Feeble telegraph fluff

[Stillhomewardbound]

One should perhaps be grateful for articles reporting dissent amongst the Radio 3 audience but not when it's presented accordingly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/8735974/Radio-3-fans-complain-station-is-dumbing-down.html

I added the following 'rant' to the piece:

What a feeble piece of reporting this is.

I am one entirely against the changes that are taking place on Radio 3 and a regular contributor to FoR3, but please let me underline some points of lazy, unverified reporting by Victoria Ward.

** A quotation alludes to "in recent months". Wrong. This process has been ongoing of the last 2/3 years or so.

** "disquited by regular phone-ins". Wrong. Radio 3 seldom, if ever, has phone-ins. What many listeners are complaining about is the aspect of interaction via email and the constant imploring on the behalf of presenters to 'interact' etc.

** "Radio 3 recently poached Aled Jones." Wrong. He's been on the network for quite a few years and does a largely appreciated job of presenting one programme, The Choir, for which he is very well qualified.

** "In recent days, the Friends of Radio 3 message board, has seen an outpouring
of anger from listeners." Hardly. The thread concerned has been active for the last two years and that quote could have come from any post in that time. Stop trying to build your story up.

I care very much about Radio 3, but I really don't care for reporting which plays with a story for two seconds only to drop it in the next edition, and all the more so without bothering to look into the background for the piece.

I care even less for editor or sub editor that has signed off on this.

For the record, there are no shortage of people who will happily be named when it comes to making criticisms of the current regime (me for instance: Stephen McKenna aka. Stillhomewardbound on FoR3), so I'm surprised that some cloak and dagger figure has to be quoted.

We are nothing if not vocal!

SHB

[Word]

It does look rather like there was a lack of ideas for articles. That one is straight out of the Daily Mail Website book of traffic farming; quote a few posts from an Internet forum and stir. The only difference being in the choice of celebs supposedly up in arms.
(... and there's the usual confusion regarding the distinction between the FoR3 and this forum.)

I do like Ms Spilsbury's quote though, which clearly wasn't the unthinking condemnation the reporter would have liked, and I applaud the use of "so-called dumbing down". There are few more hackneyed expressions than 'dumbing down' and it has become little more than a tedious refrain that appears to be stifling original thought.

[french frank]

and I applaud the use of "so-called dumbing down". There are few more hackneyed expressions than 'dumbing down' and it has become little more than a tedious refrain that appears to be stifling original thought.

However, I had a long conversation with the reporter yesterday. The only quote I sanctioned was that I 'recognised that the views were widely held'. I did not use the expression 'dumbing down'.

Off the record, I explained in more detail what the problems were for many of us. I told her we didn't want any nonsense about being 'as mad as hell', 'launching a fresh attack', 'up in arms' &c, because the BBC wouldn't like it and would get their own back at us through their journalist friends. She said the story would only stick if it had a high profile personality supporting it. She obviously turned up Jilly Cooper.

There is a separate piece about Radio 3's 'history of dissent' - a rewrite of Wikipedia material (I'm pleased to say ) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...roversies.html

[french frank]

Also, the origin of the story lies in several letters published recently in the Times - that was what she told me. I have since discovered the Sunday Times has printed similar letters. And my Inbox has been quite busy this morning. Several people have quoted the BBC News/website - has anyone found anything there?

[Lateralthinking1]

One thing I have noticed is how influential minor celebs are in terms of getting any newspaper coverage. I suppose Joanna Lumley's campaign on the gurkhas is a good example but she did at least do that exceptionally well.

No, I refer here to what I might call "our local syndrome". We have in this neighbourhood an ex lifestyle editor on one of the national tabloids. To some people, a "name". Now retired from that position, I can absolutely guarantee that she will get any local story onto the front page of the local rag. In fact, it appears at times that she is the area's only spokesperson.

