« Previous | Main | Next »

Rachel Burden is New Presenter of 5 live Breakfast

Adrian Van-Klaveren Adrian Van-Klaveren | 10:15 UK time, Thursday, 10 February 2011

Rachel Burden and Nicky Campbell

Rachel Burden is going to be the new co-presenter of 5 live Breakfast when Shelagh Fogarty moves to the lunchtime slot in May. It's been a big decision to make because Breakfast is such a successful programme and Shelagh has built up a great following in her seven years presenting the show.

We've looked hard to find the best person, thinking about lots of possibile presenters all of whom had huge amounts to offer. We needed someone who could handle serious news and big interviews but was also comfortable with the whole range of subjects the programme covers.

Rachel has shown over the last few years she can do this and she's also someone who completely understands radio as a medium and what makes 5 live special. She's already worked a lot with Nicky and I'm sure that together they'll go from strength to strength creating great listening each morning.

As you'd expect, Rachel is thrilled by the prospect of the early start each day - to quote from our press release this morning she says:

"It's a brilliant opportunity to join what is already a hugely successful team. Shelagh is the mother of all breakfast broadcasters and I can only hope to match the impression she's made on the early mornings of millions of people. My family is already gearing up for the move to Salford and I am really excited about working alongside Nicky and the rest of 5 live in our new home in Salford Quays".

Of course this leaves a gap on Weekend Breakfast which Rachel co-presents with Phil Williams - who takes on that role is a decision I'll be making over the next few weeks.

Adrian Van-Klaveren is the controller of BBC Radio 5 live.


Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Poor Phil, missed out on a promotion yet again.

  • Comment number 2.

    Would none of the 'big names' move to Salford? Bit of a boring choice, still the Nicky Campbell show.

  • Comment number 3.

    Great choice

  • Comment number 4.

    Ghastly. I'm off! Campbell will be gone within 12 months too. She is AWFUL.

  • Comment number 5.

    Rachel is an excellent choice, feisty enough to hold her own with Nicky and with added bonus of someone who likes and knows something about Rugby to balance the football groupies.

  • Comment number 6.

    Like Jeffers signing for Motherwall

  • Comment number 7.

    Oh no! Awful Choice. Terrible scratchy voice like fingernails on a blackboard. Radio 4 it is.

  • Comment number 8.

    Oh dear, weekends were bad enough. Going to have to move away from 5 live in the weekday mornings. Really don't like Rachel, she is too noisy, bossy and full of rugby. Will really miss Shelagh.

  • Comment number 9.

    Oh dear, terrible mistake and a terrible voice. Shelagh has gravitas and a warm personality. Rachel is in the Blue Square league compared to Nicki's Premier League status. At least it will make weekend breakfast more barable. Thought that Eleanor Eldroyd would have been a great choice. Thank heavans for Evans on R2 for the week days. Any news on Danny Baker, hope he is making a good recovery, really missing him.

  • Comment number 10.

    This is the news I was dreading. I love breakfast and have listened from the start. But Ms Burden is by far the worst presenter on five live. Her voice is unlistenable to and she has very little culture or general knowledge - nothing that equates Shelagh's professionalism. I turn off whenever she is on - her voice grates on me. I was so happy to find another style to radio four but I cannot stand three hours every morning of Ms Burden. Why oh why are they doing this to us? There are some great female presenters out there - as a previous listener has stated - didn't they want to go to Manchester?
    please chose someone else BBC - someone who can keep up with the news and who is easy on the ears.

  • Comment number 11.

    Shelagh has gravitas lol MRB
    she's nothing but a giggly school girl.
    5LIVE dumbed down radio for dumbed down people

  • Comment number 12.

    I agree Eleanor would have been a great choice. There were so many possibilities - why Ms Burden?

  • Comment number 13.

    Shelagh has gravitas lol MRB
    she's nothing but a giggly school girl.
    5LIVE dumbed down radio for dumbed down people

  • Comment number 14.

    great , i pay my bbc jolly knees up tax for you lot and i dont get a word say

  • Comment number 15.

    Not at all sure why my comment, which is largely that I think Ms Burden to be a poor choice, should be "referred for further consideration". She has an awful voice, which for radio aint a good thing.

  • Comment number 16.

    We always wake up to five live,loved Nicky and Sheila. Won,t be listening any more, going over to Radio 4. Can't stand that woman you have replaced Sheila with, dreadful voice, too shrill and speaks far too quickly. Very sad after years of listening to the great partenership of Nicky and Sheila, this new woman is a disaster!!

  • Comment number 17.

    Bob Ballard overlooked once more! When will this injustice cease!

  • Comment number 18.

    First - who the hell is 'web design' raking up these year old blogs? And getting moderated for it!

    Rachel appointment a big mistake. Simply not a front line presenter. Too often gets caught out by the simplest of responses.

    But a missed opportunity again to use Fogarty's move as a chance for an overhaul.

    But the smugness will be well set now with the latest figures.

    Drinks all round at the Beeb!

    "Didn't we do well?" That is unless you ever listened to your audience folks. On paper yes, in truth, not so rosy.

  • Comment number 19.

    Unbelievable - they haven't posted my post about being unhappy with the choice of rachel Burden. How on earth can't they tell she has the worst voice in radio. It is impossible to listen to. It makes me so uncomfortable. At least I can go back to listening to weekend breakfast I suppose but what am I meant to do at 6 a.m. I have grown dependant on Shelagh and Nicky - HOW CAN THEY DO THIS TO US? There are many good female presenters - they could have chosen someone else. Ms Burden is an enormous mistake - she has no voice and not much culture or general knowledge. You don't learn anything with her. it is so sad! I saw Nicky tweeted she was an excellent journalist really beg to differ. He has disappointed me no end.

