BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Prodnose

Listed below are comments made by Prodnose between Thursday, 21st August 2008 and Thursday, 3rd December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

PM Glass Box 09:05am on 03 Dec 2009 I, too, would like to agree with Astrocan: calling the RBS directors' bluff would be a very good thing.

Although Nils asked Bob Parker some hard questions, I was a bit disappointed that he did not challenge the central assumption in RBS's argument: that the loss of these people would adversely affect the bank. Given that these are the sort of people that were responsible for the global financial crisis and that managed funds on average under-perform slightly when compared to tracker funds, there does not seem to be much evidence upon which to base this assumption.

Perhaps poor Nils was tired: I keep on hearing him on "Today", as well as "PM". I wonder if he's getting a big bonus for working incredibly hard for incredibly long hours?
The Glass Box. 5:30pm on 09 Dec 2008 Hmm, so someone has been slaving away over the trails, eh? Well, they needn't on my account: they're the bane of the Radio 4 listener's life.
Auntie's dilemma 10:13am on 05 Nov 2008 I am not one for public displays of affection, but HCPhillips (153) I think I could kiss you. What a wonderful contribution.

It is interesting that, in its assumption that prurience is the way to appeal to younger listeners and viewers, the BBC is grossly insulting them, as well as showing a staggering lack of ambition.
Auntie's dilemma 4:05pm on 03 Nov 2008 Monkeybot5000 (136), yes, you can certainly have my vote and anyone of influence who read these things (which, let's be honest, it's unlikely they do) could take this as my call for an end to such dismal, unimaginative fare.
Auntie's dilemma 3:23pm on 30 Oct 2008 Notting HIll Hammer (18): you may be right about the general debate in the country but I suspect that the concern of many posters here is that the BBC is already dangerously close to being a carbon copy of Sky.

Skyline_UK (19): what an eloquent, lucid piece of writing. You sum up perfectly why I love what I love about the BBC (and the way I would hate to see it go).
Should the state make us happy? 12:23pm on 30 Oct 2008 I can't help feeling that there's a bit of confused thinking on the Government's part here. "The report...calculates that depression costs the economy £9 billion a year..." But surely depression, which is a health issue, is not the same as just not being happy enough or not feeling very satisfied with life. Of course depression should be taken seriously and appropriate provision to help people out of it should be available. But that is not the same as a general, "happiness agenda".

That said, I think that the Government does have a responsibility, up to a point, to make us happy. Parliament is the law-making body of the land and we elect MPs to it in the expectation that they will act in our best interests. In considering our best interests, they need to think about our health, wealth and happiness, among other things, no doubt. It would be daft to have clowns on the NHS (and not just because I don't find clowns funny) or, God forbid, a "Happiness Tsar", but when making and reviewing policy, surely our happiness should be an important factor in the decision-making process. Often, distinctly dodgy policies are pushed through or retained on the basis of their supposed value to our economy. "It is because of our ABC that we attract overseas investment." "We must XYZ to maintain our economic growth." Etc. But perhaps on some of these occasions our elected representatives should be thinking more holistically about our interests: maybe we would prefer to be a bit happier than to have a few pounds more in our pockets.

More consieration needs to be given to trickier things like access to green space, building communities, giving more people the opportunity to maintain a reasonable "work/ life balance". Addressing the fact that many people are stressed and tired as a result of working long hours, whilst others are depressed by not having a job. Difficult to do - certainly harder than the simple numbers game of choosing to spend or save money - but surely important. Although Britain's economic prosperity has, as a general trend, increased greatly over the years, our happiness and satisfaction with life has not. Suicide, particularly among young males, seems to be sadly too prolific (as noted on your recent map posting).

Maybe it is long overdue that politicians should be thinking about our happiness.
Auntie's dilemma 12:22pm on 30 Oct 2008 "The great challenge for the BBC is to retain broad appeal" Is it? I feel that most of the meeja types that are now running the BBC probably think so. All, no doubt trying to compete with their chums in the Soho winebars to see who can sign this year's "big thing".

But I think that your next sentence give the lie to this: "Its charter talks of the need to serve audiences..." Not to court popularity but to serve.

