There has been good news for Radio 3 over the past month which for 'technical' reasons (that is to say, holidays) have not been promptly mentioned here. Most important, Radio 3 has been named Sony UK Radio Station of the Year for its overall performance in 2008. The Sony Radio Academy Awards have seemed in the past very remote from a station like Radio 3. The two major achievements which appear to bring success in the Sonys have been healthy ratings and regular publicity in the tabloids, neither of which are fundamental to Radio 3's real success or its remit.

For only the second time in the history of the awards Radio 3 was nominated for the Station of the Year Award, and for the first time it won the Gold. In the words of the judges. "Radio 3 has sustained a particularly strong schedule of appealing breadth, with a subtle combination of challenging and accessible material that is presented in a thoroughly entertaining manner."

This result is a turnaround from last year when it was indecently pointed out in the press that Radio 3 'went home completely empty-handed'. This was not in fact accurate, since the station won a silver and four bronzes, but in the media there's no praise for coming second or third.

Does this present success matter? Not in any fundamental sense since Radio 3 can go about its business quietly and creatively without winning awards, and in that respect this year has been very little different from any other in recent years. But for the Controller and all the R3 staff it's a public pat on the back which they deserve just as much as anyone else in radio broadcasting. However, public perceptions matter and the journalists' angle has been that Radio 3 is not merely deserving of the award but, more importantly, that its programming matters.

The result has been been well received in the press, with Paul Donovan in the Sunday Times predicting, on the eve of the announcement (and only four weeks after our own published prediction, below), that Radio 3 would win. Donovan also hinted, as we had done earlier, that one reason why it was important for Radio 3 to win was that focusing on higher things would polish the Beeb's image, tarnished by recent sleaze and deceit. Dan Sabbagh said much the same thing in The Times, declaring that Controller Roger Wright 'could be considered the public service conscience of the BBC'.

This then could be a time for self-congratulation, for sitting back on the laurels. But no one really believes this is what the awards are about. They are about publicity. With the press making the right noises about Radio 3 – praising it for its core content rather than for the novelties – this could be the time to affirm even more strongly that Radio 3, in Sabbagh's words 'the ultimate justification for the licence fee', is culturally and intellectually ambitious. The Sony seal of approval means that Radio 3 can be ambitious. It can be quirky. It can take risks. It can be confident in its own direction. What we ask is that it should focus on its content rather than on who it's trying to satisfy.

Above all, it should be intelligent.

Full details of Gold Award programmes:

Words and Music

Commissioning Editor: Abigail Appleton
Editors: Matthew Dodd & Tony Cheevers
Senior Producers: Fiona McLean & Jessica Isaacs
Producers and BAs: Radio Arts and Radio 3 production teams

'A joy to listen to, a radio programme playing to the essential strengths of the medium, giving the listener the means to embark on a magical journey. Unique, stimulating and very special.' BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for BBC Radio 3.

Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth

Producer: Jeremy Evans
Presenter: Stephen Johnson
Researcher: Georgia Mann
Studio Manager: Chris Muir
Editor: Tony Cheevers

'This was a beautifully crafted and profound programme, which the judges felt engaged the listener through the presenters personal journey and discovery of the man, Vaughan Williams. A good cast, with an overarching sensitivity throughout.' BBC Radio 3

Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall

Presenter: Alan Dein
Producer: Sara Jane Hall
Executive Producer: Simon Elmes
Editor: Rob Ketteridge

'Described by one of the judges as a perfect feature. An original idea a radio meditation about both sides of the wall at Pentonville Prison, London beautifully constructed and seamlessly told, so that speech became music and music speech. You were there! said another judge.' BBC Radio Documentaries for BBC Radio 3

When was the last time that Radio 3 was nominated for the award of Sony Station of the Year? Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 and Classic FM have been regular winners, but Radio 3 has not even been nominated. But in 2009 that has changed. It will be a contest between Radio 1, Radio 3 and Classic FM, and this year could just be Radio 3's year. The results will be announced on May 11th.

Last year one of the main sub-stories in the press was that, 'in spite of all the money it costs and its small audience', Radio 3 was notable in not having won a single Sony Gold Award. The fact that Radio 3 seldom wins any gold awards was not allowed to spoil the story. In recent years most, if not all, of Radio 3's small bag (mainly silvers and bronzes) has been for its specialist jazz, world and features output, or for drama. Most of the high-profile Sony categories are based on the idea that success = high ratings, the be-all and end-all for the commercial stations. Radio 3 isn't in that game. Meanwhile, in a category which might be thought to be a level playing field – drama – Radio 4 has four nominations this year while Radio 3 has none, in spite of such high class productions as Annie Caulfield's Your Only Man, based on the writings and life of Flann O'Brien, Racine's Bajazet and Milton's Samson Agonistes.

So what does this year's nomination mean? How do the judges decide between Radio 1 and Radio 3? Or between Radio 3 and Classic FM? What does it mean to win the top award?

Some years ago Michael Grade expressed the view that if Radio 3 started increasing its ratings significantly, it would show that it had got something wrong. The same might be said about winning Sonys. It isn't clear to us exactly how the nominations and judging work, but it seems that the BBC puts forward its nominees. Assuming they didn't nominate every station for the Station of the Year, they chose Radio 3. Or does some other body choose the final nominees? If so, why Radio 3? What has been notable this year?

