It was Philip Hensher who said that the BBC arts programming is targeted on people who aren't at all interested and failing to reach those who are.I have a sense that dumbed down TV, radio or anything else is for people who aren't actually interested in anything.
Not exactly meaningless, but perhaps having a meaning that is relative to the speaker rather than an absolute meaning. I think these comments here come up with the suggestion that the term, as used generally, refers to the methods used to make content 'accessible'. Having celebrities on air admitting they don't know anything about Schubert but are willing to give him a go may make Schubert 'accessible' by encouraging people who also know nothing about his music to give him a go. But for people who are looking for deeper insights this sort of programme is exasperating. The audience that is encouraged by Chris Evans is a Radio 2 audience, not a Radio 3 audience. It wouldn't be 'dumbing down' on Radio 2. But it's legitimate to consider it 'dumbing down' on Radio 3 because there is an audience which expects something more substantial.I would deliberately NOT use the phrase "dumbing down" as like "PC" it seems to be applied in such a scatter gun approach to be meaningless.
Yes, but I'm not sure that 'available' and 'accessible' are the same thing. Everything that is on Radio 3 is available to the listening public; but apparently not accessible to all. It would be my contention that the people that it's FOR don't need to have it made 'accessible' - they'll persevere with it because they feel it's worth the effort.a great way of describing what they do as being available (i.e accessible) for anyone but not necessarily FOR everyone