Surely serving audiences does not mean serving up the same dull, unimaginative, populist pap that is available on several other terrestrial channels and endless cable, satellite and digital channels. It means giving them what they can't get elsewhere, whcih may well not come with the glamour of celebrity but does inform, educate and entertain.

It is, perhaps, significant that the most cutting edge DJ on Radio 1, right up until his death, was not Chris Moyles or some young turk but the pensioner John Peel. And if there can be few better examples of a broadcaster who could appeal to young and old alike: playing new and challenging music by night whilst being the personification of avuncular "niceness" on "Home Truths". If there was ever a broadcaster that summed up Public Service Broadcasting, surely it was John Peel. He did not pander to fads or fashions or, in middle life, reach for the green hair dye. He simply played music that he thought people should have the opportunity to hear, rather than giving people what "they think they want".

Behaving like teenagers does not guarantee appeal to teenagers. Of course we cannot have Mr Chulmondley-Warner clones on pop music radio but I don't know if two grown men acting like teenagers who've had a bit too much cider in the park is really great broadcasting, either. At least if you do want people to act like teenagers, you could get real teenagers: they would probably be cheaper.

And cost is the final point: the fact that Mr Ross (and others like him) command such a high salaries is proof of the fact that they are not appropriate for a Public Service Broadcaster. They command a high price because there is competition for their services. If there is competition for their services then there are plenty of other broadcasters who would employ them, so the audience would not loose out if they were not employed by the BBC.
Don't panic! Lots more cricket to come... 08:28am on 29 Aug 2008 I am a bit concerned about the fact that the "TMS changes explained" entry is now closed for comments. Given that the majority of comments which were received were, understandably, negative, this seems like the virtual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la."

"The BBC. This is what we do."
TMS changes explained 3:34pm on 26 Aug 2008 Yes, Mr Selvey (215), thank you very much for contributing: it is good to get it "from the horses mouth".

Anyway, let me echo benlyle26's comments in thanking you for your enjoyable observations in print and on radio over the years.

I shall continue reading your reports and analysis and hope to be able to listen to you again, sometime, somehow.

My best wishes for your continued success.
TMS changes explained 12:01pm on 21 Aug 2008 Well, first of all, Mr Mountford, I do find it reassuring that you are reading our comments and am very grateful to you for taking the time to respond, although I must admit that I would prefer it if you were to take note of some of them!

The TMS team is a bit like a cricket team, which needs to have new talent introduced slowly within a winning team. Too many changes, too quickly can bring the end to a winning run (it only needed the introduction of one roof-tiler for England to self-destruct!) I find the justification for replacing Mike Selvey an odd one. Using the cricketing analogy, the fact that the likes of Bopara, Shah, Key and Denly are all playing well and there might be good reasons for promoting them to England's Test side does not mean that it would be a good idea to drop Kevin Pietersen.

There is also the fact that new talent needs to be nurtured: just as cricketers tend to go through some combination of county, academy and A-team/ Lions, prior to selection for the Test side, so broadcasters should be allowed to develop slowly and prove themselves prior to being selected at the highest level. I think that every single person who has expressed an opinion on Aggers in these comments has praised his excellence. It is worth noting that, after his playing career, he started doing some work for local radio and a bit of print journalism, prior to becoming a summariser for TMS and then, after a while, becoming Cricket Correspondent and a commentator. No-one expected him to be the fully-formed, finished article immediately. The rush to employ recent players does not give them chance to develop or prove their skills, leading to their often lacklustre performances.

To continue the analogy, a side needs to be well balanced. A cricket team needs to have big-hitters who can make the pace and accumulators who can anchor the innings; electrifying fast bowlers who can unsettle the opposition, canny medium pacers who can restrict the runs and beguiling spinners who can attach with the old ball and exploit a wearing wicket. So it is that TMS, at its best, combines a range of temparaments, characters and voices. So the genial waggishness of Aggers contrasts nicely with the dour, trenchant opinions of Boycott and the outlandish eccentricities of Blowers were offset by the dry, concise insights of Selve. Each personality adds their own colour: Aggers by his knowledge and humour, Blowers by his joi-de-vivre and CMJ by his knowledge of history and exquisite use of language. SImon Mann has added to this with his careful research and accurate reporting and has the potential to bcome another CMJ, in time. But the variety is essential: too many commentators of any type would bring an unwelcome uniformity to proceedings and that is one problem with the "5Liveation".

