« Previous | Main | Next »

The Archers editor on Feedback

Keri Davies Keri Davies | 15:46 PM, Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Archers editor Vanessa Whitburn

The Archers editor Vanessa Whitburn discusses the 60th anniversary storyline with listeners Nicky Hillier and Judy Crebbs.

Keri Davies is an Archers scriptwriter and web producer.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    I feel Vanessa Whitburn got it very wrong! Many people may not have past comment because, like me they may have felt too angry. Take away a lovely actor and leave us with the likes of Katie, Vicky and Helen, you could have just as well killed her off in childbirth! It doesn't have to be like all the other soaps on TV that I refuse to watch.

    The Archers is and should be more lighthearted there is enough real pain out in the world let us have a little light entertainment.

    I also didn't feel Ms Whitburn wanted to hear what the lady in the interview was saying to her. I believe it is time we were listened to, as we are the ones who can turn the radio off. Or perhaps Ms Whitburn may feel if she wants more drama her talents would be better suited to some of the unrealistic TV soaps!

    Saying to someone who now doesn't listen that what you did worked and it is a complement to the programme that she has been affected by it..... so much so she doesn't listen. Shall we all switch off, would that be seen as a compliment?

    I think the script is often predictable and no less so in this case. It soon became obvious with all the comments made about the banner and all the talk about it what was likely to happen.

    A thought, perhaps we should all stop listening until you bring Nigel back......

  • Comment number 2.

    Ms Whitburn,

    Please just stop this. You NEVER answer any questons even on your own posted blogs. So what is the point?

    If you had been a report of mine in a real world employment situation you would have ceased to be employed. Not only for the opprobrium brought to your product and to senior management of the company, but more to the point the destain displayed to your loyal customer base in public.

    What do you intend to do?

  • Comment number 3.

    Are we the only 2 people left from TA followers... perhaps everyone has just given up.

    Is this the right place to insist they turn back the clock or Ms Whitburn has to go.....

  • Comment number 4.

    NO we are not Miss in vest a gaiter.

    Go to the bottom of the blog home page bottom left, almost buiried, Ms Whitburns last solo effort has around 900 posts to it. It is very active & worth reading but may take some time!

    Thanks for your company - good night - I'm off to the remaining wine and the fire

  • Comment number 5.

    Thanks for that.... enjoy the wine and fire.

    Good night!

  • Comment number 6.

    It could be that some of us are enjoying a pub quiz somewhere else ;)

  • Comment number 7.

    I found the Feedback Archers feature very odd. Ms Williams and Ms Whitburn seemed to be joined at the hip, there was no objective reaction from either of them to the torrent of complaints to this whole sorry business, just a denial of the validity of listeners' views and attempts to patronise. Instead of receiving a proper reaction, we were given the irrelevant visit to the studio to discover about various door bell chimes. Why would badly disillusioned listeners be remotely interested in such peripherals? When will someone admit a very wrong call has been made and actually apologise to listeners?

  • Comment number 8.

    Clearly there is a deliberate refusal to respond to the complaints by listeners.

    I am reminded of David Brent - Ricky Gervais's character in The Office - who despite the obvious contempt of all around him carried on blindly believing himself to be admired.

    No matter how many times Ms Whitburn is told she is at fault, she will continue to say how flattered she is by the attention.

  • Comment number 9.

    I do apologise, my first sentence in post 8 is very ambiguous. (The brain addles late at night). I should have said there was a deliberate refusal by Ms W and Ms W to respond to the listeners' complaints.

  • Comment number 10.

    Having listened to Feedback, I did not get the impression that Ms Whitburn was interested in the opinions expressed. And I did not get the impression that the objections raised (here, in other blogs, on the message boards, in the national press) by the large number of usually loyal listeners (which she merely described as "several") were treated appropriately.

    And this peculiar business of demonstrating doorbells (if this is not in the clip above, it is in the full programme) just made me think of one thing: listening to "The Archers", I've not yet heard a doorbell being sounded. All characters simply walk into the homes of each other, at most you get a knock on the door! Shame really that Feedback spends so much time on irrelevant items, that time could have been used to put Ms. Whitburn a bit more on the spot. Mind you, in those few minutes extra she probably wouldn't have budged from her "I know best" stance.

  • Comment number 11.

    This was posted by Prospero and modded out on the other Archers editor blog.

    In common with many, I felt even more angered and insulted by Vanessa Whitburn’s complete failure to address the real issues in the Feedback programme. And I don’t like being talked down to by someone who clearly thinks she knows more about radio and drama than everyone else. Like Helen above, I have taught journalism to post-graduate students. I have worked in the media for 30 years, including a year as a BBC national network radio producer myself.

