BBC Radio 4 presenters

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know that it appears that some of these are told to take an opposing view on purpose to stimulate debate when interviewing, but to listeners, it appears to leave them as being ill-informed (amongst other faults) when the listeners hear what they have to say in these debates.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite recently I was fortunate enough to have some media training from a former BBC producer. Basically the interviews fall in one of three categories: information, argument (i.e. a skewering) or one of those fluffy "and finally..." time filler stories. The training was on how to prepare for each of those eventualities.

If the interviewer's decided that they want an argument, you get the questioning which is aggressive and asks a ridiculous question like "are you corrupt? yes or no?" that no sane person is ever going to give a straight answer to. The interviewer wants a skewering and will get a skewering.

I normally listen to the Today programme in a morning and I've not heard anyone get a skewering recently who didn't deserve one. The skewering John Humphrys gave to the idiot transport minister was a joy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the interviewer's decided that they want an argument, you get the questioning which is aggressive and asks a ridiculous question like "are you corrupt? yes or no?" that no sane person is ever going to give a straight answer to. The interviewer wants a skewering and will get a skewering.

Whilst both you and I are aware of this type of scenario and the reasons behind the method being so employed by the person conducting the interview, I have heard of people being unaware of this and drawing the conclusion that personal self-held and bigoted views are indeed held by the person conducting the interview, coupled with an over emphasised view of their own personal media image.

Do you ever remember the interview with John Nott that saw Robin Day being accused at the time by many members of the public of being far too full of his own self-importance and having a surfeit of sarcasm as a result of his self-belief of deification ? There are those who believe that the same attitude is ingrained in Jonathon Dimbleby, the chair of "Any Questions", to the extent that there is no need for a panel of members for him to chair but just for Dimbleby on his own to be there to answer questions put forward, noting his liking for over-stepping the mark to make interjectory comments, rather than to let the members of the panel perform the task that they were invited to sit upon the panel to actually do.

Yes, I am indeed a regular listener to Radio 4 and have been so for a very long period of time.

 

[starrymarkb]

My dad always moans about the News Anchors asking stupid questions. I've tried to explain that it's for the benefit of the viewers and that it's for stimulating debate without success

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My dad always moans about the News Anchors asking stupid questions. I've tried to explain that it's for the benefit of the viewers and that it's for stimulating debate without success

Doesn't that particular held BBC view show just how patronising the higher echelons of presenters and management in the BBC are towards their listeners. Some of the BBC management responses to questions raised in the "Points of View" programme are unbelievable by their assumed "Nanny knows best" attitude.

I would challenge many of these BBC staff referred to above to hold an IQ of the same numerical number to that which I hold and I despair of the currently held BBC broadcasting strategy on dealing with members of their listening and viewership.

 

[meridian2]

Doesn't that particular held BBC view show just how patronising the higher echelons of presenters and management in the BBC are towards their listeners. Some of the BBC management responses to questions raised in the "Points of View" programme are unbelieveable by their assumed "Nanny knows best" attitude.

.

More waffle. Points of View is a very balanced well moderated show and if you find their points unbelievable (note the correct spelling) than that's down to personal opinion.

 

[DarloRich]

I am a great fan of John Humphries - although there is something entertaining about politicians trying not to answer his questions. The best seemed to be John Prescott or John Reid!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

More waffle. Points of View is a very balanced well moderated show.

You may very well think that, as that is a view held as true by you. My view is that some of the supercilious answers by BBC Heads of Department given on Points of View are indeed patronising. Perhaps our respective views of the word "patronising" are formulated by different rules of thought. How intriguing it is to find that points made in thread postings that are not to your liking as classed by you as "waffle". Heavens above, how did I ever manage to hold posts in a senior managerial role from the late 1970's to my eventual retirement as Senior Head of Projects in 2010, let alone achieve a First in Mathematics as long ago as 1966. Mathematics is not a subject where "waffle" thrives, as it requires a clear and concise analytical mind.

Admittedly, the stroke that I suffered in July 2012 and the subsequent mini-stroke some ten months ago could well have caused problems to my cognitive thinking ability, but the results of the tests arranged by my consultant in October 2013 revealed no lack of my former mental skills in differing fields of testing.

 

[meridian2]

You may very well think that, as that is a view held as true by you. My view is that some of the supercilious answers by BBC Heads of Department given on Points of View are indeed patronising. Perhaps our respective views of the word "patronising" are formulated by different rules of thought. How intriguing it is to find that points made in thread postings that are not to your liking as classed by you as "waffle". Heavens above, how did I ever manage to hold posts in a senior managerial role from the late 1970's to my eventual retirement as Senior Head of Projects in 2010, let alone achieve a First in Mathematics as long ago as 1966. Mathematics is not a subject where "waffle" thrives, as it requires a clear and concise analytical mind.

Whilst intriguing and a little insightful, it's irrelevant to the subject-in-hand, unless you're really taking my gibing of your posts as being 'waffle' seriously?
But seriously, I do believe Points of View to be well balanced.

 

[AM9]

You may very well think that, as that is a view held as true by you. My view is that some of the supercilious answers by BBC Heads of Department given on Points of View are indeed patronising. Perhaps our respective views of the word "patronising" are formulated by different rules of thought.

Paul, I think it goes a bit deeper than patronising. I've been a supporter of most things BBC through most of my adult life but certain aspects of news output and how they deal with subsequent criticism leaves a lot to be desired. I feel that Points Of View lost it's direction years ago when they wanted it to move from being a useful and novel feedback programme to be entertaining to the naive whilst not undermining the BBC. They would always have a ready supply of sicophants. This stance was even parodied by the Not The Nine o'Clock News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

I think the programme is managed to suit the broadcaster's message. A bit more probing goes on on 'Newswatch' which is aired on the News Channel just before 08:00 on Saturdays. Here those complaining are actually invited to confront news editors but the opportunities for managing the overall impression are still there (and taken sometimes).

 

[Abpj17]

I would imagine that the majority of Radio 4 listeners are comfortable with the concepts of playing devil's advocate and asking stupid questions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I feel that Points Of View lost it's direction years ago when they wanted it to move from being a useful and novel feedback programme to be entertaining to the naive whilst not undermining the BBC. They would always have a ready supply of sycophants.

The biggest snub to the general public by the BBC was the hosting of this programme from 1999 to 2007 by Terry Wogan, whose style of presentation had already been decried by his puerile attitude to the viewers of the Eurovision Song Contest, and this person would appear not to recognise criticism by those writing in to complain, if it leaped up and bit him on his ample posterior.

 

[AM9]

The biggest snub to the general public by the BBC was the hosting of this programme from 1999 to 2007 by Terry Wogan, whose style of presentation had already been decried by his puerile attitude to the viewers of the Eurovision Song Contest, and this person would appear not to recognise criticism by those writing in to complain, if it leaped up and bit him on his ample posterior.

So what happened? He was knighted, allegedly for his charity work, which has been questioned for the attendant fees he received, but maybe also for his dedication to creative use of forests in Scotland. I think that he is part of the less attractive side of the BBC.