  • Comment number 20.

    Sadly, Rachel Burden almost exclusively goes on about rugby ad nauseum at the expense of anything else. In addition, with just about every interview I've ever heard her conduct, she will continuously interrupt the person she is talking to in order to get to the bottom of her question list without ever really showing she cares about the responses, or letting the person get their point across. On other occasions, on top of this, she will also take an extremely adversarial posture, even against people who don't deserve it!

    The thing they all do on Radio 5 live is as they want the interview to come to a stop, they will keep repeating "okay" until the other person has stopped speaking, and the presenter can close the interview. I always feel that it's pointless asking the last question because I never feel the presenter is interested in anything other than keeping to their schedule. Why bother interviewing someone if you don't really listen to what your interviewee is saying!?

    I will be changing the radio station on my radio alarm clock in the mornings.

    The only people worth listening to on radio 5 now are Richard Bacon, Simon Mayo/Mark Kermode, and the sports coverage.

  • Comment number 21.

    Oh dear. I was fearful that this would be your decision. Whilst I am sure that Ms Burden is a lovely lady, she is impossible to listen to, with interrupting and false jollity which jars in the early morning
    I see that I am not alone...Radio 4 is going to get a big boost in April

  • Comment number 22.

    Yes Fiz - it is back to Radio 4 - but i was so happy to discover radio five - I find it much livelier - and 4 starts later - I'm not really into farming in the morning! and then you have to put up with Thought For the Day!! but I suppose there is no other choice - I will definitely miss Shelagh - I'm so pleased so many people agree with us - what is beyond me is why they chose Rachel Burden!! Like you I'm sure she's a pleasant person but she is not made for radio - that voice is a nightmare. It is the end of an epoch - I can only hope the ratings shrink so suddenly they have to find someone else

  • Comment number 23.

    What a fabulous choice. I always look forward to hearing Rachel's dulcet tones and now five days a week instead of two!! Will miss Shelagh though. :(

  • Comment number 24.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 26.

    I'm afraid I'm another anti-Rachael Burden blogger. I have no idea what she's like as a person, but she is frankly an A-W-F-U-L radio presenter in every way. She drones on about her children and her problems, thinks she's a rugger afficionado, has no sense of humour and the most grating of voices. Sorry, but I'm off. Our household is glued to 5Live except for weekend breakfasts, now it will be breakfasts every day. Good luck keeping your listeners.
    PS the fact that her replacement has not been announced shows how ill-thought through this is.

  • Comment number 27.

    Rachel Burden might just as well be speaking in Swahili! Surely one of the pre-requisites for a radio presenter is to speak clearly. I have never understood how she has sustained a career in radio with her poor speaking voice. Another one for the off button on weekday mornings! On the plus side at least I will know when to avoid listening, especially as she seems to cover for any female presenter.

  • Comment number 28.

    Surely you could have got somebody better for a breakfast programme with over 3 million listeners?

    Rachel Burden has a very irritating voice, over does the ‘one of the lads’ act and doesn’t seem to listen to the person being interviewed.

    I know the BBC is cost cutting but…..

  • Comment number 29.

    For all the changes over the years - from Worricker and Sweeney to Campbell et al - the station has seemingly lost much of the feeling that made it unique; it had a sort of relaxed, friendly gravitas. Now, sadly I only listen to Radio 5Live for the sport or Rhod Sharp. Breakfast news and information is provided by a combination of Radio 4 and Radio Solent. I have heard Rachel B, and I don't think she's anywhere near as poor as some contributors would have us believe, it's just that the station as a whole no longer seems to cut it in the way that it used to.

  • Comment number 30.

    Oh dear. Nothing against Rachel. If they offered me the Breakfast gig on 5Live, I, too, would jump at the chance. It doesn't mean that I would be the best choice, however.

    Is Rachel going to be doing key interviews with slippery politicians or digging under the skin of poignant, uncomfortable issues with sensitivity and insight? Or will those topics only be dealt with after 7am once Nicky is there? Shelagh is smart, empathetic and charismatic. Rachel may be all these things too. But it doesn't come across in the way she broadcasts. I don't mean that in the snide way it must read. I just mean that I, as a long-time 5Live listener, really struggle to connect with her and long ago stopped trying, to be honest.

    She does have a lovely voice though.

  • Comment number 31.

    An inspired choice. Or, entirely inappropriate. Apparently I'm only allowed to say one.

  • Comment number 32.

    Blimey this has brought some different people on to the blog, hasn't it? Lest we forget, anyone we might have liked to hear getting the gig might not want it - Phil, Eleanor, anyone. I don't like the toadying tone of Rachel's 'can't wait to get there' speech. However, as long as an afternoon presenter didn't get it or the Burden replacement job, I won't complain because I don't listen to it that much any more. Until Radio Four gets the AV-K treatment, that is.

  • Comment number 33.

    Even Sarah Kenendy after a heavy night would have been better

  • Comment number 34.

    I'm afraid I'm another blogger who is not a fan of Rachael Burden. She is frankly not a very good radio presenter in every way. She drones on about her children and her problems, thinks she knows everything about rugby , has no sense of humour and the most grating of voices. Sorry, but I'm off. Our household is glued to 5Live except for weekend breakfasts, now it will be breakfasts every day. Good luck keeping your listeners.
    PS the rest of my comment has been removed so not to somehow offend House Rules

  • Comment number 35.

