We still need the properly constructed programmes whose shape and grammar are dictated by more serious aims and content than entertaining an audience and keeping it going cheerfully through the day."

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Another word - homogenised. (The idea that what is successful for one station should automatically be equally successful for them all.)

[ahinton]

Another word - homogenised. (The idea that what is successful for one station should automatically be equally successful for them all.)

Good point!

[french frank]

(The idea that what is successful for one station should automatically be equally successful for them all.)

I've long felt that what they do is deliberately analyse the techniques of popular radio and think how to adapt them for R3. The aim is to attract more listeners and to keep them listening for as long as possible. These are the priorities.

[cloughie]

Another word - homogenised. (The idea that what is successful for one station should automatically be equally successful for them all.)

It works for milk but the cream sometimes is better separated off!