Turning-point for the BBC? - the new DG

[JohnSkelton]

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.

Doubtless, but I didn't say anything of the sort. I suggested that it would be a good idea for people who continue to support the idea of a publicly funded BBC to make sure their criticisms were distinct from those who do not support that idea. Which is quite different, as I'm sure with a little reflection you'll be happy to agree . As a matter of interest, do you think a publicly funded BBC - subject, of course, to scrutiny and criticism - is of value? Or would you be happy to see the BBC privatised?

[Panjandrum]

Personally, I am no longer certain that the BBC can recover its lost prestige and produce programming of quality, whether it be radio or on TV. BBC4 seems to have completely abandoned the arts, and what potentially interesting programmes there are, are marred by inane narration, gimmicky camera shots etc. Radio 3, as our own threads bear witness, is a travesty of a once great radio station. The proliferation of alternative forms of broadcasting means that the BBC is fast becoming an irrelevance, but an expensive one nonetheless. Given the burgeoning of internet radio, I don't think it will be too long before we find that enterprising venues such as The Wigmore Hall start providing a live listening experience which will largely replace the concert programming on radio 3. Other broadcasters may well buy the archive of radio 3, in the same way that UKTV has bought or licensed BBC television programming. Some of this may still be free to air, others will be subscription based, but we are moving into a different world. The shambles of the last few days has only helped to clarify this.

[JohnSkelton]

Radio 3 continues to "produce programming of quality" in a way that no commercial organisation would have any interest in replicating (interest in the sense of wanting to do, interest in the sense of it being worth their while). I don't agree that Radio 3 is "a travesty of a once great radio station." That simply doesn't survive scrutiny of what Radio 3 broadcasts. I have plenty of grumbles, to do with presentation but mainly to do with narrowing of focus and a long standing grumble to do with Radio 3's lack of interest in some European contemporary or avant-garde music (that's not new, though the terms of lack of interest have changed). But Radio 3 continues to broadcast a range of music that no commercial enterprise would or could attempt. It continues to promote serious concert activity. It is a hugely important resource. If it went we'd not see anything of its kind again. All that would be lost.

As for "a live listening experience" - you mean they will stream / broadcast concerts?

The so-called shambles of the past few days has only clarified anything for people who for whatever reason want that clarification. IMO. Which was what I was earlier suggesting - that people who continue to support the idea of the BBC as a public sector broadcaster should be very clear to make their criticisms of the BBC distinct from those who don't. It's rather like the difference between being critical of poor practice in the NHS and insisting the private sector would do better.

[DracoM]

What was fascinating this afternoon was the cool, formal, unfussy intros and packaging of Choral Evensong this afternoon by the impeccable John Shea.

It made R3 sound so utterly different. And I agree with John Skelton that presentation, and a retreat to something ore fitting to the material would do immeasurable good for R3's image. If you have various presenters who shall remain nameless, gabbling, mispronouncing, trying embarrassingly hard to ingratiate themselves with us / the next 'host' etc, the station loses gravitas. It does not stop being good, but the usual guff and waffle between programmes serves to make R3 sound embarrassed by its own content, as if the presenters really wanted to be on R2, but, drat it, folks, you know, luck of the draw....etc.

The plain fact is that the material on R3 does NOT lend itself to the chatty, platitudinous, bumbling style of a gaggle of current presenters, and it took a stint of Shea this p.m. to make me relax and feel that the radio station I love is in good hands. No fuss, no quips, no cosying up. Just quiet class. Yes, I know that sounds shallow, but honestly, if the continuity / presenters raise hackles in how they present the station, then now and again, you just think 'Grrr! sod it' and turn off.

R3 management is certainly right in that the way the station is packaged does indeed matter a great deal, but they seem to have made a whole series of bizarre off-compass decisions about the right voices to do that packaging. Ironically, many of the 'right' voices are regularly "banished" to TTN - why I simply do not understand. We need them back to front our station, and not the team who seem to be leading the station towards showing R2 longings.

[gurnemanz]

Radio 3 continues to "produce programming of quality" in a way that no commercial organisation would have any interest in replicating (interest in the sense of wanting to do, interest in the sense of it being worth their while). I don't agree that Radio 3 is "a travesty of a once great radio station." That simply doesn't survive scrutiny of what Radio 3 broadcasts. I have plenty of grumbles, to do with presentation but mainly to do with narrowing of focus and a long standing grumble to do with Radio 3's lack of interest in some European contemporary or avant-garde music (that's not new, though the terms of lack of interest have changed). But Radio 3 continues to broadcast a range of music that no commercial enterprise would or could attempt. It continues to promote serious concert activity. It is a hugely important resource. If it went we'd not see anything of its kind again. All that would be lost.

Thanks for writing that. I was on the point of contributing something similar. I still watch and listen mainly to BBC programmes. ITV and Channels 4 and 5 rarely tempt me. I need Sky for sport not available elsewhere - at least you get Sky Arts thrown in.

Panjandrum states: "The proliferation of alternative forms of broadcasting means that the BBC is fast becoming an irrelevance". Not for me. I'm the first to enjoy having access to a huge range of material from diverse sources, but these tend to be random titbits rather than staple diet and maybe "more is less".

I didn't watch the flotilla coverage but would guess that the Beeb (rightly) concluded that it was an intrinsically boring event which needed tarting up. So they tried pathetically to get in tune with the current low-attention-span, celeb-loving twitterers who constitute the majority of their audience.

