Most of us, I hope, listen to Radio 3 in the mornings because we find listening to the music uplifiting, affirming, sometimes calming, occasionally even emotional. BBC Breakfast has a particular role at the start of the many people's day, and its benign influence on the mood of many people should not be underestimated.
Why then does the BBC think it is appropriate and necessary to interrupt the uplifting experience with two minutes of pointless irrelevant selective, partial doctrinaire "news"? every hour? There are two problems Firstly, the BBC's news editorial policy means that what is presented is not "news" relevant to the average Radio 3 listener but an agenda of running stories selected by news editors with a clear bias towards certain events, countries and policies that to be blunt we do not have to be kept up to date with every single hour. Secondly why can the BBC not respect the decision of the listener to select Radio 3 rather than Radio 5 Live or Radio 4? It is no good questioning BBC orthodoxy on this, as I have done because what comes back is a bland reply that "listeners appreciate the opportunity to catch up with important stories witout retuning to another station". I am sorry to swear but to be blunt this answer is b*ll*cks.
"We interrupt your enjoyment of Schubert to tell you that Abu Hamza may be extradited. A politician may or may not have said a word to a policemen two days ago who is still very hurt and the humourless Police Federation spokesman was still very upset yesterday. Someody at the Lib Dem conference will say later today that........" What am I supposed to do with this meaningless politically selective drivel?" So who exactly are the mythical persons who have expressed the view that this is what they want? And in such numbers that it overwhelms the listeners who just want to be carried away on a pleasurable musical journey without being made to feel that they are indulging in an lillicit pleasure that must be punished? I can't indluence the news. It doesn't change my day except to throw a bucket of slop over the audience's collective outlook. And then to top it off Sarah Mohr Pietsch comes back afterwards on with BLue Peter Presenter's forced jollyness to introduce Haydn's La Speziale overture and we are supposed to suddenly become cheerful again. It was never the BBC's job to suppress listener happiness in favour of a collective guilt, which seems to be one of the BBC News hidden agendas. It might at least be justifiable if the items presented were either something that affected us or something that we could in turn affect. But they aren't.
Either do a proper news programme and watch the audience disappear completely to Classic FM or learn from this salutory fact and just leave it out. It is vainglorious bovine stupidity dressed up as some kind of mission statement.
Why then does the BBC think it is appropriate and necessary to interrupt the uplifting experience with two minutes of pointless irrelevant selective, partial doctrinaire "news"? every hour? There are two problems Firstly, the BBC's news editorial policy means that what is presented is not "news" relevant to the average Radio 3 listener but an agenda of running stories selected by news editors with a clear bias towards certain events, countries and policies that to be blunt we do not have to be kept up to date with every single hour. Secondly why can the BBC not respect the decision of the listener to select Radio 3 rather than Radio 5 Live or Radio 4? It is no good questioning BBC orthodoxy on this, as I have done because what comes back is a bland reply that "listeners appreciate the opportunity to catch up with important stories witout retuning to another station". I am sorry to swear but to be blunt this answer is b*ll*cks.
"We interrupt your enjoyment of Schubert to tell you that Abu Hamza may be extradited. A politician may or may not have said a word to a policemen two days ago who is still very hurt and the humourless Police Federation spokesman was still very upset yesterday. Someody at the Lib Dem conference will say later today that........" What am I supposed to do with this meaningless politically selective drivel?" So who exactly are the mythical persons who have expressed the view that this is what they want? And in such numbers that it overwhelms the listeners who just want to be carried away on a pleasurable musical journey without being made to feel that they are indulging in an lillicit pleasure that must be punished? I can't indluence the news. It doesn't change my day except to throw a bucket of slop over the audience's collective outlook. And then to top it off Sarah Mohr Pietsch comes back afterwards on with BLue Peter Presenter's forced jollyness to introduce Haydn's La Speziale overture and we are supposed to suddenly become cheerful again. It was never the BBC's job to suppress listener happiness in favour of a collective guilt, which seems to be one of the BBC News hidden agendas. It might at least be justifiable if the items presented were either something that affected us or something that we could in turn affect. But they aren't.
Either do a proper news programme and watch the audience disappear completely to Classic FM or learn from this salutory fact and just leave it out. It is vainglorious bovine stupidity dressed up as some kind of mission statement.
Comment