Turning-point for the BBC? - the new DG

[french frank]

A shambles, frankly. One has to admire, I suppose, the chutzpah of the exec who said "we tried too hard".

You mean the former manager (not exec.) - now Master of St Peter's College, Oxford (and with a Cambridge double starred first in history, he is almost certainly qualified for the post).


Who are the 'elitists'?

[Nick Armstrong]

You mean the former manager (not exec.) - now Master of St Peter's College, Oxford (and with a Cambridge double starred first in history, he is almost certainly qualified for the post).

Yes it's the current bloke who's gone on holiday. It must just have been sooooooooo exhausting!

[Flay]

Hope the exec responsible is having a nice holiday... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...nd-jubilee-bbc

Look again m'lud, he no longer works for the Beeb:

It was left to former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer to speak up for his former employer on Today on Wednesday morning, saying that the BBC had attempted to be "informal … inclusive and warm" and had "probably tried too hard", especially during coverage of Sunday's Thames pageant which has drawn the greatest criticism.

"If you've got that many presenters around the river, you're not going to like all of them each the same amount," said Damazer, who is now master of St Peter's College, Oxford.

But I disagree with what he says, and I question the need for so many "presenters". IIRC, he went on to say that they were "professional presenters like Sandi Toksvig." I thought she mostly worked in comedy?

It was a missed opportunity, and I hope that this backlash has positive results for the future.

[french frank]

Yes it's the current bloke who's gone on holiday. It must just have been sooooooooo exhausting!

I think that was Mr George Entwistle, the 'Director of BBC Vision' [This means TV].

[Flay]

I think that was Mr George Entwistle, the 'Director of BBC Vision' [This means TV].

My mistake, I quoted incorrectly.

[Lateralthinking1]

I find myself hovering at points of slightly contradictory nuance in regard to all of this dialogue. First, we must accept that Entwistle might have had his holiday planned. If he didn't, I wouldn't support his nomination. He'll be really worried now.



Next, there is no doubt that many people have seized on this moment and some with considerable glee. There is genuinely no criticism from me in that comment but it is the truth and it makes me slightly uneasy. The BBC was poor on the first main day and then it became much better if not perfect. Well, nothing is perfect and yet it does suit some to convey atrociousness all round.

Then, in every newspaper article on this subject we have seen the tweet by one Stephen Fry. I am not convinced that he is suitably placed to be the chorus leader. He might have a tendency to bite whatever it is that feeds him.

This is his recent Twitter page - http://twitter.com/#!/stephenfry. There he mixes his usual "please don't think of me as posh" vulgarity - see the comment on the concert - with deep sounding, if trite, analysis of the lyrics of Paul McCartney. There is what might be a swipe at the singing crowds although you can never be sure. He can apparently be ever so clever in that way. There's also quite a lot about real depression; a self-wallowing moan about being one of the lowly TV people; and nonsense words like "peeps" and "wowser". Of course he covers his tracks sneakily by saying that he's not against royalty, just in case that is in doubt.

He is not alone in having an immense inability to meet the simple requirements of chosen stances. This was from the Today Editor - "Am I being over-critical or is the BBC commentary lamentable? Why cut away from Queenie's river pageant to watch that mindless Tess Daly nonsense?". So there you have it. Her Majesty is Queenie to the powers that be on R4's flagship news programme.

I am all for appropriate criticism and there is plenty of scope for it. I'm getting the feeling though that there has been a mixture of BBC fecklessness; the sighting of a great opportunity by genuine critics; and a bit of old hype from those who would rather have been in the Queen's limelight. I fear that there is insufficient credibility in the critique to alter the BBC's dogmatic approach.

[Nick Armstrong]

My mistake, I quoted incorrectly.

Norman Stanley Flay, you will go to prison for five years.



Actually, maybe you know something Mr Entwhistle doesn't?

[Mr Pee]

This article relates some of the quite abysmal coverage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ve-people.html

Thanks for that, rank and file. That Telegraph article sums up the whole problem with the BBC very well indeed.

[JohnSkelton]

I think some caution is in order - I have absolutely no doubt that a major element in the criticism of the BBC over this originates with people who have a commercial and political interest in seeing the BBC privatised (I see ff notes Stephen Pollard's track history of hostility to the BBC and license fee funded broadcasting). For contributors to this forum, whatever their views about the direction the BBC has taken and continues to take, this would (or should) be a disaster, since we would lose Radio 3. No private sector broadcaster would take over the scope of Radio 3's work (however diminished in areas it might be at present); and any such limited subscription service would inevitably exclude many.

I'd hope no contributor here would seek such outcomes. I have no comment on the Jubilee coverage; I only caught bits on the news.