[Mr Pee]

Thanks for writing that. I was on the point of contributing something similar. I still watch and listen mainly to BBC programmes. ITV and Channels 4 and 5 rarely tempt me. I need Sky for sport not available elsewhere - at least you get Sky Arts thrown in.

I didn't watch the flotilla coverage but would guess that the Beeb (rightly) concluded that it was an intrinsically boring event which needed tarting up. So they tried pathetically to get in tune with the current low-attention-span, celeb-loving twitterers who constitute the majority of their audience.

I would say that I watch Sky and the BBC in more or less equal amounts, although probably Sky is now creeping ahead. ITV comes on very rarely, Channel 4 now and again, and 5 hardly ever.

I don't agree that the flotilla needed "tarting up", or at least if it did, it didn't need the kind of tarting the BBC gave it. Sky managed to make it interesting without resorting to gimmickry and "celebs", by concentrating on the event itself, the people actually taking part, and the vessels involved.

I think the best thing about Sky's coverage over the weekend was Alastair Bruce's informed and interesting commentary. Packed with little known facts about London itself, the Royal Family and military traditions, he highlighted exacty what was missing from the BBC.

[scottycelt]

I think the best thing about Sky's coverage over the weekend was Alastair Bruce's informed and interesting commentary. Packed with little known facts about London itself, the Royal Family and military traditions, he highlighted exacty what was missing from the BBC.

On Tuesday when the bands were marching one of the commentators on SKY was trying to identify one of the regiments. Alastair Bruce was consulted and he revealed it was the Scots Guards, for the simple reason that the recognised the buttons on their tunics and he once belonged to that very regiment!

A bit later, and out of sheer curiosity, I switched over to the BBC where exactly the same controversy was taking place over exactly the same band. Nobody was able to come to a decision, until some time later we were advised that it was definitely the Grenadier Guards, that news being credited to some obscure individual who had presumably twittered or tweeted the information or e-mailed the BBC.

That sort of summed up to me the vast gulf in professional coverage between the two channels mentioned, though I suppose it could have been the Royal Scots Grenadiers .. ?

[french frank]

Well, to be serious for a moment ...

Of course, the BBC will look into what the official complaints were about. If Mark Damazer is quoted correctly, he said: ""The BBC is worried and nervous about being seen as too formal and stiff. It wasn't all a failure - there were many good things about the coverage."

And that is the key (and why the complaints are 'significant'). It's the idea that there are no contexts where being 'formal' is now allowable. In this coverage, they seem to have gone from the Dimbleby to Matt Baker/Fearne Cotton extremes. If I may permitted: the baby of intelligently informative commentary went out with the bathwater of perceived stuffiness.

[Don Petter]

What was fascinating this afternoon was the cool, formal, unfussy intros and packaging of Choral Evensong this afternoon by the impeccable John Shea.

We caught the end of the Nielsen and the start of the Haydn Mass driving home earlier yesterday afternoon. What a joy to hear John Shea quietly give the informative announcements and introduction. It really was like another station, and a breath of cool, fresh air.

Why can't it always be like this?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's the idea that there are no contexts where being 'formal' are now allowable. In this coverage, they seem to have gone from the Dimbleby to Matt Baker/Fearne Cotton extremes. If I may permitted: the baby of intelligently informative commentary went out with the bathwater of perceived stuffiness.

The thing is, Richard Dimbleby was not stuffy - just respectful and intelligent. Can you imagine Matt Baker bringing off that April Fool stunt on the spaghetti plantations?

[french frank]

Yes, I was careful to add the word 'perceived' - which it is by some people. Others find the 'perceived' formality' perfectly appropriate.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I refer again to the coverage of Princess Diana's funeral. The BBC and ITV commentaries were discrete and sensitive. Channel 5's commentary was constant jabber. Now the mature BBC has learnt from the baby.



[Ed. I removed the quote because I'm making a real hash of trying to put my own comments on the right thread. ff]

[Lateralthinking1]

In this coverage, they seem to have gone from the Dimbleby to Matt Baker/Fearne Cotton extremes. If I may permitted: the baby of intelligently informative commentary went out with the bathwater of perceived stuffiness.

Yes, particularly on Sunday - and in one sense they are extremes on a perceived high bar. They have moved from a pomp authority to a pop authority. The first wouldn't dream of wading in with the masses. The second, based on minor celebrity, wants to wrestle with drunks on the banks of the Thames and get covered in mud.

There is a notion that the latter are coming down to our level, hence my use of the word authority, and the reason why they sink is very simple. It should not be a dive. It should be about comprehending the level as it is generally which, in some instances, means raising their own game a bit. Of course, they don't want to believe it.

But essentially, the missing piece yet again is democracy. Let people with stories have their say. In fact, the BBC should have had the Listening Project team onto it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features...tening-project. The existence of that project in itself reveals how the Thompson boat bobs one way and then another with little coordinated direction.

They also needed a restrained authoritative voice to accompany the proceedings. It needn't have been Dimbleby, or a Home Counties accent, or male. I have now listened to Alastair Bruce via You Tube. He is authoritative but I find his voice rather reedy. Someone like Fiona Bruce could have done it and there are tens of other examples. One has just returned from Zimbabwe.

[Panjandrum]

The BBC and ITV commentaries were discrete (sic) and sensitive.

Should that be "discreet"?

[MrGongGong]

I refer again to the coverage of Princess Diana's funeral. The BBC and ITV commentaries were discrete and sensitive.

I wasn't aware that someone had died ?

Bread and circuses .......... albeit mothers pride and a rather crap juggler smelling of meths