    I even lived for a year in Worcestershire (“Borsetshire”) when I was teaching at the BBC’s training centre in Evesham (“Felpisham”). But I have so far written my criticisms here from the viewpoint of a listener, because one needs only to have been a regular listener to have noticed the steady decline in artistic standards over the last few years of The Archers. However, perhaps if the editor won’t listen to her audience, maybe she will take more notice of what fellow professionals have to say – although to be honest I doubt it; I should imagine that her cast and production team had plenty to say about the planned 60th anniversary debacle, but it looks as though she still chose to ignore it.

    As it is of considerable relevance to this thread, here is a partial transcript of what went on in Feedback on 28/01/11 (I think fair use applies here) for those who missed it or would care to mull it over at leisure, together with my comments. I hope the House Rules won’t be used to censor this posting, but if so I shall be posting it elsewhere too.

    Roger Bolton: For many people the big dramatic event across the last few weeks is what’s happened in the Archers and the ill-advised venture onto the roof by Nigel Pargetter. So how shall we describe the reaction? I think probably the Feedback listeners are livid – that’s the only way I can describe them. I mean, for example David Wright calls it “the biggest mistake the organisation has made in its long and distinguised radio history”. David Hewitt, who calls himself a former Archers addict says, “the whole production team should be ashamed of themselves. The Archers and Radio 4 in general has no need for this kind of ham-fisted approach. So do you think, Gwyneth Williams, there should be a police inquiry into the death of Nigel Pargetter?

    Gwyneth Williams: I don’t think so. But I do feel sad. I mean, I have been reading the log very carefully, and I do feel for listeners who feel they’ve lost a friend.

    [GW falls at the first fence - fails to realize that although many of us would rather not have lost Nigel, what we are really concerned about are the issues of endless depressing storylines, poor scriptwriting, needless sensationalism, characters acting out of character, general decline in artistic quality and a complete lack of any sense of celebration of the 60th anniversary. And of course, the treatment of Graham Seed. If after reading all the comments - as she claims she has done - she is still so out of touch with what listeners think, what is the point of going on?]

    RB: Some think it’s a bit cynical, here we are the 60th anniversary of The Archers, right, you need something, a big bang and there’s lots of trills beforehand, which suggests that it’s going to be changed totally, and, well, maybe they weren’t expecting a plane crash, but they thought here is something that’s been summoned out for sensationalist reasons to get on the front pages, it’s not organic, it’s not something that, someone has an illness over a period and dies, somebody falls off a roof – bang! – and this is of the worst sort of sensationalist soap material.

    GW: Well, what I’d say to that is, this is a tremendously successful and rather brilliant creative team under Vanessa Whitburn as editor – the world’s longest-running soap, I mean, what an extraordinary thing.

    [Well, for the first 40 years at least VW wasn't editor. In the last 20 it appears she has presided over a long, slow decline in quality which has brought us to the present low.]

    RB: But is your message therefore that one accidental death is enough in Ambridge for the time being?

    GW: No, I would never put a creative straightjacket around a team

    [Well, in that case as controller you have to accept responsibility for your choice of editor when things go wrong and act accordingly. We shall see.]

    RB: Do you know if you’ve lost any yet? I mean, presumably will you have to wait till you get the RAJAR statistics to know?

    GW: We will, and -

    RB: Because you don’t know yet, do you, because we’ve had people write to us saying, “that’s it, I’m not going to listen any more”.

    GW: I know, I know it’s sad, yes, I hope they’ll come back – come back, Archers fans, come back!

    [I bet she does hope they'll come back, because she knows quite well that the buck stops with her. As a channel controller it's all very well not interfering with the creative decisions of the people making programmes for you, but you do then have to accept ultimate responsibility if they fail to deliver the goods and have the audience switching off in droves. If the RAJAR figures do show a significant drop, then the only course of action for GW is to take VW off the programme and give the responsibility to someone else. If she fails to do this, then she loses all credibility as a controller of the station. Particularly if the figures show a drop in R4 listening in general. The Archers is a cornerstone of R4, and whilst I don't believe it does much to bring new listeners to the network, it does tend to keep them there once they are hooked. There seem to be indications that people are not just switching off TA, but are stopping listening to other R4 programmes as well, instead choosing R7 or just turning off the radio altogether. If this is reflected in the RAJAR figures, it will be (or at least should be) especially worrying for GW. Meanwhile, pleading for listeners to come back while failing to address the real problem isn't going to work, and is more likely to drive away an audience which has already been alienated.]