Well, sometimes when a station has had a poor year with its ratings, a recovery the following year merits a nomination. Radio 3 hit disaster in 2007/08 and has recovered somewhat in 2008/09. No need to point out how awful the ratings were the previous year and how easy it was to improve on them, Radio 3 is 'on the up'. That could be one reason.

High profile projects may count and last year there was the Chopin Experience (which has a nomination) and the Vaughan Williams 'Valiant for Truth' feature (also nominated).

Then there is the series of BBC 'scandals' – the phone-in deceptions, the Blue Peter cat, Ross and Brand. Perhaps this is the BBC trying to recover some vestige of its lost dignity and prestige, pushing Radio 3 as its serious side, quality, excellence? Isn't that what the current 'Handel on 3' TV trails are for? And there is a series of four trails. This is professional advertising stuff, and it costs.

Look carefully at those trails because they have been created by Red Bee Media, 'the global leader in transforming media brands'. So what is the brand that the ads are portraying? They are aimed at 'people aged 35+ who enjoy culture and the arts [but] haven't explored classical music in the same way as other arts such as films, books and art galleries – the campaign aims to encourage more people to do this'. Well, that sounds all right. As long as they accept that people who go to art galleries, read books, go to the theatre and cinema could be intelligent human beings, curious to discover more about a wide range of arts, typical Radio 3 listeners, in fact. They don't need to be treated like 12-year-olds just because they don't as yet know a lot about classical music.

As for the Sonys, well, it just might be Buggins' turn this year. If Radio 3 wins – and we think it might – the BBC will be delighted. But the whole thing is part of the commercial media hype. If it means nothing when Radio 3 fails to win anything, it means nothing if it does win. If it does win, how will the BBC Press Office play it? Recognition of the BBC's unique contribution to culture? Or the success of Radio 3's policy to encourage a cultural '3 for All'? We shall see.

Radio 3 Sony nominations:

The Music Programme Award:
Words and Music – BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for Radio 3

The Music Special Award:
Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth – BBC Radio 3

The Feature Award:
Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall – BBC Radio Documentaries for Radio 3

The Themed Programming Award:
The Chopin Experience – BBC Radio 3

UK Station of the Year, from:
BBC Radio 1
BBC Radio 3
Classic FM

This week marks the 400th anniversary of the birth of John Milton, who fifty years ago was probably still spoken of in the same breath as Shakespeare. In a time when even honour'd Shakespeare is beginning to struggle in some quarters, Milton seems to have fallen out of the national consciousness.

The quatercentenary has aroused some interest in the broadsheets where Milton Reassessed has been sometimes judiciously critical, sometimes anachronistic. But for anyone wanting to be gently introduced or reintroduced to Milton's thought and times, Radio 3 has been providing the ideal opportunity: talks, features, individual poems and a reading of the complete Paradise Lost, all programmed throughout the schedule. 'Milton at Breakfast' appears to have been well received (unlike the Free Thought series which seemed to outstay its welcome).

One crucial point picked up by Paul Donovan in the Sunday Times is that Radio 3 has not been able to make a new version of Paradise Lost. As Donovan says:

"It is a bleak sign of how the BBC chooses to spend its licence fee, however, that Radio 3 has not been able to make its own version of Paradise Lost. Instead, we will hear a recording that is commercially available on the Naxos label. It has been on sale for three years, with Anton Lesser as the reader. When BBC radio last mounted Paradise Lost, apart from later extracts in one-off programmes, it was (abridged) on Radio 4 longwave in 1992-93 with Denis Quilley and a cast of seven playing Satan, Beelzebub, Adam, Eve and so on. The BBC argues that it is having to make cuts across all its services because the last licence fee settlement was lower than expected. This cuts little ice with those who observe the obscenely bloated amounts paid to Jonathan Ross and others."

Deep down, the BBC knows this is the sort of thing it should be doing (after all, Radio 3's achievements are what they trumpet when they want to argue for the renewal of the Royal Charter). Full marks to Radio 3 for programming aimed at no audience in particular, but for everyone, and which will delight those concerned about the preservation of our national culture and wish it to be more widely appreciated.

This month sees Roger Wright's tenth anniversary as controller of Radio 3. So far we haven't seen this landmark publicly recognised (although it has already just passed), so we offer Roger our hearty congratulations.

According to the press, FoR3 is 'not a bosom buddy' of the controller (that's The Independent's Ian Burrell), we are 'Enemies of Roger Wright' (Chris Campling in The Times) and even 'inclined to stick pins in his effigy' (Norman Lebrecht). None of this is remotely true. We gather views of Radio 3 listeners and we pass them on to the controller for a response. Our most recent exchange was a letter of appreciation from FoR3 supporters and a warm note of thanks from the controller.

