Chris Newman and FF on the Feedback programme

[Panjandrum]

Using a "real" name is just as much of a pseudonym as an obvious nom de plume. For example, posting as John Smith gives the impression of honesty, but since none of us know this "John Smith" it is just as much of a front as any other name. No additional merit should be attributed to these postings. I see no reason for giving one's real name on these boards - in fact quite the contrary given the issues of identity and the internet.

[salymap]

Describes me to a T

Oh yes the crumpets Flossie, Surely a bloke wouldn't call himself a name like that?

[doversoul1]

... well, as far as I can tell, this is your third pseudonym here?

I am not alone in thinking that then.

But what is the point in knowing everyone’s real name?

[ardcarp]

Returning to the substance of Feedback for a moment, I must say ff that I am personally delighted that the Beeb does live concerts evry weekday. I had never for a moment thought it was all part of a sinister ploy to cut some of them again and say 'we've only gone down from 5 to 3'. But you probably know their mind-set better than I. It only seems a few months ago when I made the point on these boards that a large percentage of live broadcasting was done by kids under 13 (ie choristers on CE). So I'm very happy about it. Interesting that they said the cost of live-versus-recorded concerts is about the same.

I would like to moan about Feedback though. It originally replaced what is thought of now as the rather old-fashioned idea of having readers' letters read out on air. So one might think the 'feedback' was from listener to BBC. But no. Nearly every programme has a slot which can only be called BBC propaganda. (I'm afraid thet 'our slot' in this programme may have fallen into that category.) Thus the flow is reversed...ie feedbackback from Beeb to listeners. In any case it is very heavily edited (as you discovered ff) and we are only getting hyper-filtered listener opinions.

But many congrats ff and Chris for getting some air-time.

[Flosshilde]

Interesting that they said the cost of live-versus-recorded concerts is about the same.

I would be surprised if it wasn't the same - to record a concert for later broadcast they would still have to have the OB vans, set up microphones, & have engineers to manage the recording. The only extra needed for live broadcasts would be an on-the-spot presenter.

I would like to moan about Feedback though. It originally replaced what is thought of now as the rather old-fashioned idea of having readers' letters read out on air. So one might think the 'feedback' was from listener to BBC. But no. Nearly every programme has a slot which can only be called BBC propaganda.

Yes - it does anoy me that every time a producer comes on to answer criticisms they insist that everything they do is wonderful.

But many congrats ff and Chris for getting some air-time.

Absolutely - congratulations from me, too.

[cavatina]

C: Hardly. Most people simply don't have the guts for true candor.
FF: I'd have thought that 'most people' don't have much they want to hide as far as their day-to-day social dealings are concerned.

Oh, come now--I have a hard time believing anyone could be so simple their "public selves" and "private selves" are equally anodyne. (And yes, I'm well aware of the notion that private selves have no business popping out in public forums. Touché!) Nevertheless, I still think posting under your real name has an enormously chilling effect on the kinds of topics you're willing to discuss in public. For better or worse, even a partial degree of anonymity is liberating.

well, as far as I can tell, this is your third pseudonym here?

Er, let's just say that if you know, you know-- and if you don't, you wouldn't care anyway.

In earlier incarnations you were brave enough to share photographs of yourself, and were happy to recount very personal anecdotes of your feelings. If people had wanted to find out who you were it wouldn't have been too difficult!

Yeah, well a good handful of silverback promenaders and one very p***ed-off radio presenter certainly seemed to have my number, didn't they. In any event, I think the whole thing was good for me: in real life, I have a tendency to be far too self-conscious, anxious and secretive, so this served as a nice little object lesson in realising it just doesn't matter. I'm not perfect; so what? Sort of a limited liability trainwreck, as it were...therapeutic, really.

Now why don't we forget all about it and go re-read some Irving Goffman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_identity#Goffman.27s_theory

[scottycelt]

Using a "real" name is just as much of a pseudonym as an obvious nom de plume. For example, posting as John Smith gives the impression of honesty, but since none of us know this "John Smith" it is just as much of a front as any other name. No additional merit should be attributed to these postings. I see no reason for giving one's real name on these boards - in fact quite the contrary given the issues of identity and the internet.

Precisely ... and there can also be a very positive aspect to anonymity.

I once worked for a company where one could raise important issues concerning the performance of management by writing letters to the weekly house magazine, and using a pseudonym if one wished. It was a great place to let off steam and criticise constructively without fear of any comeback from managers. It also, in turn, helped senior management get honest feedback from the shop floor contrary to what they were often comfortingly told by middle-managers desperate to climb that greasy pole ...

Some members of staff predictably accused those using pseudonyms of being 'cowardly'. These same people, of course, never themselves raised any issues of criticism or controversy in the magazine knowing full well the likely reaction from their immediate manager.

As far as these boards are concerned, I'm not sure I really want to know who French Frank or anybody else actually is ... the anonymity is all part of the fun and mystery for me!

[vinteuil]

So in sum, what can you tell from a proper name one way or the other? I daresay there are a few people who'd recognise the idiosyncratic "me" behind my posts no matter what my pseudonyms may be...