    So relieved to see that other people are not pleased about the appointment of Rachel Burden to Breakfast. She really doesn't have the gravitas for the job and I also find her voice very irritating. Is there noone else who wanted to move to Salford? My worry is that none of my favourite presenters will want to leave London and then where will I be? I LOVE my 5Live. Please keep the standards up.

  • Comment number 36.

    They ought to close these blogs down. The quality set by some of the posters is so bad, it is not worth the effort.

    What I have to say is not brilliant, but compared with the stuff that comes from these posters, it is a gleaming model of exposition.

    This about a breakfast show host. It is not a matter of great national interest. The Guardian radio section has n't even reported it yet

    One of the factors in choosing a presenter is to choose someone who is available. Not everybody wants the job, and not everybody can do it.

    Looking down all these posts, just see if you can find any suggestions as to who should be chosen. No, the posters are heavy on sneering criticism, but light on constructive suggestions. They don't care two hoots about 5live. That is why the posts are so worthless. There is one suggestion in there - Eleanor Oldroyd. If Eleanor Oldroyd wanted the job, they would probably give it to her or a similar one. Eleanor, I believe, is one of the original 5live presenters like Peter Allen. However, Eleanor concentrates on sport.

    The other suggestion I've seen is from the Guardian's Elizabeth Mahoney. She suggests Claire Balding. I would doubt if she is available, and if so she would be like Gabby Logan, away a great deal of the time.

    Let us just be clear about one thing. Rachel Burden is a trained and qualified journalist. My brother is a qualified journalist, and they don't give the qualification away with packets of tea. It involves practical training, academic study and passing exams. Nicky Campbell is not a qualified journalist and many other radio and TV personalities are not either.

    I did hear Rachel Burden once broadcasting on 5live at lunch time. It was from Westminster. At the same time on Radio 4, Martha Kearney was presenting the World At One and I was able to compare the two. There is no doubt that Rachel was in the same category of serious journalism as Martha Kearney. However, Rachel often shows a lighter side on 5live. Don't make any mistake, Rachel can do serious and light.

    This seems like an appointment which makes sense.

  • Comment number 37.

    Coreze take your medication please. I don't think you get the point, comment sections are for listeners to express their views.

  • Comment number 38.

    Jasmine says "comment sections are for listeners to express their views".

    Views would be useful if backed up by argument, and reasoning. These posters cannot do the arguing and reasoning, because they are n't 5live listeners. They can't stand 5live.

    They want to grumble in the company of like-minded people.

    They have no case to make out.

    Let us leave them to be miserable.


  • Comment number 39.

    Oh well, it's done now. Good luck, Rachel.

  • Comment number 40.

    Well I'm pleased that Rachel got the job. Good luck girl

  • Comment number 41.

    Well done Rachel. I for one am looking forward to listening to her each morning. How about Ranvir for the weekend job?

  • Comment number 42.

    There is no-one on 5 Live that comes up to the standard of anyone presenting current affairs on Radio Four, and to say Martha Kearney has the same abilities as Rachel is pretty insulting. Ask anyone apart from Peter (when he is doing serious stuff) to actually do a long, incisive and OFF THE CUFF interview, and not one of them could do it without a computer script or producer prompt in the ear.

    Ranvir? She fits the current light requirements.

  • Comment number 43.

    Coreze your remarks are offensive. You say we are miserable and don't back up our arguments in our posts and are not five live listeners. I am an avid five live listener. I listen all day and all night - I really do. (Sad life perhaps - but I have been very ill and it has kept me going). I know all the programs and presenters well - as a listener of course. I feel very well placed to share my views. I moved to five live after having been a faithful radio four listener. I liked the change of approach and the connection with the listeners. But I greatly appreciate the talent of many of the presenters both on 4 or 5. I feel we all have the right to express our views. My job has been in broadcasting for many years and we have the right to like or dislike someone. I think Ms Burden is a really bad choice - Shelagh was great and I am sure there are many other excellent broadcasters on five live who could do the job. But to chose someone who has no voice at all and is not knowledgeable about many issues is a risk. But fair enough - if people do think she deserves a three hour slot every morning (not for seven years I hope - my heart sinks) then I will just have to go elsewhere. But believe me when say I do not want to do that.

  • Comment number 44.

    Let me deal with another point from the blog that no one has mentioned. Who will be the new co-presenter on Week-End Breakfast?

    Once again, I use reasoning and argument, and not personal likes and dislikes.

    An employer would see the advantages of promoting existing staff. It is good for staff morale. It is the most straightforward method. For 5 Live, this method has particular importance because 5live is a station of a unique type - 50 per cent news, 50 per cent sport. No other station, as far as I know, is like that. Therefore, in making new appointments of staff, candidates who have 5 live experience have an enormous advantage.

    For these reasons, I expect that the co-presenter for Week-End Breakfast will be someone already at 5live. Two obvious candidates are Justine Green and Rachel Hodges.

  • Comment number 45.

    I nearly fell off my chair and spat my cornflakes out when I read that coreze had said that Rachel Burden was in same catergory of serious journalism as Martha Kearney.Best laugh I've had for a long while and I thought comedy was dead.
    I'll stick to Radio 4.

  • Comment number 46.

    Wrong coreze, someone has suggested Ranvir.

    Justine Green and Rachel Hodges are not able to carry out an in depth interview. They are presenters, and to listen to them when they have stood in for a journalist, is to hear superficial struggles until the producer's earpiece kicks in. Kate is definitely a better option but probably would not like weekend work.

  • Comment number 47.

    Shrill, self-opinionated and just awful. At the moment love the first hour just with Shelagh. From May will be looking forward to getting up at 6am - but on the plus side can now look forward to a weekend lie-in without being bombarded by the thoughts of Burden.