There's nothing hugely different about FoR3 and previous groups which have sought to protect – usually against the ravages of the BBC itself – the cultural heritage of which the Third Programme/Radio 3 have been the doughty custodians. The Third Programme Defence Society, back in the 1950s, was supported by Vaughan Williams, Laurence Olivier and TS Eliot; in 1969 the Campaign for Better Broadcasting, led by Sir Adrian Boult, Jonathan Miller, George Melly and other distinguished people, fought particularly to protect the speech output of the station and the BBC's orchestras. Save Radio 3, which was reacting against some of the populist changes of Nicholas Kenyon in the late 1990s, seems to have left no trace. FoR3, established in 2003 and also supported by many distinguished people in the arts, is probably the longest-lived of them all. Yes, we criticise what we disapprove of, but pins in effigies…?

The BBC now is characterised by its tawdry Palace of Entertainment. It pays vast sums to what it calls 'talent' in order to see off commercial competition. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from what the Third Programme/Radio 3 were set up to provide, yet the marketing battalion marches in with its adverts and vain attempts to increase ratings under the guise of 'reaching a wider audience' and 'providing value for money'.

Roger Wright has been in post longer than his immediate boss, the Director of Audio and Music, longer than the BBC director general, longer than the BBC chairman. He's got the two jobs (Radio 3 and the Proms) which are already the pinnacle of what he could wish for and he can stay at the BBC until he retires. He doesn't have to kowtow to anyone. He has the qualities to be the controller that FoR3 would dream of: a wide interest in the arts, open-minded, knowledgeable and looking into the future.

Roger, don't try to push out the audience you have in order to cultivate a different one. If you can increase the audience for what Radio 3 was set up to do, instead of changing what Radio 3 does in order to bring in more listeners, you'll have done well. And dump those programme trails!

Last quarter (July – September) included the Proms season. The third quarter of the year has historically been a strong one for Radio 3 listening and this year saw a fractional increase in reach on last year – 1.947 million instead of 1.938 million. Nevertheless, for only the third time ever, Proms quarter has failed to reach 2 million. It may have been a slight increase on last year, but by the standards of the past nine years it certainly wasn't good – or even average.

Listening hours were down on last year, from 12.124 million hours per week to 11.863 million hours, on the low side of average for recent years but well down on the 13-14 million of a few years ago.

Last quarter we predicted that the current year, 2008-09, would be better than last year (the poorest performance ever) but reach and listening hours seem to be settling into a lower average over the past five years.

One figure which will be noticed is the separate figure for the Breakfast programme – the only individual programme for which reach is published. There is always a certain volatility to this figure but two things can be said: that the new Breakfast programme, launched in February 2007, is clearly not performing as well as its predecessor Morning on 3; and that last quarter's reach was the lowest since figures were published at the beginning of 2005, and the first time reach (682,000) has fallen below 700,000 per week.

Our own survey, carried out earlier in the year, indicated that fewer of our sample were now listening to the early morning programme and many of those who were listening said they were more likely to switch off than previously. The RAJAR figures seem to reflect this.

A puzzling point is that whereas the BBC has introduced policies specifically designed to keep its audience listening, and to listen more, other practices seem designed to make them switch off. One can argue the two sides as to whether the Great American Songbook, or jazz, or 'world music', "should" feature in an otherwise classical programme. But the main advantage of shifting the Breakfast programme on from 6am-9am to 7am-10am was to keep people listening over the crucial 9am "switch-off" point. Yet one can't deny that playing Schubert and Prokofiev, followed immediately by Frank Sinatra will make some people turn off (by 8.30am in this particular case, 26 September). Where's the gain?

But do listening figures matter to Radio 3?

In general, no, they don't, and we'd be the first to defend Radio 3 for delivering programmes which they believe in and which clearly would not appeal to more than a very small audience. That is the fundamental purpose of Radio 3. The question here, though, is not the size of the audience but why the audience is getting smaller, why many people who used to be regular listeners no longer are, or listen less than they once did.

In fact, does an audience of 1.9 million which is more diverse in its interests (and in its audience profile, assuming this to be the case) represent better value to the licence fee payer than an audience of 2.1 million whose interests centre on the (so-called elitist) 'high arts' and classical music? If so, why is it better value? Isn't making 'elitist' programming more widely available exactly what Radio 3 – and the Third Programme before that – has always been about?

The RAJAR listening figures for the quarter April-June were published today and the BBC press release went to town: 'Return to form for "unique" Radio 3' is the top headline on Press Office front page. Now, that sounds like a sudden reversal of fortune – so let's look at this a bit more closely.

Looking across the results we see that there isn't much outstandingly good news for BBC Radio, no obvious big stories. No records this quarter for Radio 1, Radio 2, Chris Moyles or Terry Wogan. Most of the BBC stations are a little down on last quarter, and BBC Radio's lead over the commercials has slipped slightly from its record high. Only the digital stations Sports Extra and BBC 6 Music show nice increases.

Oh, but then there's Radio 3! With most stations dropping back slightly, Radio 3 has chosen this moment to forge ahead in a 'return to form' after desperately bad results last year. But it's surely talking it up a little to speak of a 'return to form' with a reach of 1.91m, unless the BBC has decided that this is probably where Radio 3 is doomed to languish for the foreseeable future.

Look at last year's quarterly figures: April-June 1.783m; July-September 1.938m; October-December 1.95m; January-March 1.795m. And that was the worst year ever. It will be a relief to see these figures moving up a little since this quarter has a tendency to be very low, so the signs are that this year won't be as bad as last year. That said, two quarters last year were so staggeringly awful (a fact never mentioned in the press releases or acknowledged by management – just a 'slight dip', they said) that an improvement was on the cards.