    Then we have a brief interlude while Feedback discusses other programmes, followed by this:

    RB: . . . beef-eating fans of Wolfgang Amadeus will be livid about John Staples’s criticism, but their indignation will almost certainly pale into insignificance compared with that of the fans of the Pargetter family of Ambridge. We’ve had more emails on the sudden death of Nigel – exit, pursued by a slate – than anything else in a long time. Around 200 in fact, and that’s on top of the 613 complaints directly to The Archers team, and the deafening buzz in the Twittersphere. If The Archers’ editor Vanessa Whitburn wanted to win headlines on the serial’s 60th birthday, she certainly succeeded. The trouble is, she seems to be in danger of losing listeners. One of them is Nicki Hillier. “Never again,” she says, “will The Archers’ signature tune be heard” in her household. We paired her up with Judy Crebbs, a lifelong fan, and despatched them both to Ambridge to see if it really was all over between Nicki and the soap.

    [skip forward past the studio visit, where the production team has used Feedback's request for some hard answers as an excuse to indulge in a fluff piece which won't go one iota towards placating irate listeners, and if anything is like to anger them even more. . .]

    . . . we headed for the office of Vanessa Whitburn, The Archers Editor, where Nicki got straight to the point.

    Nicki Hillier: I’ve listened to The Archers for 53 years, and I found the 60th anniversary episode insulting to listeners’ intelligence with the weak storylines, the unbelievable script. I thought the acting was poor. I know that there are people who – hundreds of thousands of people – who feel that you have got this badly wrong, and quite frankly want an apology. You’ve lost me and, I know, many, many thousands of people as listeners.

    [To be fair, I don't think the acting was poor, although the result certainly was. The actors had to do the best they could with the material they had, and as we know you can't make silk purses from sows' ears. But the rest of NH's criticism pretty much echoes what most of us feel.]

    Vanessa Whitburn: Yes, obviously that does affect me, you know, I’m sorry about that – I hope that you will continue to listen. I can’t control that, but I hope that you will.

    [Here we go - she's already in evasionary denial mode. She uses the classic ploy of saying "I'm sorry about that. . .", which expresses sympathy, rather than "I'm sorry FOR that. . .", which accepts blame. And yes, she hopes we'll continue to listen, because if we don't her job might be on the line.]

    VW: I have to disagree with you about whether it’s good drama and whether it’s well-acted, because I think there is a different issue about, whether it’s been a storyline twist that you personally and several other listeners wouldn’t like, and whether it’s well-acted and well done. I think the scripts were good, I think it was well-acted, I don’t really want to get hung-up on that.

    [No, we already know you don't want to tackle the real issues. You just want to disagree with us, because you think you are right and we are wrong. And "several" other listeners - PUH-LEEZE! More like several hundred thousand. As far as the scripts being good is concerned, the R4 audience is in general erudite and discerning. Many of us are writers and media professionals ourselves. We have seen countless eloquently expressed critical comments here and elsewhere, from published writers and academics such as Marie Noakes, respected media critics and others. But you don't need to be professionally experienced or academically qualified to know how bad this really was. A dead haddock could spot how lame and unbelievable the drama and characterisation were, and pretending anything else just makes you look silly. A little humility and a thorough study of Aristotle's "Poetics" might be in order.]

    VW: But whether we should have done it to mark the anniversary is a worthwhile debate.

    [Oh, so by implication the opinions of thousands of listeners who don't agree with you are not worth debating?]

    VW: And, I didn’t do it – we didn’t do it as a team -

    [Yes, Vanessa, YOU didn't (or rather, did) do it - it's obvious who calls the tune in your production team, only once you realised you had admitted it here you were quick to change your words to cover up the gaff, in the same way as you did when you let the cat out of the bag on the Today programme.]

    VW: . . . to celebrate the anniversary, which some of the press have said we did. We did it to mark the anniversary.

    [As others have pointed out, the whole of The Archers web site has "Celebrating 60 Years" trumpeted all over it. Disingenuous, or what?]

    VW: And I just think that of course it’s been traumatic, and in a funny kind of way what you’re saying to me is a compliment to the programme, because yes, it’s affected you – drama should do that.

    [A truly astounding display of arrogance and denial. Many things should affect me. Food affects me, so if I go to a restaurant and the food makes me ill, I suppose the chef should take that as a compliment? Am I likely to go back, or will I stay away?]