  • Comment number 48.

    Justine Green and Rachel Hodges just read the news, they are not hosts.

    How about Coreze’s brother for the job so as to keep up the high journalistic standards at 5 Lite?

  • Comment number 49.

    Intriguing Dom.

    I forgot about George Riley. He seems to fancy being a presenter/text reader, he does very well on the Gabby Logan Show.

    (Binkie actually does fall off chair.....)

  • Comment number 50.

    Carrie I fell off my chair after reading you are a fan of George Riley and his daily lovin with Gabby.

    If Coreze's brother is unavailable Kate Silverton would be my choice for Weekend Breakfast. Put Sports Report back to 9am, get somebody like Fi Glover to do a 10-12 Sunday magazine programme and ditch 7 Day Sunday.

  • Comment number 51.

    Dom all I can say is ahem.

    Good post, I agree about Kate S. but I think she is a single-presenter style person.

  • Comment number 52.

    I agree with Carrie and Dom about Kate - she is wonderful - so intelligent and really pleasant at the same time - a true pro - I would love Fi Glover to come back and Jane Garvey - and Eleanor Oldroyd is really really smart and good and would be marvellous in her own regular show - but as you all say she perhaps just wants to concentrate on sport - but I'm not so sure. Of course Dom, if Coreze's brother were free the problem would be solved!! But I am still so miserable at losing my lovely breakfast show from May on. Dahlia Raphael was good too and she has disappeared. I have felt from the start that they were determined to push Rachel Burden on us and I do not know why.

  • Comment number 53.

    You seem to be taking a somewhat snobbish attitude to others on here? To make a sweeping statement, such as saying that people contributing on here aren't 5 Live listeners is absurd. Apart from the fact you have no evidence to substantiate your comment, you are saying that unless people aren't 5 Live listeners, they are incapable of arguing a point and showing reasoning. Again, absurd. You might as well say that it's only since 5 Live was created that people have become capable of reasoned argyment - that would be about as absurd as what you've typed on here.

    I for one have been a Radio 5 Live listener since it started. I used to not mind Rachel Burden when she was on the radio but I've found her progressively more annoying. As I've previously stated, I abhor her interviews. No-one else gets a word in edgeways, and her interviews are often conducted aggressively. I'm not actually a fan of Shelagh Fogarty either - I think her and Nicky Campbell are just a bit too cosy and smug. I know of several friends who long since stopped listening. I still have it on first thing though to catch the news and sport and hear the first couple of items afterwards before I move on elsewhere.

    Anyway, I'm looking forward to Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode this afternoon.

  • Comment number 54.

    I've never been a big fan of the weekend breakfast programme - there doesn't seem to be enough serious news to sustain a three-hour slot at the weekends, and so it gets filled with endless sports previews and discussion of reality TV shows.

    However, I have enjoyed listening to Rachel Burden when she has stood in for the likes of Victoria Derbyshire and Gaby Logan, and indeed Shelagh. I also think she worked well with Peter Allen when she used to co-host Drive on a regular basis (when Jane Garvey only did three days a week).

    She is definitely my preferred choice for the Breakfast programme, and I wish her good luck in her new role.

  • Comment number 55.

    Good afternoon, let me introduce myself. I have taken over from Hasit Shah (who is producing this evening's Drive programme from Egypt) - so you'll notice me cropping up on the 5 live blog occasionally. Hopefully to a warm welcome from you all.
    There's quite a big, if divided, reaction here to Rachel's appointment to Breakfast. And everyone is more than entitled to express their view. However, I think the emphasis is on "everyone". Some of you are regulars here and have something to say about quite a few of the blog posts. As regulars, you are more than aware that debate on here can become impassioned. But I'm not sure that telling a poster to "take their medication" contributes to discussion based on opinion rather than fact.
    As Nigel has said in the past, it would be wrong to think that relatively few negative comments are representative of the wider 5 live listenership. For everyone who doesn't agree with Rachel's move to Breakfast, I’m sure there are many more who are looking forward to the Nicky/Rachel dynamic (myself being one). There was also a largely positive response on Twitter yesterday.
    Everyone should be able to post here without feeling as though they're being attacked for a personal opinion. That said - all reasoned and politely expressed views are welcome. And it would be interesting to hear your thinking about why you feel the way you do - whether you are looking forward to Breakfast's new presenter or not.
    I look forward to reading your comments and talking more with you in the coming months.

  • Comment number 56.

    flick the switch wrote:
    Shelagh has gravitas lol MRB
    she's nothing but a giggly school girl.
    5LIVE dumbed down radio for dumbed down people]

    I completely agree with flicktheswitch, I've long since turned off breakfast in the mornings, especially when the ludicrous shift system came in and I had to just listen to her - she isn't anywhere near as knowledgeable as she thinks she is and both come across as smug and condescending.

    I don't mind Rachel as it happens, at least with her Rugby obsession will break up the BBC football obsession but it won't bring me back. I have radio on at night all through and still not sure of Livesey, it's on but when i wake at 6 i get straight up and switch her off and over to LBC for really cutting remarks on celebs by Steve Allen (instead of constant x-factor/strictly/cheryl cole toadying and obsession) then sensible and funny breakfast with Nick Ferrari.

    Many more listeners views calling in and rational conversation rather than presenters constantly interrupting and absolutely having to go to the News or Travel unless they be struck down.....so many times interviews are cut short which are interesting because they have to go to the news.

    needless to say i won't be listening to the Gabby slot preferring Petrie then....

    and I don't live in London, i just about get FM version on my radio upstairs and some areas around in my car, otherwise its via the web....