The listening hours have returned to a norm after disaster last quarter which, in view of today's figure, was probably an anomalous blip, poor, perhaps, but not as poor as all that.

However, 'a return to form'? Of the 38 quarterly results there have been since RAJAR introduced its new methodology in 1999, this is the fifth lowest. All five lowest figures have been recorded in the last two and a bit years. The highest ever was 2.29m in March 2004. The difference between the highest and the lowest, four years later, is 507,000. Yet somehow the BBC manages to convince itself that the figures are 'broadly stable' while witnessing a drop of 22%. The tactic is clear: admit nothing, and tough it out until the picture changes for the better. When the figures hit rock bottom, say nothing; when they rise, herald it as a success.

So, it's rather a question of what lies behind a press release!

The BBC's annual report for 2007/08 has now been published. There are 56 pages from the BBC Trust and 152 from the BBC Executive (management) which can be read here.

Listening figures: In the previous year's report (2006/07) the Trust noted the decline in Radio 3's listening figures and said they would be studying the effects of the schedule changes of February 2007. In 2007/08 the audience and listening hours went down again, the year seeing the two lowest quarterly figures ever. The year's average was the lowest ever.

FoR3 has sent two submissions to the Trust in recent months: the results of a listener survey which focused on the new schedules and was disapproving of a range of the changes, especially the cut in live concert broadcasts and the recorded studio compilations instead of concert hall recordings; our subsequent report covered a wider range of issues. Together they suggested a number of reasons why Radio 3 listeners were deserting the station or listening less.

The Trust in its report, while noting that the audience was still declining, undertook to keep track of the situation. As they did last year. We felt that the evidence of a connection between the station policies and the decline in listening was overwhelming. The Trust didn't feel it was worth mentioning. Instead they repeated management's excuses, as aired on Radio 4's Feedback.

This is what the Trust said:

"Radio 3's level of approval has risen in the last year but its average reach and hours of listening are all declining. Schedule changes made in 2007 have not so far increased reach which is at 1.9 million. We will continue to track the service's performance in light of these trends, but we note that the only other classical music radio station in the UK, Classic FM, is also facing declines in reach and share and this may be due to increased listening to Radio 2 and Radio 4."

1. Radio 3's level of approval has risen: the Trust does mention elsewhere in the report, however, that a change in the listening panel has resulted in an 'inflation' in appreciation figures across the board.

2. Classic FM's figures are also going down: it's not clear what is being implied here. What has Classic FM got to do with it? Is it classical music that's at fault?

3. Radio 2 and Radio 4 have seen a rise in their listening, so it could be that Radio 3 audiences are listening more to the other stations. This is not an explanation. We have evidence to the effect that they are indeed listening more to Radio 4. This stems from regular dissatisfactionwith Radio 3. In any case, Radio 1's listening is also up: perhaps Radio 3 listeners have been lured over to Rob da Bank and the Radio 1 Punk Show as well?

The Controller said on Feedback that the final quarter of 2007/08 had only been down, year on year, by about 5%. The Chairman said in an earlier letter to FoR3 that the year's listening was only 'marginally' down. In fact, 2006/07 saw a weekly average of 1.944 million (the lowest average ever) and 2007/08 had a weekly average of 1.867m – 4% lower than the lowest ever. The percentage of the population listening was down from 3.91% to 3.71%, and that is a decrease of 5%, again, on the lowest figure ever. We don't consider that the description 'marginal' is justified. We think it would be a significant drop on an average performance; it is even more significant when it is a reduction on the previous lowest ever.

The Radio 3 budget: we have been questioning management for some time about Radio 3's budget and the fact that recent annual reports suggest that expenditure has been cut for seven successive years. Our queries have been answered, but not satisfactorily. We noted with interest that when the new service licences were issued some months back, Radio 3's guideline budget had been significantly increased, though it was still possible that an allowable 10% variation would result in a lower actual expenditure for an eighth year.

The report now reveals that the apparent increase is due to the fact that the costs of broadcasting the Proms, previously allocated to the BBC Orchestras, have been transferred to Radio 3. The 'increase' was simply a transfer of costs. Overall there has been a rise of £900,000, but since we don't know what the breakdown costs for orchestras and Proms broadcasting were last year, we can't tell where the extra money has gone: to the orchestras, to the broadcast costs or to Radio 3. It seems unlikely, though, that Radio 3's expenditure was decreased.

Output hours: until this year there has always been a table giving the number of hours in the year devoted to the various types of programmes: music, arts, drama, news, presentation &c. This year all the radio stations have been lumped together so we can't at present compare last year's figures with the previous year.. We have asked for Radio 3's separate figures and will report on anything significant. What can be seen is an 8% increase overall in radio 'presentation', which we believe covers all those in between bits, like programme trails.

Overall, the report is the usual BBC glossy, bland, self-congratulatory affair, reassuring about recent scandals, with the press largely ignoring all except the details of the salary hikes and bonuses for top management. Enough has already been said about that but here is one report we particularly enjoyed.

