Re: [Swprograms] BBC E-mail: World Service soap Westway axed

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I'm just getting a little confused about what the standards are.  
I know you had the "sarcasm" flow on there, but many a things are said 
in jest that are meant in earnest.  I never said that popularity 
couldn't be a measure for a public service broadcaster; just that it 
shouldn't be the only one (or always the most important one).

I know what the intent of the multiple streams concept was, but if you 
examine the schedules of each you'll find very little real difference 
among them.  Only the Africa streams have a few localized programs.  
Rather than creating whole ersatz feeds for each region which had to 
have been costly to create and are costly to maintain, a modular 
approach which they had used for some time successfully could have been 
continued.

My beef?  Style over substance.  It's mostly smoke and mirrors.  BBC 
still pretends to be offering a World Service by not acknowledging 
anywhere that a particular feed is what it is.  Its pretense is that 
this is a unified service for everyone, when it is not structured that 
way any longer.  If you want streams, then identify them as such to 
your listeners.  If you want to be known as a world service, maintain 
the cohesion.  You can't have both and maintain credibility for either.

It was an affectation.  It's outlived its usefulness, if indeed there 
ever was one.  That may offend the "marketing" side of you, but that's 
how I see it.  That's my beef.  :-))

John Figliozzi


On Apr 2, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Richard Cuff wrote:

> /sarcasm on...
>
> Wait a minute here.  We're talking about a public service broadcaster, 
> right?
>
> Why should popularity matter?  After all, popularity -- ratings -- is
> one of the measures that commercial broadcasters use, right?
>
> I thought public service broadcasters were supposed to use benchmarks
> other than popularity to prioritize what goes on air.
>
> /sarcasm off...
>
> Meanwhile, let's talk about the multiple streams matter a bit.  The
> BBC seeks to become a "global local" broadcaster.  You know, "think
> globally, act locally".
>
> That's the way global entities who serve multiple cultures and
> multiple constituencies operate.  One does this in order to enhance
> performance -- however measured -- by each individual audience.
>
> I'll grant you that the creation of multiple streams has added a layer
> of complexity to the management of the distribution of broadcasts from
> Bush House up to the satellites and back down to the transmitters.  It
> also requires continuity for each stream between individual programs.
> What are your other beefs regarding the concept?
>
> The concept of "streaming" becomes moot in the world of on-demand
> listening / podcasting anyway.  Each listener creates their own
> "stream".
>
> Just so we in the group don't propagate errors, the weekday emphasis
> as of late '05 is to be "news & factual".  This would include programs
> such as "From Our Own Correspondnet", "Assignment", the documentaries,
> "Essential Guide", the Science / Health features, and "The Interview"
> in addition to the news programming.
>
> It will be interesting to see if the "All News" stream is maintained
> as a separate stream later this year.  Since Sirius is switching to
> the PRI feed, which is slightly different than the "all news" feed,
> there is no specific outlet -- other than the website -- for the "all
> news" stream.
>
> Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA
>
> On Apr 2, 2005 12:43 AM, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Never one of my personal favorites, but the article points out why it
>> is to many across the globe and why it was important.
>>
>> So let me get this straight.  There was nothing deemed wrong with the
>> quality of the program.  And it was evidently quite popular.  So, of
>> course, it should be axed!  Given the "logic" pursued rather
>> relentlessly by BBCWS management of late, this reasoning is perfectly
>> consistent!
>>
>> And while you might think I'm just being sarcastic, I am.  But I'm 
>> also
>> being factual.
>>
>> John Figliozzi
>> Halfmoon, NY
>>
>> PS:  Somewhere along the line in the various BBC-related threads the
>> past few weeks, someone commented that if the BBC truly wanted to same
>> some scratch, it really ought to scrap one of its worst decisions from
>> the past decade....that being the seven (or is it nine?) program
>> streams which, with the exception of the Africa streams, just 
>> broadcast
>> the same programs but at slightly different times.  I wholeheartedly
>> concur and have been saying this from almost the beginning of this
>> addled idea. Given the stripped down version(s) of the BBC we have
>> today (in comparison to even the recent past) and the apparent plans 
>> on
>> the drawing board in 2006 to strip it down further, all that's really
>> needed is a worldwide stream and an African stream.  Even an all-news
>> stream won't be necessary any longer because that will be the natural
>> state of the new BBCWS in 2006 apparently!
>>
>> As someone in Monty Python once said,  "What a stupid concert."
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.