Re: [Swprograms] Quote of the Day

[jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

You make excellent points and I thank you for taking the time to 
address my points.  I'll try to explain briefly--and, yes, this might 
involve a little backtracking on my part.

1.  I've never argued that the BBC was wrong to embrace new delivery 
platforms; quite the contrary.  My sole points in this regard--and I 
believe I have been consistent--has been that the WS was premature in 
its abandonment of sw as one of the platforms and disingenuous in the 
use of research to justify it.  They also acted on an insulting, 
arrogant and inaccurate bias (i.e.: that swls are just hobbyists 
uninterested in and unworthy of their content).  

2.  I agree with you that BBC management have produced, in effect, a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.  By eliminating sw, of course there are no 
(or very few) sw BBC listeners today in the Western Hemisphere.  At 
this point, I accept that as accomplished fact.  It doesn't mean that 
I've forgotten how they got there.  I appreciate your support on the 
FM argument.  (Parenthetically, I now use XM and Sirius to access WS; 
but the BBC can't even keep the RDS-style displays up to date when 
they change schedules as they did in March.  My screen still carries 
the old schedule--unprofessional and wholly lacking in attention to 
detail if you ask me.)

3.  As to your remarks about paying taxes to allow me to hear the BBC 
for free, you already do that for elsewhere and have been doing it for 
some time.  I don't quite understand how the BBC (or you) might 
justify leaving SW and MW in place for Europe which has access to 
broadband and satellite at least in similar measure to us in the 
Western Hemisphere.  I hope you'll agree there's an inconsistency in 
its approach there at least.  This may contribute to my impression 
about those of us on this side of the pond being somewhat unfairly 
singled out and victimized.

4.  The DG's statement I quoted seemed to be saying that the BBC had 
an obligation (or at least an intent) to engage listeners whatever way 
was most convenient for the listener.  I just thought that their 
actions viz NA and shortwave belied that stated conviction and 
therefore was said more for effect and was to a degree hypocritical.

5.  As time went on in my statement (hopefully not too much of a 
rant), I probably am guilty of having become too hyperbolic in my 
points about Thompson and how he sees the future.  You make excellent 
points about the fragmentary nature of audiences today and in arguing 
that the BBC has employed some skill in identifying and carving out 
segments not likely to be served (at least immediately) by commercial 
media.  I, myself, enjoy the various radio services still (although 
perhaps not for long without charge) available to me via the internet, 
as well as some of the programming on BBC America (though I still 
think that a good portion of the latter reflects commercial rather 
than public service values).

6.  I also agree there is much quality in much of the programming 
produced for and by the BBC.  I think credit for that goes primarily 
to the creative people and those in administrative and management 
circles closest to them, rather than those at the loftier levels; but 
there you have it.

7.  As for my views on what constitutes a good example of public 
service media, I have to plead that I'm still working that one out.  
It's sort of "I know what it is when I see it, but can't quite define 
it satisfactorily for others".  We've had quite an ongoing discussion 
about that very point in this forum, and it remains unresolved, I 
think it is fair to say.   As to some of my arguments being "emotive", 
I also have to plead guilty.  I have had great and deep respect for 
the BBC and can get quite defensive toward it (as demonstrated) when I 
begin to fear that its great tradition of public service might be 
threatened and underappreciated by those charged with protecting it.

I probably haven't addressed each and every one of your points, but 
hopefully I've explained myself a bit more clearly and have advanced 
the discussion at least marginally.  