One of the advantages of being Controller of Radio 3 and Director of the Proms is that the media are always willing to listen to you. An appearance on Radio 4's Feedback, an interview with one of the broadsheets: this is good publicity for you, you can say what you like and no one is in a position to challenge you.

The RAJAR disaster rumbles on. The Controller appeared on Feedback on 16 May and, believe it or not, there was barely a mention of the schedule changes. Asked whether the schedule changes had failed, the Controller replied, 'Not entirely' and moved on.

On 23 May The Times published an interview with Richard Morrison covering the same topic and eliciting more or less the same comments. No reference at all to the schedule changes here.

In both interviews Wright said, Of course, we know exactly how to raise our audience figures. And both interviewers fell into the trap by asking what. Why, he told Roger Bolton on Feedback, drama figures registered their lowest ever in recent years. If we dropped drama and replaced it with music we could treble the audience. But, our public service remit dictates that we keep drama.

Some solution! Of course, it would depend what music you replaced the drama with, but if it was classical music it would hardly bring any new listeners to Radio 3 since classical music lovers already tune in. You would just lose those drama listeners who aren't keen on classical music. In any case, with station figures at rock bottom, what other programmes were at a lowest ever? The butchered evening concert, for example?

He told Richard Morrison: "We could operate a computer playlist. We could play CDs instead of broadcasting major events such as The Minotaur at Covent Garden. We could ensure we played nothing people didn't like." The Classic FM route, then, which we wouldn't do: "That's against the whole ethos of public service broadcasting."

Surprising, then, how many people in our recent listener survey mentioned that Radio 3 was getting more and more like Classic FM. It surely would not be unreasonable to point out that for the past nine years Wright has been steadily 'popularising' the station, reaching out to 'a wider audience', becoming accessible and inclusive, casting off that old elitist image while alienating his listeners in the process. That is why they switch off, that is why the listening figures are down.

Then comes the dismissal of the RAJAR figures: 'They're only 5% down.' So, 5% down on what? Well, actually, 5.6% down on what had formerly been the second lowest quarterly figure ever (from 1.902 m to 1.795 m). Overall, the year 2007/08 had the lowest audience ever.

Then there was the 'excuse' on Feedback that Radio 2 and Radio 4 had had particularly strong performances and had possibly taken some of Radio 3's daytime listeners. But as any listener could tell him, in any given week it's perfectly possible to listen to Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4. You may listen to Radio 3 less, but unless you stop listening completely you're still counted in Radio 3's audience. However, this point about the other stations does bring us to the matter of the listening hours, and here the fall was even more disastrous than the audience figures: year on year, the drop was not 5% but 18.7% (from 12,014 million hours to 9,764 million). Again, our listener survey backed that up: listeners said they were listening less over the past year. Only the Proms quarter recorded a just about reasonable level of listening.

So to sum up, here is the Controller's view:

• We could popularise to gain more listeners, but we wouldn't dream of doing that, indeed our remit wouldn't permit it.
• In any case, the figures have only dipped slightly.
• And anyway Classic FM's figures are down so perhaps it's because people are going off classical music.
• And all listener criticisms can be disregarded because they all say different things and dislike each other's tastes.

Nothing about any changes of policy (what changes of policy?), nothing about any schedule changes (what have they got to do with anything?), listening figures aren't fading (they're not, they're not, they're not), and even if they are, Radio 3 is not judged solely on listening figures. Everything's fine, and even if it isn't, it's not my fault.

Very impressive. And where do we go from here?

The quarterly audience listening figures published by RAJAR today are certainly the most momentous for over a decade, possibly for a lot longer. It will depend on repercussions.

Reach was a tweak above the lowest ever (the lowest was earlier this year); the great God 'share' below 1% for the first time ever; and the listening hours in danger of going through the floor.

What do they mean? They mean that listeners are continuing to drift away from Radio 3 and those who remain are listening less than they used to, ready to become the next generation of defectors.

Why? FoR3 supporters will know that we carried out a survey at the beginning of April. Nothing contentious, just what did you think of the various changes introduced last year, the most extensive shake-up in the schedule ever? The answers couldn't have been clearer: listeners did not like them:

1. 63% were listening less than the previous year – hence the reduction in RAJAR's listening hours
2. 81% didn't like the changes to the evening concert, and were listening less
3. the weekday Breakfast, the 'flagship' programme, was worse than Morning on 3 and frequently described as 'annoying' and 'irritating'
4. few of the newer programmes (such as Classical Collection, Iain Burnside, Radio 3 Requests, The Choir) found much favour – too lightweight and Classic FM-ish
5. programme trailing policy and 'interactivity' both had an overwhelming thumbs-down.

Was there any good news in the survey? A surprising success was The Essay: the content was good though a majority preferred the concert interval talk (in the middle of a 'live' concert, of course) rather than an isolated 15-minute spot at 11pm. Words and Music found favour with the minority who listened at that late hour. Choral Evensong listeners voted 78% for a Wednesday afternoon broadcast, rather than Sunday, so will be pleased at the announcement that it will return to the live Wednesday transmissions in September. And that long-time favourite Through the Night, unaffected by last year's upheavals, continues to give pleasure.

