Michael White weighs into the debate...

[jean]

Good article - some quite strange comments.

What about this?

"Radio 3 is a shell and has suffered from the swamping wave of cash given it by the Labour party in government."

[ardcarp]

Much as I sigh over the debasement of much of the daytime content, I feel, for the sake of balance, to endorse the Live in Concert and other live broadcasts. I remember moaning, not so long ago, about the lack of live concerts, and I remember posting to say that Choral Evensong (whose chief performers are frequently children of 13 and under) was one of the few regular live slots.

This is no longer the case, and we should perhaps be grateful for daily evening concerts. Personally I would prefer the intervals always to be a short talk related to the music performed or its composers. I sometimes find other (recorded) music in the interval a bit inimical to the sense of eavesdropping on a concert. But this is a minor niggle.

[Stillhomewardbound]

Sorry to disagree with the last speaker, but we have very little, indeed, to be grateful for as regards R3's attitude on live broadcasts. They practically shut down this aspect of their output for over two years, turning a deaf ear to the subsequent objections, and the single reason for their reversing that decision was to give them a market-place edge on Classic FM.

We got the live relays back for that and no other reason.

[VodkaDilc]

An excellent article - what more is there to say?

(Now I must delete Telegraph cookies - imagine my computer going in for repair and it being discovered that I had visited that site!)

[JimD]

'If you sup with Devil... .' There's a much bigger ant-BBC agenda in play here, common across the right-wing press. It would be very foolish and naive to swallow it whole.

[ardcarp]

They practically shut down this aspect of their output for over two years, turning a deaf ear to the subsequent objections,

They did indeed, which was rather my point. Whatever the reason for getting them back (relentless criticism or for 'market' reasons) at least we have them.

It's a point that's been made many times before, but why, exactly, are listener figures and market share matters of such sensitivity to the BBC, especially in arts broadcasting? Given that it's a publicly funded institution, surely it costs the same to run a programme whether 10 or 100,000 are tuned in?

[Gordon]

They did indeed, which was rather my point. Whatever the reason for getting them back (relentless criticism or for 'market' reasons) at least we have them.

It's a point that's been made many times before, but why, exactly, are listener figures and market share matters of such sensitivity to the BBC, especially in arts broadcasting? Given that it's a publicly funded institution, surely it costs the same to run a programme whether 10 or 100,000 are tuned in?

Indeed but I think it's a change in attitude at the top of our political system. The BBC always had its critics, right from day 1- read Asa Briggs - and every inquiry into broadcasting and every charter review has brought out those critics eg newspapers. Until more recently government has been resistant to calls for radical change.

In 1962 the Pilkington Committee [see Sidney Grew's new thread on the Committee] endorsed the BBC's activities and criticised ITV for seeing their licences as a "licence to print money" which it surely was. So much so that government created an extra tax on them called the Levy. That report did the commercial interest no good at all but it did not kill it off and it was to return.

In short, one answer is that the BBC is more besieged now than it has been for a long time and this is because of several factors to do with radical changes in technology, regulatory policy, commercial interests and public attitudes. Those commercial interests will always follow the money and will, by definition, automatically "give the public what it wants", the ultimate definition of "public service", otherwise it fails. That being the case there is no need for a BBC is there? Unless it mimics the commercials it'll never get listeners and viewers in sufficient quantities to justify itself except as a narrow minority service that sweeps up nooks and crannies that the market fails to deal with. "Market failure" is one of the factors that regulators look at when considering public services; sounds like a good principle but what it means in practice is another thing.

Current thinking is that the BBC cannot be allowed to arbitrate what the public gets at public expense and so must account for what it does, just like other public institutions that are now crawling with administrators. It always did of course through its annual report - but those were simply accounting records to show where the money had gone. Now the acccounting is more forensic and questions how and why the money is spent and also questions what is broadcast. If the BBC does not get a decent audience it clearly isn't doing its job in feeding the public what it wants. That is a view at odds with the traditional one of the BBC as public servant. BBC management of late have not been robust in protecting its remit and have queered their own pitch [own goals to complete the metaphor] too often with scandals etc.

Engaging more intimately with the modern public is a way of demonstrating its usefulness - the complaints we have here about tweets etc are about management's lack of confidence - paranoia even - as much as anything. One problem is that the silent majority will not necessarily enter into dialogue either directly or in response to surveys whereas the motivated opposition or critical factions will. We have three years to the new charter, it will be an interesting period, but then, in my experience, all charter reviews have been "interesting".