    5 live has lost me overall and i'm an ideal target customer

  • Comment number 57.

    Imogen, if you read the recent insults from the person you are referring to you would have a reference for the comments made to them.

    On an interesting note, there are many posters on here who hardly ever post and that should prove people are interested in giving an opinion on certain matters, not all.

    May I finally say quoting positive Twitter responses is not representative of anything, off the top of the head comments are not true judgements of important things, in many cases.

  • Comment number 58.

    ” For everyone who doesn't agree with Rachel's move to Breakfast, I’m sure there are many more who are looking forward to the Nicky/Rachel dynamic”

    I don’t think you can be so confident in saying there are many more for than against Rachel’s appointment based on a few positive tweets.

    Imogen why do you at Five Live seem to give more weight to comments from Twitter than comments on here or other forums? Ok many in the media love Twitter but I would guess the majority of your listeners have no interest in Twitter.

    ”As Nigel has said in the past, it would be wrong to think that relatively few negative comments are representative of the wider 5 live listenership.”

    So you seem to be following the well establish 5 Live tradition of dismissing any negative comments as being from a small minority.

  • Comment number 59.

    @Dom - Considering we now have an audience of seven million I think it's fair to say that any online comments (positive or negative) be it on this blog, Twitter, Facebook or other forums like Digital Spy etc might not be representative of the wider 5 live listenership. However, having worked across many BBC blogs and message boards over the years I do think that they tend to attract a high proportion of critical comments.

  • Comment number 60.

    I think you need to choose your words a bit more carefully Imogen before jumping in. The ' regulars ' do not post all that you and 5live may see as negative.Many a time they give praise to presenters ( Rhod Sharp,Simon Mayo and Kate Silverton ) were it is due and which you choose to ignore for the sake of your argument . The poster who wrote about ' medication ' is not a regular and if you are going to criticise impartially please note the patronising and insulting nature of the comments of post 36 for starters.Read the opening paragraph before you apportion blame.

  • Comment number 61.

    You might want to check out Dan Walker's blog each week if you don't already. You'll find on there a majority of people who are very much pro Football Focus/Dan Walker. The same applies to the cricket blogs in general as well.

    If you could get the presenters to stop interrupting interviewees so much, and to sound a bit more interested in the final comments being made instead of the feeling of it being rushed through to get to the next item, or the weather, then things would be much better. It's not just 5 Live who do it as well as the same regularly happens on the television as well. It's just that when you're travelling around listening to the radio, you are more of a captive audience other than switching it off or changing channel of course. If I were being interviewed, I would wonder what the point is at times when the presenter makes it abundantly clear that they don't really care about what is being said.

  • Comment number 62.

    The repeated use of 'OK' as people are still answering a question is one of my great bugbears on several programmes where intervieweres are rushing guests to stop talking. Very rude.

  • Comment number 63.

    ”However, having worked across many BBC blogs and message boards over the years I do think that they tend to attract a high proportion of critical comments.”

    Could there be the possibility that some of the criticism is justified and shouldn’t just be dismissed?

    Is there a reason why Richard Bacon seems to attract far more criticism than any other presenter?

  • Comment number 64.

    I think Imogen Crump is showing the good old "lets back our team" routine which is what I would hope to see from a colleague. I have never added to a bbc blog before but had to register to make my comments about how dissapoined I am with RB's appointment. To say, that for everyone that doesnt agree , "many more" can't wait is frankly pure specualtion. Those of us that can be bothered to give an opinion cant be massively outnumbered by those who can't. The bottom line here is a lady with an awful voice has got the breakfast gig.
    Methinks you may protest too much Ms Crump.

  • Comment number 65.

    Ideally Imogen would want everyone to jump up and down waving pom-poms at the news. The fact that most people are dismayed rankles a great deal. Burden squeaks when she's excited and then auditions for a voice-over when she's not. It's an opinion as valid as your partisan one Imogen.

  • Comment number 66.

    I have no personal like or dislike of Rachel. I think she can do a decent job; she's stood in for many shows and held her own with the serious stuff and the lighter stuff.

    But her voice! I can't bear to listen to it.

    It's a shame to split up Nicky and Shelagh, but I think Shelagh has earned her lie-in.

    Good luck to Rachel, but I'll be waiting for the phone-in at 9.00am before I tune in :-(

  • Comment number 67.

    #55 Having re-read your comment once again, I'm slightly bemused by two of your conclusions.

    "There's quite a big, if divided, reaction here to Rachel's appointment to Breakfast."

    "As Nigel has said in the past, it would be wrong to think that relatively few negative comments are representative of the wider 5 live listenership. For everyone who doesn't agree with Rachel's move to Breakfast, I’m sure there are many more who are looking forward to the Nicky/Rachel dynamic (myself being one)."

    Now either the reaction is big, as stated in the first part of the post I've pasted here, or its relatively few, as stated in the second part that I've posted. It can be one, or it can be the other, but surely it can't be both? I think if you re-read through all the posts on here, you will find the number of posts that disapprove of the decision outweight those in favour. I think there is a bit of spinning going on here.

    Now I don't disagree with one colleague backing up another, but it seems there is a clear attempt to deflect criticism by commenting that they are outweighed by those in favour. If she can't do something about her interview technique, particularly at the time of the morning she'll be working, then it can only go downhill. Chris Evans might be anticipating some more listeners as the age demographic of the two stations seems to be coming increasingly closer together although he is clearly not to everyone's taste.

  • Comment number 68.