But the message of RAJAR is clear: there needs to be a new strategy for Radio 3, preferably a new service licence and certainly, before too long, a new Controller. The BBC Trust said in last year's Annual Report that they would be looking to see what impact the schedule changes would have on Radio 3's performance. Now they know. We shall be sending them the results of our survey which flesh out the grim message of the figures.

The brochure [PDF] has been published for the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra's winter season – and, here's a surprise: the Russian Winter series will be carried live on Radio 3. That's 'live' as in 'live transmission'. True, with a proper sense of priorities, the time has been brought forward to 7pm to fit in with Radio 3's iron schedule; but that's the advantage of a BBC orchestra – the BBC can lay down the law about such things.

The Glasgow Herald carries a story today which states that, in 'a dramatic reversal of policy' all BBC orchestras concerts will be broadcast live on Radio 3. That may be for some time further in the future – the BBC SSO's other concerts are timed to begin at 7.30pm and there's no mention of live transmissions for them. But this is a start.

And let this not distract attention from the BBC SSO's newly announced season, Ilan Volkov's final one as Chief Conductor: they say it's a good one and that's how it looks.

James Corden, writer and star of comedy TV hit Gavin and Stacey, on digital television channel BBC 3, hit back at radio veteran John Humphrys for saying that BBC3 should be abolished:

"This is not a channel for him, it is not a channel that he should even ever watch. In fact, if he doesn't watch it, and he doesn't like it, it is doing everything it should."

An interesting sentiment. If Radio 3 listeners were to suggest that anyone 'shouldn't even ever listen' to Radio 3, that it was not for them and that if people didn't like it, then it was doing everything it should, they would be branded elitists (pejorative sense) and snobs, selfishly wanting to keep the station for themselves.

Similar arguments are now going on over the pop and rock station BBC 6 Music, its morning programmes now hosted by new, less knowledgeable presenters who 'talk too much'. The partial defence from the BBC is that one, at least, of the programmes is now an 'entertainment-based music show' – rather than a music-based music show, presumably. Are listeners who protest that they want expert presenters who get on and play the music also elitists and snobs?

Why is is that people who want to defend the serious standards of a classical music and arts station are the only ones to be called elitists, snobs, whinging old guard, old fuddy-duddies wanting to keep out those who don't share their tastes?

Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, has just been voted the most powerful person in British culture.

Hytner on the 'scandal' of 'the damage which has been done by decades of neglect in schools':

"A generation has been deprived of the tools it should have been given to open a door that can otherwise seem daunting. The problem we now face – those of us who run theatres, galleries, dance companies and orchestras – is that we want to make that door open as quickly as possible. But it gets to a point where you have to draw the line and say we can't go any further.

"Are we going to make-over Mozart by making it sound as if it has a dance music beat? No, we are not! Are we going to translate Shakespeare more than we do already? No, we are not! We have to insist that for the arts to be as revelatory and transformative as they can be they often have to be quite demanding."

The arts as 'revelatory and transformative'? And the BBC offers that deprived generation BBC 3, while Radio 3 is given the stealthy 'make-over' to give it wider appeal to the metaphorical John Humphryses who – to quote – 'shouldn't even ever be listening' because 'it's not a station for them'. The BBC can understand and cater for the different requirements of a whole – younger – generation but not, apparently, the different requirements of an intellect which spans the generations, including that same youthful generation.

Hearty congratulations to the BBC which after a protracted battle has succeeded in winning its Freedom of Information case against Parliament. The government has now been forced to disclose details of MPs' expenses.

"Commons speaker Michael Martin has released details of top MPs' expenses – including John Prescott's £4,000 food bill and a TV licence for Tony Blair. The details follow a three-year Freedom of Information (FOI) battle by the BBC, which covers the expenses of six MPs." BBC News website, Friday, 4 April, 2008.

And so it should be: those who are paid by the public should be accountable to the public. Which brings us to the matter of the FoR3 battle to get the BBC to disclose information of public interest under the Freedom of Information Act. We asked for details of Radio 3 listening figures so that we could compare the evening audience for the old 'live' concert programmes with the current, less popular studio-presented recordings. We received two unofficial reasons from the BBC as to why they couldn't or weren't obliged to reveal the information, followed by a third, under the Freedom of Information Act, with a different reason altogether. The matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner, though our battle has lasted a mere four months.

What is clear is that while the BBC battles to get other organisations to disclose information in the public interest, it fights tooth and nail to avoid revealing how it runs its own business.

"A BBC Trust spokesman said: "In its first year, the BBC Trust has implemented many changes to improve transparency and accountability at the BBC, including service licences, full explanations for decisions relating to new services and periods of public consultation. "We note the committee's report about some specific issues and will consider its recommendations when preparing this year's annual report."

If the Trust begins to dismantle the BBC's culture of secrecy, they will have done well.

One of the main complaints about BBC programme trails on Radio 3 is that they can be so insensitively placed (and they can also be crass, too frequent and have irritating musical snippets). But so far the relentless attempt to get people to listen more, and so increase BBC Radio's 'share' of listening, hasn't quite hit the depths of Radio 2 last Friday. Good Friday, actually.

