Complaining

[Guest]

Afternoon all,

I'm getting pretty fed up with Twitter, phone-ins etc on Radio 3. What do you think is the most effective place to direct my complaint? I know there is a general "BBC complaints" site but I wondered if there was anything more specific - or where I might be more likely to be listened to.

Thanks,


T

[grippie]

You could direct angst to this BBC radio 4 prog? Unfortunately the latest series has just ended though http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx

Otherwise: http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Welcome to the Forum, Tilp.
There are many here who feel exactly as you do. Grippie's suggestions are probably the best communication channels. good luck, and don't be swayed.

[Osborn]

Afternoon all,

I'm getting pretty fed up with Twitter, phone-ins etc on Radio 3. What do you think is the most effective place to direct my complaint?

May I just suggest that you be specific & accurate - if you say that R3 transmits infuriating phone-ins & Twitter 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is totally untrue. Say, what programme, what time & how long it's been going on.

[Extended Play]

Hello, Tilp -- greetings from a fellow newcomer!

Sound advice from Osborn. I'm a believer in going to the top as well as, say, to a particular programme: why not post copies of your complaint to the network controller and the DG? You never know, you might get a reply from a minion.

It would do no harm to say something positive about the network as well, just to show how broad-minded you are.

I've got mixed feelings about "Feedback": I tend to think it has lost its cutting edge. All the same, it's worth a go, especially if your grievances chime in with those of many other correspondents to the programme.

Go for it, and good luck.

[ardcarp]

'Feedback' suggests listeners comments going to the BBC. Unfortunately it usually consists of BBC propaganda going to the listeners. Institutions these days do not see complaints as something constructive or to be investigated. Instead complaints mean closing ranks, fending off, feathers ruffled and dare I say it even fibbing a bit.

[Resurrection Man]

r3mail@bbc.co.uk

Be prepared for the standard response which is a 'copy-and-paste job that states that no-one else has complained and that audience figures think R3 ..especially in the morning..is the best thing since sliced bread'.

Stand your ground and reply countering these specious arguments put forward in 'justification'.

[french frank]

May I just suggest that you be specific & accurate - if you say that R3 transmits infuriating phone-ins & Twitter 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is totally untrue. Say, what programme, what time & how long it's been going on.

As Ossie knows, complaints have been addressed to the BBC at all levels, including the high-ups at the BBC Trust.

The use of Facebook, Twitter and 'interactivity' is a policy decision, designed to reach out to (I will quote from Radio 3) 'listeners who want to feel more connected to Radio 3'. I wrote and pointed out that many listeners found it profoundly irritating and the reply to me was that their claim was (I quote): 'simply true and I have nothing to add'. On the claim that the volume of responses showed that listeners appreciated the opportunity to share their thoughts and requests, I asked how many responses Radio 3 was receiving, as the evidence on the internet painted a different story. The answer was 'the same' i.e 'this is simply true and I have nothing to add'.

And that's the official response from Radio 3.

The 'truth' is that Radio 3 is after a different kind of listener, the kind that likes local radio and Radio 2, presenters, chat and nothing too demanding. The advantage is that they are more numerous than us and will therefore boost Radio 3's ratings.

Ossie, for reasons I've never been able to understand, seems to disapprove of such complaints, of me when I voice them and of Friends of Radio 3 which is organising against the cheapening of Radio 3.

[ahinton]

May I just suggest that you be specific & accurate - if you say that R3 transmits infuriating phone-ins & Twitter 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is totally untrue. Say, what programme, what time & how long it's been going on.

But he/she didn't write that - and it is, of course, abundantly clear to all of us that no one in his/her right mind would submit a complaint that R3 has nothing but phone-ins, Twitterings, citations of and/or from listeners' emails and other so-called "interactive" content; that fact hardly undermines the validity of such a complaint if it's phrased reasonably and includes at least some evidence of which programmes are afflicted with which of these and to what extent. Clearly, however, any such complaint looks set to fall on ears deafened by the deliberate application of ear-muffs, which hardly seems to be the best policy and stance for those in charge of an otherwise prestigious music channel to adopt.

There remain some fine presenters on 3 who largely or entirely avoid involvement in this kind of material but whose presentations are not high-minded, stuffy or otherwise geared to prioritising the kind of content that some may suppose to be potentially discouraging to some listeners but, as I have previously observed elsewhere, any serious consideration of the kinds of problems found elsewhere on the channel needs to take into due account the extent to which they're down to certain of the presenters and the extent of producers' briefs and responsibilities. I am, incidentally, unaware that anyone has, au contraire, complained to R3 about a surfeit of higfalutin' presentation or too much actual music and not enough idle chatter...

[ahinton]

As Ossie knows, complaints have been addressed to the BBC at all levels, including the high-ups at the BBC Trust.

The use of Facebook, Twitter and 'interactivity' is a policy decision, designed to reach out to (I will quote from Radio 3) 'listeners who want to feel more connected to Radio 3'. I wrote and pointed out that many listeners found it profoundly irritating and the reply to me was that their claim was (I quote): 'simply true and I have nothing to add'. On the claim that the volume of responses showed that listeners appreciated the opportunity to share their thoughts and requests, I asked how many responses Radio 3 was receiving, as the evidence on the internet painted a different story. The answer was 'the same' i.e 'this is simply true and I have nothing to add'.

And that's the official response from Radio 3.

The 'truth' is that Radio 3 is after a different kind of listener, the kind that likes local radio and Radio 2, presenters, chat and nothing too demanding. The advantage is that they are more numerous than us and will therefore boost Radio 3's ratings.

If that really is true, then Radio 3 is in grave danger of no longer being Radio 3 and that, for "ratings", one could be forgiven for reading "targets" in certain other past contexts...

[Panjandrum]

Ossie, for reasons I've never been able to understand, seems to disapprove of such complaints, of me when I voice them and of Friends of Radio 3 which is organising against the cheapening of Radio 3.

May I suggest that love of a wind-up is the motivation.

[french frank]

If that really is true, then Radio 3 is in grave danger of no longer being Radio 3 and that, for "ratings", one could be forgiven for reading "targets" in certain other past contexts...

At the moment we're still at the stage of ' there is only one phone-in which only lasts two-and a-half minutes. But if there is one phone-in now, what guarantee do we have this won't increase? If the mornings (which attract the most radio listening) are targeted at the 'new listeners' why shouldn't the afternoons? This would fit the standard commercial radio pattern, known as 'ratings by day, reputation by night'. Most of the other BBC music stations have gone that way, so ... here we come!