    As a relatively infrequent poster here, but a daily 5Live listener, I find Ms Crump's comments patronising and typical of the type of "we know best" attitude of many behind the scenes at the BBC.

    Let's face it, realistically, we all have to pay our licence fees and don't have a choice. That, I feel gives everyone the right to comment on the service that they receive in return.

    Personally, I cannot abide RB as a presenter - I have no idea what she's like as a person. But as someone who is on a national publicly-funded radio station, I have every right, and will continue to, air my view on how she comes across. I don't really care or not whether people agree with me - although I see at the moment the 'nays' have it!

    Interestingly, I find myself listening a lot more nowadays to podcasts. A particular fave is those produced by the TWIT network in California. They produce c80 hours of video/audio a week and there the presenter takes NO salary from the station, but relies wholly on donations from listeners. The future - maybe?

  • Comment number 69.

    I have only just seen Ms Crump's post - my goodness - we are evenly divided are we!! I don't really think so - it should be us asking you Ms Crump why you choose such an incompetent replacement for Shelagh. You want our reasons why we think she is not good for the position - here are mine - Surely you have noticed Ms Burden has a dreadful voice - cannot sight read and constantly tries to sound like one of the guys - she often tries to put on a sort of cockney accent by dropping her 't's and 'd's at the ends of words - this sounds phoney - accents are great when they are real and she cannot interview well due to her lack of general knowledge. She constantly talks about her babies and housewifey things. I remember writing to the BBC a few years ago when she was first hired and I was told then 'isn't it funny how Rachel divides opinion'. So what are your reasons for choosing her? Your turn to convince us.

  • Comment number 70.

    Imogen sorry to read you are so disappointed that this propaganda post wasn't met with the widespread joy your anticipated.

    We're all entitled to our opinion as you are as cheerleader-in-chief but the your editorialising and presumption that there are "many more who are looking forward to the Nicky/Rachel dynamic (myself being one)." is a stretch.

    It's a sign of the times that the two 5Live contributors have (a) placed more weight on twitter -- "There was also a largely positive response on Twitter yesterday." and the dismissing and devaluing of comments of geninue posters here with this comment "I think it's fair to say that any online comments (positive or negative) be it on this blog, Twitter, Facebook or other forums like Digital Spy etc might not be representative of the wider 5 live listenership.".

    I think Rachel is a safe, uninspiring and unremarkable choice. Soild not sensational. Certainly _not_ a step forward. Shame someone like Frances Finn wasn't tapped up, she's has a bright future and worth a risk.

    Lastly, I did chuckle at the desperation of press release quoted and the I-love-Salford snippet.

    At least Rachel is on message. Good luck.

  • Comment number 71.

    I can't let Imogen's post go without another comment...

    "There's quite a big, if divided, reaction here to Rachel's appointment to Breakfast."

    Inevitably Imogen.

    "And everyone is more than entitled to express their view. However, I think the emphasis is on "everyone"."

    Imogen, what is stopping "everyone" commenting on the blog? There's no restrictions, other then the occassional overzealous type who like to complain about posts which stray from the convention BBC wisdom. If the balance of opinion is not in favour of Rachel appointment so be it. All of her fans are equally able to post here. Just like you.

    "But I'm not sure that telling a poster to "take their medication" contributes to discussion based on opinion rather than fact."

    How can you use the champion "opinion rather than fact" and in next sentance deliver this missive -- pure speculation masquaduering as fact, "it would be wrong to think that relatively few negative comments are representative of the wider 5 live listenership."

    Really? How do you know one way or another? Why you do you dismiss the comments of blogs as unrepresentative?

    For everyone who doesn't agree with Rachel's move to Breakfast, I’m sure there are many more who are looking forward to the Nicky/Rachel dynamic (myself being one).

    Surely this couldn't be "more opinion rather than fact."

    "There was also a largely positive response on Twitter yesterday."

    Oh, there was "also" a "largely positive response on Twitter", well that makes it right then. Twitter is also corect. It must be fact.

    I apologise.

  • Comment number 72.

    My dictionary says twitter: talk idly or at length in an idle or trivial way (v), idle or ignorant talk (n), me, I just think vapid.

  • Comment number 73.

    Why's it got to be the same presenters all the time, not just on the Breakfast show but all BBC current affair programmes of the same ilk?

    Why not just change them over every week...listener/ presenter familiarity breeds contempt and the way news issues are presented these days is contemptable enough as it is anyway.

    I don't see much difference between mainstream journalists and politicians these days as it is. They're all in it together to fool everyone else that they're all in it together!

    Hence if there has to be a permanent journalist host why not put an avowed politician or celebrity from various sides of the political spectrum on with them for a week at a time. After all George Galloway (having done his radio apprenticeship on Talk Radio) along with Rachel Burden would be an interesting listening; likewise Jonathan Ross/ Russel Brand alongside Nicky Campbell would perhaps be even better.

  • Comment number 74.

    What a good idea Nick.

    I feel quite guilty with these views ( I share them) over Rachel's voice being the main drawback, but there it is. I know she can't help it but it does make it difficult to listen to her.

    Slightly different note: Are we doomed to have experts wheeled in from Salford University now every time something happens, just because it is based next door to the BBC at MediaCity? Because I reckon there are many, many Universities with more expert opinion in the country than one rated in the 80's by the Good University Guide. For example, one of the best Universities for Middle Eastern Studies, therefore housing experts in the field, is the University of Manchester yet last night Nolan had someone on from Salford University. Says it all.

  • Comment number 75.

