The New Logic

[Don Petter]

I fail to follow RW's argument in today's Radio Times (Feedback response) that because of the 'large volume of responses to our invitations to interact' and the fact that 'listeners are happy to take the opportunity' the R3 phone-ins are justified. Why does that mean that other people want to hear them?

Many people are happy to take the opportunity to scratch their bums, but that doesn't mean we want to watch them.

The good news, if taken at face value, is his statement that such invitations are not 'endless'. So they will cease, he just won't say when, but I'm not sure he really meant that, either.

[mercia]

I guess it's his duty to provide what the majority want

[Anna]

But what is his definition of 'a large volume' He dismissed the 139 submissions about Breakfast as paltry and not worth bothering about so does it therefore follow that more than that number, on a daily/weekly basis, are trying to get on-air for Your Call? Perhaps some of our members might like to try, at least it may result in more interesting, articulate, stories?

[french frank]

I guess it's his duty to provide what the majority want

What majority? The majority doesn't want Radio 3 at all.

It's common sense that whatever he does to Radio 3, some people will love it: that can never be a reason for doing it.

[RT is printed about two weeks in advance - RW nothing if not influential]

[mercia]

It's common sense that whatever he does to Radio 3, some people will not love it: that can never be a reason for not doing it.

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

[french frank]

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

He actually said that? This is part of a discarded cartoon sequence I was making, dated 19 July 2003:

[mercia]

He actually said that?

words to that effect
great cartoon - keep it up!

[John Skelton]

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

But they always say that. Occasionally I watch this this http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/...00/3701840.stm. Routinely BBC producers, programme chiefs, etc. respond to criticism / complaints by saying 'however, feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.' On the odd occasion when people have contacted them non-positively in sufficient numbers for it to be difficult to accompany the positive line with a straight face, the default response is to start talking, hostilely, about "campaigns." An orchestrated Facebook campaign etc. etc. The only "feedback" they acknowledge as "feedback" is positive, or feedback which can be recuperated as a momentary lapse from positivity.

[french frank]

The only "feedback" they acknowledge as "feedback" is positive, or feedback which can be recuperated as a momentary lapse from positivity.

He got short shrift on Feedback when he started to suggest that the aim of the programme was to exaggerate the few negative comments received ...

[John Skelton]

That's good.