Cavatina - but do you change pseudonyms because you get bored with one - or does each new name somehow express a different aspect of your personality?
I am thinking of the great Portuguese writer Fernando Pessao, who wrote under a vast number of names in different 'personas' - I see wiki lists no fewer than 81 of his heteronyms!

Incidentally, if you develop 'friendships' under one pseudonym, I wonder if it isn't a little unkind to disappear and then reappear unannounced in another guise.

[Serial_Apologist]

Incidentally, if you develop 'friendships' under one pseudonym, I wonder if it isn't a little unkind to disappear and then reappear unannounced in another guise.

In that case we have the good fortune that this forum enables us to communicate directly, so the friendship problem needn't arise.

Must admit that when I first started posting on the R3 board I used the cloak of anonymity to make one or two disparaging comments about certain jazz musicians and still-living composers, without thinking of the moral cowardice involved, until the issue was sharply raised when one poster demanded to know, "Would you say that directly to a person's face?" - to which my answer would have had to have been in the negative.

S-A

[DracoM]

I've just been listening to The Media Show on R4. I wonder how different 'Feedback' and its scrutiny of the BBC would be if Steve Hewlett were asking the questions. He does not suffer fools gladly and has a real appetite for cutting through prevarication, obfuscation and evasion.

As said above, Feedback has become a cosy bedfellow / sycophant with minimal cutting edge, and as such represents a serious betrayal of listeners' legit concerns. Pity. We notice that the 'Your BBC' mantra has been quietly dropped, because of course, it isn't.

[PatrickOD]

I don't listen to Feedback - though I did on this occasion. If I had not been aware of the issue through this messageboard I would have found it difficult to understand what the programme was getting at. 'Our' representatives did not get a fair opportunity to state their case. Draco's comment, #40, is probably accurate.

On the subject of using one's own name, I can only speak for myself. I don't have a theory, or a degree in psychology. I agree that it doesn't matter one way or the other - except perhaps to those who may already know identities. Only one person here knows me, and I know who I am, and using my own name - or most of it at any rate - is merely a way of reminding myself to speak, or write, as myself. I endeavour to say what PatrickOD would say, if he were to say anything. I never thought that I had to present myself in the best possible light - to paraphrase 'cavatina's' statement - and in fact being ordinary I don't feel the need to give myself any kind of gloss, which a pseudonym could do. I rejected the idea of a pseudonym right from the start, though I did consider one. I have no objection to other people using pseudonyms, as I do try anyway to get at the person behind the name, from the patterns of posts, as I am sure we all do. As for having 'the guts for true candour' - 'cavatina' again - I am not as interested as she is in letting it ALL hang out.

[cavatina]

Cavatina - but do you change pseudonyms because you get bored with one - or does each new name somehow express a different aspect of your personality?

Oh no! Though come to think of it, I'm sure I could concurrently post as at least five different "characters" without anyone suspecting they were the same person in a million years. But then, what fun would that be? I am what I am, whether it all fits together or not.

And since you asked, the first time I changed my name was immediately after someone asked if I were posting as [REDACTED] and I said no. I suppose I was hoping to assuage my guilt on a technicality by invoking the "thirty second rule" for lies: if you're technically telling the truth in under half a minute, it doesn't count and you don't have to feel that bad about it. ha! The second time? Well, let's just say I urgently needed a break to keep my temper from getting the better of me. Not to mention hoping for a general "reset" for the coming summer...fresh starts and what have you.

Incidentally, if you develop 'friendships' under one pseudonym, I wonder if it isn't a little unkind to disappear and then reappear unannounced in another guise.

Oh, I don't know. At the time, the last thing I wanted to do was make a big production number out of it. Sorry!

[salymap]

I agree it doesn't really matter what we call ourselves if we are ordinary, as I certainly am. 'Real names' seemed not to be encouraged on the old BBC boards though people like Peter Katin obviously carry more weight by using their own names.
Perhaps the US members have more need to let it all hang out, or some of them. Long live British reserve.

[Mary Chambers]

My name may look like a real name, but it isn't - I mean it isn't my real name. It's not because I want to be rude to anybody, but just because I prefer to be private.

I've listened to FF and Chris on iPlayer. Funny how no-one sounds the way one expects them to. Why should I expect anything? Somehow an image of each person does develop.

[cavatina]

Long live British reserve.

Hmpfh! Well Sal, all I can say is you know I'm not the only one around here who wishes you'd spill the beans and write your memoirs... *ducks, runs for cover*

. As for having 'the guts for true candour' - 'cavatina' again - I am not as interested as she is in letting it ALL hang out.

Smart man. And please do remember--all this time, I've only been partly anonymous, so haven't "let it ALL hang out" by any stretch of the imagination. Not even close!

You know, for all my talk about candour last summer, there were any number of topics related to my personal opinions and observations I wouldn't have dared post about...I mean, entire swathes of subjects I wouldn't touch with a thousand-foot pole. Perhaps in the end, I was only capable of producing the illusion of candour and wasn't quite as authentically gutsy as I might like to believe.

Oh well, it was certainly fun while it lasted.