    Another first time BBC blog poster registering my disappointment with this decision. When Rachel filled in for a week recently, I feared the writing was on the wall. Whilst I'm not suggesting an X-factor style public vote, I wonder if any views from listeners were taken into account.
    Much has been made of her interview technique. I'll say no more other than to add the word patronising.
    But it's her cheese grater of a voice that irritates most. It's not PC to say people look too ugly for the TV, so by extension it's probably not PC to say people sound too ugly for the radio. However, on the radio, the voice is all you have and it must be a pleasure to listen to: sadly, Rachel's is not. Maybe some voice coaching may help.
    On a slight tangent, if there's something worse than hurrying to end an interview, it's interrupting an interview because "there's been a wicket in Sydney". If I want to keep up-to-the-second with the cricket (and sometimes I do), I'll listen to R4LW or R5LSX. Tell me about the wicket after the interview - to interrupt is extremely rude to both the guest and listener. Most presenters are guilty of this.

  • Comment number 76.

    what am I to do, if I can't understand a word Rachel Burden says? it is either too gravely/smokey or high pitch squeak and delivered at such a high speed that in the end I get about 50% of what she says. Is she ill? is she smoking whilst broadcasting? surely being inaudible disqualifies her for the job?

  • Comment number 77.

    Just read the news that Rachel Burden will be taking over from Shelagh.

    So, I shall have to retune to Radio 4, as I cannot understand a word Rachel says. Her gravely/squeaky voice is unique in its inaudibility and that coupled with her high speed delivery makes her thankfully a rarity in radio.

    I shall continue to listen to Shelagh in her new slot, but will have to say bye bye to Nicky. This feels sad as I have woken up to Nicky and Shelagh for years!

    x LucyK

  • Comment number 78.

    Are the rumours of Mike Parry joining 5 Live from Talk Sport true, that he will be presenting 606 with Robbie Savage?

  • Comment number 79.

    I don't have strong adverse views on this particular RB, so good luck to her.

    Posters on here must accept that one is far more likely to take action to complain than express satisfaction. For example on here Gabby Logan is largely criticised, but apparently has added 300k listeners, so perhaps posters are not representative of what the larger public appreciates.

    In 2009 I never hit the off button apart from when a client called, now it is off or I am hunting an alternative most of the working day. Sadly the "dumbed down" schedule is not for me, but perhaps the listening figures suggest I am part of a minority.

  • Comment number 80.

    Its quite intresting to note that Nigel Smith stated in a previous Blog Post:

    "In the context of 5 live I don’t think there would be much public value in having a station board. As I have said previously on this blog I am fairly confident that if there was one dedicated to 5 live it would attract a relatively small number of regular contributors whose preferred topics would be subjective gripes about the network. The comments on this post about Mark Pougatch, Robbie Savage, Gabby Logan and Colin Murray bear that out"

    This blog about Rachel Burden epitomizes what Nigel said above, we have regulars who are posting their unconstructive gripes about Rachel Burden, they cannot see their comments do not necessarily represent the majority viewpoint, yet still want action taken based upon thier gripes on this blog.

    This blog post and the Paralympics Rights post were published on the same day, this blog has 79 comments and the other has 1, thank God there is no 5live messageboard!!!

  • Comment number 81.

    where do you want us to complain? and how can you say 'our gripes are unconstructive'? I love five live and listen non stop when I can. I treasured the breakfast program and I am truly upset they have chosen Ms Burden. So perhaps I write in vain but I have to write - I want to keep on listening to my favourite programs. I do not like Ms Burden and when she is on I switch off - now she will be on three hours a day - and perhaps for the next seven years. I feel well placed to say something. The tragedy is no one will do anything and I will listen elsewhere - BUT I DON'T WANT TO. So yes I have the right to complain. I don't think they have the right NOT to listen to us. I don't care if it doesn't represent the majority - but amongst my friends it certainly does. But that doesn't mean much - anyway that's that

  • Comment number 82.

    How can abusive posts be classed as constructive?

    Regulars posters getting hysterical on here,and posting posts that are nothing more than childish name calling,isnt going to help the anti 5live agenda.

    The key point is the regulars on here can keep on complaining until the cows come home, but fortunetly the drastic changes they want will not be implemented for the very simple reason,shows are gaining listeners, and other research suggests the vast majority of listeners are enjoying 5lives output.

    The posts made on here by the regulars are really not that important or valuable,if you look at the bigger picture.

  • Comment number 83.

    Firstly I am not a regular - this is the first time I have posted - I was desperate to share my feelings. Of course the ratings have gone up the programs are excellent - but that doesn't mean it will continue like this. With your attitude nothing will change.
    So enjoy listening to the wonderful Ms Burden with her fantastic voice and incredible culture.

  • Comment number 84.

    Fedster, there are at least twenty new posters on here and probably half at least are not happy. They are certainly not regulars.

    I hate the fact that Fedster is far more unpleasant about fellow posters, than posters are about presenters, because any criticism of presenters is water off a duck's back - they couldn't give a monkey's, because AV-K loves them and they are pocketing their very large pay packets whatever a few of us say.

  • Comment number 85.

    Fedster there is nothing hysterical about the comments I have read above, stop acting as a troll trying to stir things up. Everybody is as much entitled as you are to post an opinion on a BBC blog.

    I don’t know why you worry, from what I read critical comments are dismissed because they can’t be representative but a few positive congratulatory tweets from their media luvvy mates are representative because 5 Live never gets anything wrong.

    I hope Rachel Burden proves us wrong and is a great success but whenever I hear her I find her an uncomfortable listen. 5 Live Breakfast has been an excellent programme lets hope it can continue to be and I will give her a chance.