John Figliozzi


----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Barraclough <softbulletin1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Quote of the Day
To: Shortwave programming discussion <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> --- jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> 
> 
> >BBC Director General Mark Thompson is
> >> quoted as follows:
> > 
> > "[The BBC] should no longer think of itself as a
> > broadcaster of TV and 
> > radio and some new media on the side.  We should aim
> > to deliver public 
> > service content to our audiences in whatever media
> > and on whatever 
> > device makes sense for them, whether they are at
> > home or on the move."
> 
> The speech was Royal Television Society's Fleming
> Memorial Lecture dealing with domestic TV and radio,
> tying in for the BBC's licence fee submission
> 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/04_april/25
/creative.shtml
> 
> The full speech is online but I can't find the link.
> 
> > But apparently if you are part of the BBC's audience
> > living in the 
> > Western Hemisphere or Australasia and you are a part
> > of the sizeable 
> > segment of that audience for whom the media that
> > makes the most sense 
> > for you--whether at home or on the move--is
> > shortwave
> 
> Doesn't follow from the above but how do you justify
> putting the word sizeable in front of segment? Time
> has moved on since the decision was made to drop
> shortwave, which in itself reduces the shortwave
> audience. There is more broadband penetration and
> online listening with portable devices and WiMax being
> developed. Satellite radio, which at the time was
> unproven, has a large subscription base. I would
> contend, since you are asking me to pay out of my
> taxes a service you would get free on shortwave, that
> there is a segment but it's not sizeable and, given
> there is a limit on funding, it's not seen as a
> priority. I don't accept the BBC's claims on FM
> coverage being effective in the US market for reasons
> previously argued on this list but, in my opinion, you
> can't argue a case like this now without statistics.  
> 
> To put it bluntly how many people in the US and Canada
> today are using shortwave to listen to international
> broadcasts, to what extent are they using it if they
> have access to other sources, and, which is more
> difficult to argue, how many would consider using
> shortwave again if a BBC service came on with reliable
> reception. You would also need a commitment for the
> advantages of shortwave to be publicised to rebuild
> the audience. Did one of your government agencies
> recommend everyone have a wind-up radio with shortwave
> coverage in case of emergency by the way? If so that's
> actually a good argument for a re-introduction of the
> service.
> 
> > One can only conclude from this dichotomy that this
> > statement is just 
> > more of the same p.r.-inspired b.s. that is intended
> > to obfuscate 
> > rather than clarify and illuminate which we are
> > getting used to 
> > hearing from those in BBC management circles of
> > late.
> 
> How can one conclude that in such strong terms?
> Thompson backed up his statements with research,
> stating what I see every day, young people don't use
> media like I used to, for example a quarter of 16-24
> year olds watch no BBC television. Everyone in the
> country pays a licence fee and as the UK media scene
> becomes more diverse, both in terms of media sources
> available and the way people access them, the BBC has
> therefore, as a broadcaster, to use the appropriate
> technology. If it buries its head in the sand and
> thinks everyone will listen to radio and TV at set
> times of the day on traditional devices its whole
> model of funding will collapse as people will question
> the licence fee. 
>  
> 
> >Underlining  this point is information contained in
> >the remainder
> > of the article 
> > wherein Mr. Thompson states that he wants the BBC
> > and its web site to 
> > be a "premier destination" for unsigned music
> > groups, 
> 
> How is that more appropriate to a commercial entity as
> you claim later who have narrow playlists of bands
> signed to major labels with PR budgets. The BBC's
> committment to music is excellent. Use appropriate
> technology for public service content. The BBC is
> adding an Electric Proms season this year, long
> overdue.
> 
> >ape the success 
> > of sites like MySpace.com, create a new "broad-based
> > teen brand" 
> > with "a single music strategy" across all its
> > platforms and commission 
> > more comedy pilots while creating a BBC Sports
> > broadband portal with 
> > live video and audio.
> 
> If you read and google further you will see that the
> "teen brand" will be targeting markets the commercial
> sector does not, for example unsigned music, access,
> and talk radio programmes for young people.
> 
> > To my ears, these all sound like broadcasting
> > objectives more 
> > appropriate to commercial entities, and decidedly
> > not the "delivery of 
> > public service content" stated by Mr. Thompson. 
> 
> Disagree for reasons above. 
> 
> >In
> > drawing such a 
> > conclusion, one has to wonder under what possible
> > justification can 
> > the BBC still legitimately claim special status as a
> > public service 
> > broadcaster and demand access to a mandatory license
> > fee, let alone an 
> > increase in one.
> 
> There's a widespread debate going on at the moment in
> the UK, amongst those who pay the licence fee, on
> these very points but I don't accept the premise on
> which you base your conclusion. 
> 
> > The recent management had broken the BBC... and it
> can
> > no longer be 
> > fixed. 
> 
> The programming and strategy has improved a lot since
> the governors found the excuse they needed to get rid
> of Greg Dyke. As you assert that it can no longer be
> fixed what exactly are you proposing? 
> 
> >Make it be what its myopic management wants
> > it to be by 
> > releasing it from its no longer deserved special
> > status. 
> 
> The use of the word myopic in a speech dealing with
> how technology is changing, and will continue to
> change, the use of audio and visual content I find
> quite bizarre. Can't respond, don't understand.
> 
> >What has 
> > been lost is considerable and valuable, but it can
> > no longer be 
> > recaptured or rebuilt and that is sad, very sad. 
> > Let's not reward the 
> > destroyers of the dream and let the delusion that
> > this is a "public 
> > broadcaster" stand any longer.
> 
> A politicians statement, using 43 emotive, yet
> ultimately meaningless, words to back up, in my
> opinion, a wafer thin case.
> 
> I am quite happy daily to watch the breadth of
> programming on BBC Television, listen to the superb
> radio networks, use the listen again facilities on the
> BBC radio player, await the new Integrated Media
> Player, use ITunes to start subscribing to the BBC
> podcasts, and use the BBC website, I believe the UK's
> most visited. 
> 
> As a US citizen John you say, in somewhat dramatic
> terms, that, despite all this use I make of its
> content, the BBC has been destroyed, can you point me
> to another public, or even private, broadcaster that
> offers all this please since you appear to be claiming
> the BBC may as well close down tomorrow. 
> 
> Where is your model of a public service broadcaster I
> am to compare with one you say is irreparably broken?
> 
> Mike 
_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.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.