To mark the season there was a recorded broadcast of a service of music, readings and prayers held in St Paul's Cathedral. As well as hymns, there were performances by the choir of Allegri's Miserere and Fauré's Requiem. In all, the programme lasted for one hour and forty-five minutes. Oh, dear, rather a long time for radio listeners to concentrate without a break, even if it was to mark the most solemn moments in the Christian calendar. Well, how about a programme trail to brighten things up? They wouldn't, would they? Well, yes, they would. The movements of the Requiem were separated by readings, so…

No sooner had the notes faded from the Pie Jesu, the plea for eternal rest for the dead, than there was a whining pop song ('You've got that looook again…'), a plug for the next day's Radio 2 Music Club, more pop songs, a clip of a presenter and guest, loud laughter from the audience, another plug for the programme and Radio 2 ('online, on digital and on 88-91FM'), loud audience cheers, fading straight into the reading from St Matthew's gospel: 'Now Jesus stood…'). They wouldn't have inflicted that on the congregation in St Paul's Cathedral, why inflict it on the listeners at home?

If you want to hear the clip, it's here. It exerts a certain horrible fascination. So horrible, it's funny, in a sort of Monty Python way.

Is the BBC really so desperate to thrash the commercial competition that it's lost all sense of propriety, dignity and proportion? It seems that way, so Radio 3 – look out. If the ridiculous Controller of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas (she of the 'women don't like intellectual discussions' persuasion) has her way, she'll be getting her pop trails into Composer of the Week, Choral Evensong, Live from the Met and three times on Through the Night. The BBC has truly sold its soul to the marketing department.

The BBC has come in for a bit of stick this week with Paul Donovan's article knocking the practice of raising radio presenters above their station; to say nothing of the continuing furore among 6 Music listeners over Radio 2 Controller Lesley Douglas's choice of a new morning presenter, George Lamb.

Complaints about the heightened profile given to presenters have been rumbling on for several years among Radio 3 listeners. Whereas the BBC apparently believes that the presenters will attract more listeners, listeners complain of the irritation caused by the inappropriate change of style. Several years back the Controller was tackled about this: the awful 'I'm So-and-So, join me' cliché, 'Glad you could join me', 'Later on I'll be playing for you', 'On my show tomorrow', and so on. The Controller replied that it was good for the presenters to feel that it was 'their' programme. That seems to have been the beginning of this 'creeping cult of ego' on Radio 3, the desire (or perhaps instruction from above) to put a personal stamp on the programme, to chat, to divulge their own feelings and opinions, to make programmes more 'fun' and breakfast shows more 'breakfasty'.

It began with Brian Kay who couldn't have a programme which didn't include his name in the title; then Andy Kershaw brought his own name to his own show. The revamped Discovering Music became (briefly) Charles Hazlewood Discovering Music.

Last year, when the new schedules were announced, the press release revealed that the new breakfast 'show' would be called, 'eponymously', Rob Cowan. The objections began at once and there was an apparent change of mind: the programme was to be called 'Breakfast' to reflect the fact that there would be different presenters. Yet, bit by bit, the names of the presenters have crept back, at least in the pages of Radio Times. And Radio 3's online schedule maintains the title 'Breakfast', but the presenter's name is more prominent.

Does it matter whether a Radio 3 programme is named after a presenter? Does it matter that the early morning programme is referred to as 'the Breakfast Show'? No. These could only possibly be matters of minor irritation. What really matters is the change of style that comes with the change of name; what matters is how it affects what the listener hears over the air waves: self indulgent chatter, idiosyncratic mannerisms, redundant personal opinions (especially effusive eulogies), catchphrases, 'fun' items. Far from attracting listeners in droves, these are a positive – literal – turn-off. How good it would be if Radio 3 took a stand and reverted to the practice of having announcers ('serving the content', as the late Cormac Rigby described it), speaking clearly, adding a few facts for context and putting the music – or spoken subject matter – at the centre of the programme.

Looking back at the Radio Times of years ago, we see that the name of the orchestra leader was always published, the name of the presenter never appeared. For a music station that would seem to be a custom worth reviving.

Meanwhile, the creeping cult of ego has justified the replacement of a musically knowledgeable presenter on 6 Music with this. What's wrong here is that a style of broadcasting is imposed on an audience that wants something different. Only arrogance and hidden agendas keep the BBC from providing listeners with what they want.

After what must have been a deluge of complaint, the radio editor of Radio Times made an appearance on the Radio Times forum with an announcement that the listings for Radio 3's Through the Night programme would be reinstated, as from the issue for 15-21 March. This goes to show that complaints can be effective. One thing is certain: if there are no complaints, nothing will be changed.

BBC 6 Music is not a subject that normally gets discussed here, though a recent furore among its listeners caught our ear. The presenter of a new programme had provoked an irate reaction: 'offensive, repetitive, dull and inarticulate ', 'inane banter', 'meaningless drivel and street-talk', 'a pain to listen to'. In the wake of the torrent of invective, the Controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music appeared on the Feedback programme to justify the appointment.

It turns out that Lesley Douglas had been addressing the fact that 6 Music had more male listeners than female. And male listeners wanted intellectual discussion of music whereas women wanted a hunky young chap with dollops of misplaced self-confidence who intersperses his incoherent mumbling with saucy comments. "If you've heard George recently talking about Rave and Dance", said Ms Douglas, "there's a passion and it's less intellectual in approach to music but it is still about passion and love of music absolutely at its heart." What's more, Ms Douglas reveals "It's what the whole station is trying to do."