I feel that the assertion that the "5Liveation" is not taking place because there was only one test not to feature the "Big 3" of Agnew, Martin-Jenkins and Blofeld was a little disingenuous. Whilst this may be true, a lot of cricket has been broadcast under the title "TMS", which has not featured that core team.

Then there is a need for specialists. England wouldn't ask Monty Panesar to open the batting, so why have general sports presenters commentating on TMS? Whilst the qualifications of the "old guard" are different: Aggers played at the highest level (albeit that he played few international matches, as Michael Vaughn famously pointed out); Henry was a promising cricketer in his youth, as well as being a passionate lover of the game and great raconteur and CMJ has a long pedigree as an author, journalist, Editor of "The Cricketer" and Cricket Correspondent of a number of newspapers. There is so much time to fill and there are so many nuances in a cricket match that one needs to be steeped in the game. Bluffing will be found out. There is more to it than the footballing school of "it's Smith up the right. Still Smith. He goes past Jones. Smith, to Bloggs back to Smith, GOAAAALLLLL!!!!!!"

On the specifics of current team members, I would tend to agree with those who are critical of Alec Stewart and Graham Gooch (although I note that Graham Gooch is hardly a new voiice on TMS). Neither catches the imagination, for me and though they occasionally have something insightful to say I find that they often slip into the sportsman's habit of talking in cliches. Gooch's tendency to tell us how good Essex's players are is annoying but probably excusable on the basis that we all have a tendency to think more highly of players we have had an opportunity to see a lot of: as a Man of Kent, I think that James Tredwell is massively underrated. What I find less excusable is Stewart's financial conflict of interest and, whilst you say that he is not influenced by this, I do not see how this can be guaranteed. It might be a risk worth taking if he added something special to the team but I don't believe he does.

Phil Tuffnell seems to divide opinion, with many enjoying his contributions, although personally I am unconvinced. I find his playing up to the "cheeky chappie" image and Mockney accent grate somewhat. Also, there are probably a number of other players who are recently retired who may have made better broadcasters. During his playing days, though, he did show a good cricketing brain and it may be that, if he settles into the role, he could, in time, become a good summariser but, as I note above, I think that that bedding-down process ought to be allowed to take place prior to joining TMS. My biggest gripe about Tuffers, though, is what he represents: the feeling that he was brought in as a "name"; someone people know from the telly. It suggests ratings-chasing in lieu of the pursuit of excellence. There can be few bigger cricketing names or more famous ex-players in this country than Ian Botham and yet I know no-one who watches Sky just to listen to his commentary. The cult of celebrity is not, need not and should not be the be-all and end-all.

Geoff Boycott also divides opinion and I actually enjoy his contributions a great deal although I do think that, just as I like my Marmite spread thinly, we should not be over-exposed to Sir Geoffrey, whose self-importance might begin to pall if we had too much of him. Of other summarisers used recently, I think that we have heard far too little from Angus Fraser - whilst some consider him a little Eyore-ish, his gloom is always good natured and he is a good reader of the game with a wealth of experience to call on. I would love to hear more from him than we do. Vic, of course, is sublime and in terms of experience, knowledge, delivery, wit and language is a perfect cricket broadcaster. Also, I would like to again note my support of the small (but notable) number of people that would love to hear Graeme Fowler on TMS again. If the Beeb has the money to lure "TV's King of the Jungle" then surely it must be able to persuade Durham University to let "Foxy" have a few days off.

On a more positive note, I agree with the contributor who praised Jason Gillespie's work at the Twenty20 finals. I, too, enjoyed his comments and would look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

Finally, it is good to read that you have secured the services of Simon Hughes. I am sure he will make an excellent and knowledgeable addition to the team: well done.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Prodnose