[aeolium]

I saw very little of the Jubilee coverage so cannot comment on that, and I agree that some of the critics are 'the usual suspects', in the DT, for instance. But I think if criticism is justified on any aspect of the BBC's output then it should not be withheld. Far too much of that output, on TV and radio, apes the tawdriness of the commercial sector, and to criticise that is to stand up for the idea of public service broadcasting, not to oppose it. Insofar as the BBC departs from the standards of public service broadcasting it should always be held to account.

[LHC]

The public criticisms may be from the usual suspects, but in this case, they are correct. I watched the BBCs coverage of the river pageant and agree that it was abysmal. Mrs LHC and I waited in vain for even a glimpse of any of the musicians involved.

I understand that ten barges were playing music throughout and that 13 composers were commissioned to write new pieces for the pageant. Many of them were apparently interviewed by the BBC before the pageant, but none of those interviews were used, there was no information on the music forthcoming from the childish presenters, and none of the music was shown.

I think the BBC tried to do something different, but got this one hopelessly wrong.

Apparently the BBC received around 2,500 complaints during their coverage. The complainers can't all be DT journalists. Coming just a week or so after winning a BAFTA for last year's royal wedding broadcast, I think that privately the BBC will be concerned that they misjudged the mood so badly. Publicly, of course, they will give the BBC's usual response to criticism, which is to dismiss it.

[chapman19]

I’m coming off my ‘lurking fence’ for the moment to copy part of an email I have just received from a friend of long standing (she was Mary to my Joseph at church in the 1950s!).

She wrote >> ‘I must say B..... and I got very annoyed on Sunday, watching the pageant on the Thames thanks to the BBC making us watch various "celebs" doing bits and pieces instead of concentrating on and telling us about the boats - which was the whole purpose of the event. BBC outside broadcasting isn't what it used to be - informative and entertaining.’

She knows that I am retired from the BBC but I certainly didn’t prime her to write this and I don’t think that she has any ulterior motive for writing it; she is just an ordinary viewer.

I didn’t see the programme as I was on the banks of the Thames watching it live – until it rained!!

[Nick Armstrong]

I’m coming off my ‘lurking fence’ for the moment to copy part of an email I have just received from a friend of long standing (she was Mary to my Joseph at church in the 1950s!).

She wrote >> ‘I must say B..... and I got very annoyed on Sunday, watching the pageant on the Thames thanks to the BBC making us watch various "celebs" doing bits and pieces instead of concentrating on and telling us about the boats - which was the whole purpose of the event. BBC outside broadcasting isn't what it used to be - informative and entertaining.’

She knows that I am retired from the BBC but I certainly didn’t prime her to write this and I don’t think that she has any ulterior motive for writing it; she is just an ordinary viewer.

I didn’t see the programme as I was on the banks of the Thames watching it live – until it rained!!

Same here - but I recorded the coverage and played much of it back...

I hope you find it congenial here, and more comfortable than on that fence!

[JohnSkelton]

I saw very little of the Jubilee coverage so cannot comment on that, and I agree that some of the critics are 'the usual suspects', in the DT, for instance. But I think if criticism is justified on any aspect of the BBC's output then it should not be withheld. Far too much of that output, on TV and radio, apes the tawdriness of the commercial sector, and to criticise that is to stand up for the idea of public service broadcasting, not to oppose it. Insofar as the BBC departs from the standards of public service broadcasting it should always be held to account.

I agree; I suppose my feeling is that in making criticisms if you don't hold the privatise the BBC line it's a good idea not to get those criticisms bundled in with those of the proponents of that line. I suspect whatever the BBC had done and however it had done it this was a ready prepared stick. And the Olympics are on the horizon.

It's a great pity the BBC seems so bad at recognising who its real friends are and differentiating between the criticism of friends and the opportunism of enemies.

[Panjandrum]

I agree; I suppose my feeling is that in making criticisms if you don't hold the privatise the BBC line it's a good idea not to get those criticisms bundled in with those of the proponents of that line. I suspect whatever the BBC had done and however it had done it this was a ready prepared stick. And the Olympics are on the horizon.

It's a great pity the BBC seems so bad at recognising who its real friends are and differentiating between the criticism of friends and the opportunism of enemies.

I disagree. To sweep all criticism of the BBC under the carpet under the guise that not to do so would lead to an undermining of the BBC smacks of the worst kind of muddle headed thinking. The BBC has completely shot itself in the foot and needs to be held accountable. No monarchist myself, I still have an interest in the display of pageantry and the history of royalty in this country, and expect to have the publicly funded national broadcaster provide an informed and erudite commentary on the day's events. Fortunately, an alternative broadcaster was on hand to supply this, but this does not, in any way, exonerate the BBC from reneging so spectacularly on its responsibilities.