PS Edit: Here is an interesting comment taken from the start of ITV which seems to summarise a few points:

The Halle Orchestra played on the opening night; it was booked to give weekly concerts. The result was a financial disaster. And ITV quickly realised what it had to do. The Controller of Programmes for the company with one of the two franchises for London gave his verdict within three months of the opening night: Let’s face it, the public likes girls, wrestling, bright musicals, quiz shows and real-life we’ve learned. From now on, what the public wants, it’s going to get.

And another quote from the same period [ca1957/60]:

...as regional companies, like Thomson’s STV, completed the network, they followed suit, evolving a pattern of networking in which the same schedule, dominated by entertainment programmes, was available in peak-time throughout most of the country. By 1957 that schedule could be reported by a senior BBC executive to his Board of Governors as consisting of ‘wiggle-dances, give-aways, panels and light entertainment’. The Halle Orchestra disappeared from ITV screens. But the schedule was, as intended, extremely popular, producing audiences dividing nearly four-to-one in favour of ITV. The ITA, under a populist inclined Director-General, Sir Robert Fraser, raised little objection. On the contrary, he encouraged the new direction. Characteristically, he termed ITV ‘people’s television’ and, in a speech in 1960, he declared: If you decide to have a system of people’s television, then people’s television you must expect it to be, and it will reflect their likes and dislikes, their tastes and aversions, what they can comprehend and what is beyond them.

Plus la change..

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Michael White is a right wing Guardianista Blairite piece of shill/t who's remaining role in (fortunately late) life is to secure his hugely well paid comfort zone.

But, don't let that spoil the case.

BN.

"Reach et Audience equals BBC careers"...and "We aint NEVER paying it back, EVER!" Why is that 'understandable market motivation" so difficult to understand? So postmodern. So Guardian.

[Zucchini]

You've got the wrong one.

[edashtav]

Much as I sigh over the debasement of much of the daytime content, I feel, for the sake of balance, to endorse the Live in Concert and other live broadcasts. I remember moaning, not so long ago, about the lack of live concerts, and I remember posting to say that Choral Evensong (whose chief performers are frequently children of 13 and under) was one of the few regular live slots.

This is no longer the case, and we should perhaps be grateful for daily evening concerts. Personally I would prefer the intervals always to be a short talk related to the music performed or its composers. I sometimes find other (recorded) music in the interval a bit inimical to the sense of eavesdropping on a concert. But this is a minor niggle.

I fully enorse ardcarp's views. Radio 3 is becoming polarised and we must rejoice in the good that remains and which has been strengthened a little, IMHO, over the past quarter. There are tiny shoots that suggest that For3's relentless campaign is denting the pachydermatous skins of those presently in control.

[french frank]

You've got the wrong one.

Be fair, though, Zucchers - it couldn't be more confusing ...

Re ardcarp's: we (FoR3) have always recognised that Radio 3 still has some excellent programmes. The point we make is the one RW always dodges with such consistency that he obviously understands it very well: the biggest radio listening 'bump' is roughly between 6am and midday. Radio 3 has chosen to devote pretty much the whole of it to the 'potential' new listeners. So having already been ejected from the late night slots c. 2000, those who want something more focused, including the musically recherché, are kicked out of the mornings too. Afternoons just are, generally, less popular for radio listening, as is the middle of the night, two periods when the statistics of classical output are built up.

Back in 1999, Radio 3 was recording higher weekly listening hours than it did last quarter - even though overall listening was significantly lower. back then That seems to indicate more selective listening than ever. The result is that reach just about survives, but share of listening is down. When/If people get fed up with switching on for the odd hour or so, reach will also suffer.

I really don't understand what the strategy hopes to achieve.

[french frank]

Good article - some quite strange comments.

What about this?

"Radio 3 is a shell and has suffered from the swamping wave of cash given it by the Labour party in government."

Just spotted this. Hollow laughter. Radio 3's budget has been reduced, relatively, for so long it now just reduces itself out of habit. What other stations have to do with their budgets is nothing compared with what Radio 3 has to do. The last year for which I managed to winkle out figures, a third of the annual content spend went towards supporting the Proms and the Performing Groups, which fell a lot short of filling a third of the annual airtime.