  • Comment number 86.

    lovelistening, if you care to wonder over to the section with the 5live list of blogs for January 2011 ( below ) you will see our rather hypocritical ' regular ' friend Fedster becoming rather abusive/hysterical of 5live on the blog called FA Cup 3rd Round Live.Even though he berates others for their opinions we find that he also is not happy after complaining about the station and has even tried to persuade Nigel to close certain blogs down when contributors make justified and constructive criticisms.I don't think that is very fair on others and as Imogen says reasoned and politely expressed views are welcome and they are otherwise they would be moderated out.

  • Comment number 87.

    Thanks Binkie - perhaps we should call him Fester rather than Fedster. ;=)

    What is so absurd is i love Five Live - and listen all day and night - the only person I really find irritating (apart from Fester) is R Burden!!
    Anyway that's my lot
    goodnight one and all

  • Comment number 88.

    Football, football, football. Rooney, Rooney, Rooney. The programme is described on the website as " The big sports stories, news and weather with Rachel Burden and Russell Fuller" and so news takes a firm second place. 5Live is losing the plot for anyone who just wants to know what is going on in the world and not what happened YESTERDAY afternoon. Not only has there been 14 bulletins since the final whistle it is also filling in half the time in between as well.

  • Comment number 89.

    I cannot believe they have gone ahead with this appointment given the less than positive comments made about Rachel Burden as a potential presenter when Shelagh's departure was first announced. Do the people who made this decision actually listen to Rachel Burden? Her voice is so grating, it can sound shrill and screechy just like someone scraping their finger nails down a chalk-board! Why does Rachel constantly interrupt people she is interviewing? I shall move over to Radio 4 or Radio 2 because I really do not want to feel my day starts feeling irritated. I'm unhappy that I am now sounding like Victor Meldrew!
    Bonus though - at least Rachel will not be standing on 5 Live drive and I will be able to tune into Saturday mornings again after May. I'm really sorry that Rachel is receiving such negative comments, she does after all have feelings. Managment need to listen/read viewers comments in future - please.

  • Comment number 90.

    Never mind Rachel Burden replacing Fogarty. It's Nicky Campbell who should be replaced. His constant stumbling over his words and attempts to laugh that off are totally unproffesional.

    I suggest Phil Williams in tandem with Rachel Burden. Or perhaps bring back Worricker?

  • Comment number 91.

    Rachel's weekend replacement is obvious to me - Dalya Raphael.

  • Comment number 92.

    In total agreement with cherrio5livebreakfast. I don't want to upset RB, but as nobody is listening to those that count - the loyal audience! then feel I have to make my point. Don't want to spend the morning clearing Rachel's throat or straining to decipher the high pitch that usually occurs after a gravelly outburst - yuk.

  • Comment number 93.

    Dalya would be perfect to do breakfast but perhaps she doesn't want to go to Salford. I agree one hundred percent with Lucy "Don't want to spend the morning clearing Rachel's throat or straining to decipher the high pitch that usually occurs after a gravelly outburst - yuk.' They will soon listen to loyal audience if we all stop listening. Mind you it looks like they are going to dumb down radio four soon to appeal to broader audience - I no longer understand where the Beeb is going! There is a great article about it in the Sunday Times - http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/rodliddle/article547173.ece

  • Comment number 94.

    Nice that so many new poster's are contributing to this debate. It shows that folks who are not everyday concerned about airing their views are motivated by poor management decisions, the Rachel appointment yet another in a depressingly long line at Five Five.

    Post 89: "Managment need to listen/read viewers comments in future - please."
    Now where have we heard that before?

    Post 90: "Never mind Rachel Burden replacing Fogarty. It's Nicky Campbell who should be replaced."
    I will join that one at the head of the queue!

    The skiiing season is in full kilter so I suspect 'management' is well away from this debate. Decision made, let's run to the hills!

  • Comment number 95.

    Salford=more and more shouty patronising Hazel Blears. The noise of the future. Can't you find anyone else other than her( and John Mann)?

  • Comment number 96.

    How ridiculous of Vicky Derbyshire to read out texts/e mails from listeners claiming that they were swtching over to her show from Talksport.Why give TS any publicity at all and why is a publicly funded broadcaster so obsessed with a commercial radio station that it has to lower itself to this level of desperation ?

  • Comment number 97.

    Ref 96: Says more about the presenter than it does about the radio station.

  • Comment number 98.

    Oh No - I only tune in to listen to Shelagh - I think I will be off too!

  • Comment number 99.

    Can we have the Rastamouse debate from VD's programme today added to Best Bits? I had to laugh at the things people take offence from.

  • Comment number 100.

    Another issue that perhaps broadcasters won't necessarily think about is the intransigence of the audience. For a lot of people, it is natural for them to have their radio permanently on the same station, and they'll never change it. I'm sure the "audience" for the breakfast programme will run into the millions, but how many will leave the room or do something else if they don't like who is speaking.

    After reading the BBC responses on here, I get the impression that whilst they say they're inviting debate/comment, unless it is positive, it is largely dismissed out of hand. The message seems to be that if you write about something on the internet that you don't entirely approve of, your view is marginalised because there "are many more people with a different view" so therefore, what is the point? Any company worth its salt should listen just as carefully to those with an opposing view as those who praise them to the hilt.

    It should also be noted that it seems like the vast proportion of people on here actually like 5Live, it's just that they don't like Rachel Burden's presenting/interviewing style, and that they find her voice grates somewhat. She can't really help that, and I never used to find it annoying personally, but when it's combined with an interviewing style of constantly interrupting, and is often aggressive, then the whole "package" makes me reach for the off button.


Page 1 of 2

More from this blog...


These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.