More grist to the mill from one of my favourite grumpy old men in the Mail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...usic-ears.html
It's all good publicity for our cause....
More grist to the mill from one of my favourite grumpy old men in the Mail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...usic-ears.html
It's all good publicity for our cause....
MickyD
1. Well spotted.
2. I wonder if BS has been following the forum. His vocabulary is rather familiar (not a bad thing at all)
3. I didn’t know you were a Mail reader![]()
I normally keep the Mail as far away as possible. but this is invaluable to our cause and sensibly written. It is just a pity BS kept only to Breakfast as far as R3 was concerned, as there are of course other current examples of dross on the current R3 schedule.
Good old rumpus-causing Mr Sewell can always be depended on, though it's a shame the article's in that particular paper. I'm surprised, however, that he's raised no objections to Petroc's style. With his abrasive drawl, PT was the first of R3's 'upbeat', DJ-style presenters to hurt my early morning ears, followed a couple of years later by the even worse Sarah Mohr-Pietsch.
doversoul - we all have our vices and I confess to visiting the DM site from time to time for some juicy scandal. Happily it sometimes throws up the occasional good article such as this one, but as Carmen has said, it would have been far more effective in a non-tabloid.
The whole article is "don't blame Petroc", who presumably has the misfortune of numbering Mr Sewell amongst his acquaintances, "and I'll lash out at a few other things to keep the mob on my side".
I suspect there are better ways of getting the FoR3's point across than relying on fickle Daily Mail columnists.
The Times, Sunday Times and Telegraph have printed either letters or articles - two articles in the Telegraph. I believe the S Times plans something for when RW appears on Feedback.
The Indie managed a review of which the writer was someone who listened to Radio 3 for a week but otherwise never listened to it and was quite approving; the Guardian's radio critic wrote a piece in which she quoted - so she said - this website (with a tinge a distaste), when in fact the quotes were taken from one of the Telegraph articles. And another Guardian journalist made himself 'unavailable' when I asked for a meeting (he gave the impression it was necessary to check with Roger Wright first). So, yes, it's a pity that the Indie and Guardian (in which Tom Service is the equivalent of the Telegraph's Michael White) show no interest, as yet.
Originally posted by Carmen
Originally posted by Wordthough it's a shame the article's in that particular paper
Oh, I don’t know. If MickyD can’t resist it, you never know who else might be dipping in from time to time (anyone on these boards?). Anyway the paper gets read by far more people than The G, The T and all the rest put together. Although how many of its regular readers bother to read an article about a radio station they never listen to is questionable, it is still a good thing. All besides, this might make some people curious and if they do decide to listen, they have this idea in their head that ‘this is not right, things should be much better’, which might make them want to join us. Ah well, one way of looking at it….I suspect there are better ways of getting the FoR3's point across than relying on fickle Daily Mail columnists
I'm afraid that I read 'thong' for 'throng' and now have to sponge down my screen which is pebble-dashed with AllBran![]()