I have tested this out. As soon as something has happened, I have got on to the paper immediately and then sat back to observe what then occurs. Not that week, but some two weeks later, the story appears with a reference to the ex-tabloid person's name. While it annoys me, it also amuses me, because it usually says something like "a resident since 1998" and I think "yes, well, that puts those of us here in the early 60s firmly in our place".

So you get here "Sarah, from Bristol" says "X", almost as if it were a bit of nonchalence, while Jilly, the "name", is given paragraphs. I find that very offputting actually. I would do so even if I liked Jilly which to be perfectly blunt I don't.

As for the BBC having received a "handful" of complaints, maybe if everyone from this forum wrote directly they couldn't dismiss it so lightly? Incidentally, I wrote yesterday to RW about jazz but haven't yet received an acknowledgement.

[french frank]

Oh, dear, just read Shb's comments here. I also made my usual pathetically ignored protest that this forum is The Radio 3 Forum, and not the FoR3 Forum. The For3 Forum folded several years ago because supporters didn't want to use it.


This forum is for all Radio 3 listeners and the views expressed here are their own

[antongould]

I find that typically in the right wing press there was no attempt at balance and the views of Old Grumpy and myself and scores of others were ignored. If it had been the Grauniad we'd have been there I'm sure!!!!

[french frank]

I find that typically in the right wing press there was no attempt at balance and the views of Old Grumpy and myself and scores of others were ignored. If it had been the Grauniad we'd have been there I'm sure!!!!

You have to register and add your comments to the story, antongould . I've just had a second go.

Anyway, the BBC spoke up for you!

[Norfolk Born]

Is 'populisation' an alternative to 'popularisation'? If it means anything, I would take it to mean 'filling with people'.

[antongould]

You have to register and add your comments to the story, antongould . I've just had a second go.

Anyway, the BBC spoke up for you!

So you registered our views for us - very sporting of you FF!

[french frank]

So you registered our views for us - very sporting of you FF!

No, as I keep saying, I'm speaking for the supporters of Friends of Radio 3, not this forum (The Radio 3 Forum). You are not a supporter of FoR3 and must speak for yourself

[Stillhomewardbound]

While I've heartily derided the reporting in this piece, I am pleased to say that it has generated a lot of heat. 55 comments in reply so far and the greater majority pouring scorn on the new culture at Radio 3.

I hadn't realised that it is intended to have phone-ins ...Oh lorks, I feel another of my little animations may be due:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY2CspBNDFQ

If I did nothing else last year I'm pleased I did that!

SHB

[Serial_Apologist]

While I've heartily derided the reporting in this piece, I am pleased to say that it has generated a lot of heat. 55 comments in reply so far and the greater majority pouring scorn on the new culture at Radio 3.

I hadn't realised that it is intended to have phone-ins ...Oh lorks, I feel another of my little animations may be due:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY2CspBNDFQ

If I did nothing else last year I'm pleased I did that!

SHB

You're a , SHB

[Osborn]

No, as I keep saying, I'm speaking for the supporters of Friends of Radio 3, not this forum (The Radio 3 Forum). You are not a supporter of FoR3 and must speak for yourself

Thank you ff. How you can get that into the heads of some of the forum's most prolific contributors I don't know.

[Panjandrum]

Notwithstanding some of the views expressed above, I think this was as good and as accurate piece of reporting as one could expect from the mass media in the circumstances. All newspapers will exaggerate and distort points of view to an extent in order to wrap a story up for mass consumption: I can think of a lot worse instances of distortion than in this story. In fact, I think we should all be glad that the Telegraph has brought this into the public domain.

With all due respect, the campaigning of FoR3 has a limited reach in comparison with the national dailies. One can see from the comments that a lot of readers are glad that someone has had the guts to publish an article which reflects their own views on the dumbing down of the station, and that their feelings of frustration are shared by thousands of listeners. With a bit of luck the bandwaggon might just start to roll, and I urge everyone here to contribute their own views to the comments page on the Telegraph's website.