The problem is for those listeners, male and female, who absolutely do not want this type programme and coverage which 'the whole station' is now trying to do. And the question to ask is, what is 6 Music for? Should it consolidate its reputation as a distinctive station for serious music fans or should it market itself vigorously to attract more women listeners?

Which brings us, of course, to Radio 3. We begin to distinguish a BBC doctrine here: Radio 3 also has more male listeners than female. Oh, dear. Something must be done. So it's in with the chatty, welcoming presenters who emote effusively about the music (it is indeed officially described as 'sharing their passion') and who don't put off potential women listeners by being too intellectual. And again, 'It's what the whole station is trying to do.' And again, the complaints have rolled in.

Ms Douglas had the grace to be slightly apologetic, as well she might, about stereotyping men and women in this way, but it didn't stop her doing it, and basing the policy for an entire station on it in a way that is both insulting and patronising. And Radio 3, it seems, has the same idea.

Now, let us suppose that an unquantified proportion of women (and men too) respond positively to light-hearted, inconsequential chat and are put off by an intellectual approach. So what? Can't the BBC provide at least one station which prides itself on its intelligent, expert coverage, eschews the personalisation of presentation and isn't afraid to present its listeners with intellectual challenges?

Britain has historically never valued the intellectual life very highly, though surely a public service broadcaster like the BBC should be in the forefront of promoting it? But our present society of mass entertainment and celebrity culture now derides anything intellectual and dismisses it as 'elitist' – and the BBC hasn't had the wit, confidence or determination to challenge that view. Shame on them.

It was noted a few weeks back that the space for Radio 3 listings in Radio Times had been reduced, by 20%. The victim was that worst-kept secret, Through the Night, which instead of having the full listings for the six-hour programme was cut back to no more than half a dozen titles. Browsing through these lists had become a favourite pastime for fans of the programme, noting and finding out in advance about little-known composers and works. It was educational.

But when the digital station theJazz appeared, resulting in the rearrangement of the radio page, Radio 3's space was slashed to make room for it and the majority of Through the Night's listings were lost.

Letters and emails were sent to Radio Times to complain, and after a couple of weeks, by coincidence, it was announced that theJazz was closing down. Radio Times responded to those who had complained, saying that they would probably be redesigning the page as a result of the closure of theJazz. So has Radio 3 got its space back? No. BBC 6 Music has taken the vacant slot, Radio 2 gets a 45% increase (with details padded out to fill the space) and Through the Night still gets cursory coverage.

Does it matter that much? Well, it does because it represents yet another lurch towards a reduction in programme detail which the Radio 3 website itself has also been introducing gradually. There are complaints that, regularly, only bare details of the Breakfast programme appear in advance (to be updated after the programme), and now the same is happening to Afternoon on 3: you can check the main works but you don't know what time they will be on.

Radio 3 was always aimed at 'selective' listeners – people who studied the programme content in advance and decided whether or not to listen. But that isn't the new way: the BBC encourages radio as 'background listening', never mind what the music is, just.keep listening. Some people do, apparently, prefer to know nothing in advance and be surprised; if so, they don't have to look at the listings. But those who do want to know are being deprived, being forced to be non-selective, to take pot luck. If you have the name of the presenter and the time the programme starts, that's all you need, just like with the pop stations. Switch on anyway, there's sure to be something you like, sooner or later.

We can assure both Radio 3 and Radio Times that there are still plenty of listeners who take an intelligent, thoughtful interest in the programmes and want to be told in advance what they're getting. In a world of zombie, unheeded wallpaper muzak, this may, perhaps, be a dwindling band but that's no reason for the BBC to attempt compulsory brainectomies on them. Please give us the information needed to select critically and to research before the programmes are aired.

A press release today has revealed that Choral Evensong which was shifted from Wednesday afternoons to Sundays in last year's programme shake-up is to return to live transmission on Wednesdays. A repeat will be broadcast in the Sunday slot.

As a group we felt this was not a matter of principle on which we should take a position but it was obvious that a lot of people felt very unhappy about the change. Enquiries confirmed that this was not confined to listeners but also affected participants.

It appeared to us that rescheduling priorities were the chief reason for the change, though the BBC claimed that a Sunday transmission would reach a bigger audience. We were unconvinced of this, and when we asked for the comparative listening figures as evidence the BBC refused to disclose them.

As it is, the repeat raises the profile of Choral Evensong, as did the launch last June of a dedicated messageboard. There were fears that the live transmission might be dropped but that possibility too seems now to have become more remote. We feel that, on the whole, more people will be pleased than otherwise and messageboard comments so far seem to support this.

So now, what about a return to the 7.30pm concert, live or 'as live', rather than the dry studio presentation and earlier start that was introduced last year? Since we know that many people find the new format very unappealing we asked the BBC whether the audience for this had dropped compared with the old concert format, but again the BBC refused to say. They cited 'commercial prejudice' which seems to be a current all-purpose excuse for not revealing anything that might be inconvenient.