    NH [sounding angry now]: It has not been easy to say, “I’m no longer listening to this”. I’ve almost felt grief stopping listening to it, that Ambridge is no longer the place I used to visit. Ambridge is full of caricatures of people, in Jazzer, as in Julie. There’s constant outpourings of grief and angst, we’ve had Jolene – I cease to care, and I never, ever, ever thought that I would live to say that about The Archers and about Ambridge.

    VW: I’m really sorry you feel that way.

    [Same tactic again. Not, "I'm really sorry I MADE you feel that way," which is rather different. No - no sign of any real apology here.]

    VW: I would ask you to give it another go. Maybe you will at some point. I mean, the fact is that not everybody agrees with you, I mean we do have people who say that the acting is brilliant, that the characters are brilliant at the moment, but that in a way we could discuss that on and on, you know. In the end, if it chimes with you, you’ll come back to us. So, all I can say is we’re very sorry to lose you. Come back, after a break, maybe.

    [How many don't agree? How many do? How many say that it's brilliant? Let's have some figures, Vanessa. Maybe it's only you. Maybe even the rest of your production team themselves think it's a crock of brown stuff. Have you asked them? Maybe they're too scared to tell you. It will be interesting to see if in the months leading up to the publication of the relevant RAJAR figures, any of the cast or crew feel sufficiently disenchanted with the situation to break ranks and tell us what they really think.]

    . . . But some people felt, where did this come from, was there pressure from BBC management to push something sensational for the 60th anniversary?

    VW: Not at all. This story was evolved in the same way as we evolve all our stories – in huge discussion over considerable time. It’s our job to look at the drama and decide what we’re going to do.

    [I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that discussion. I bet VW had already made her mind up to get rid of Nigel, and any "discussion" consisted only of her going through the motions of trying to convince the rest of the team that it was a good idea, and force it through regardless of what they thought. I'm sure Margaret Thatcher would be proud of her.]

    VW: We don’t think it would be an easy story. Some people have said, “Oh, but they wouldn’t have gone onto the roof, they’d have sent somebody to do it” – that’s the point in a way, this is all about human beings who sometimes make errors, and, you know, accidents happen in a split second. And, this was a foolish thing in the best sense of the word.

    [Yes, Vanessa, human beings do make errors, and we look forward to your admitting the big one you've made here.]

    NH: Did you make a bit of an accident on the Today programme, with giving away what happened, was that a foolish thing?

    I did, and the irony is that I was the one who said let’s just hold onto this mystery for another few hours. Well, you know, I have paid – they made mincemeat of me, didn’t they, and I very sorry about that error, but I did make a mistake.

    [OK - admit the easy bit, the bit you can't really deny, and hope it takes the heat off.]

    NH: When John was killed-off we knew it was because John the person wanted to leave, but we never knew that Nigel did, and that’s why a lot of us feel so strongly that it shouldn’t have been him.

    VW: Yes, I’m sure actors don’t want to leave this programme, but all actors will tell you that no job is a job for life necessarily, and you cannot actually ask of a group of creative writers, a production team to always say that a character that’s been created by them will, per se, go on forever.

    [No, but it would be sensible to take the expectations of the audience into account. I'd be the first to say Nigel's character could have done with a re-vamp, but as some have suggested there were other ways of doing this. Even if we believed all that up-on-the-roof nonsense, we could have ended up with Nigel in a wheelchair, which would have opened up a fantastic range of possibilities for future drama, both uplifting and heart-rending. The fact that the production team didn't come up with this or any other of the countless possibilities that could have been explored for the 60th anniversary episodes reveals either a complete lack of imagination, or that somebody had already made up their mind that for whatever reason, Nigel had to go.]

    So, I expect that having run the gauntlet of Feedback and swatted away the criticism again, VW will be indulging in another round of self-congratulation now. What she probably doesn’t realise is that if things seem to have quietened down a little in the wake of her appearance it’s not that we’re happy with her response. Rather, we have come to terms with the fact that nobody is really going to address our criticisms properly, and if anything this makes us less likely than ever to return to the programme.

  • Comment number 12.

    @11
    Ha ha! Great minds etc. I'd just suggested on Ms Whitburn's earlier offering that Prospero's analysis would fit in here. An excellent analysis it is.

  • Comment number 13.

    Vanessa Whitburn will undoubtedly be aware that many thousands of listeners remain very angry about the crude manipulation of storylines in The Archers to meet some 60th anniversary agenda.

    In BBC’s Feedback last week, Whitburn commented that she had never said that the anniversary would be a 'celebration', merely that it would be 'marked'; she commented that the 'celebration' had been 'invented by the media'. This is manifestly untrue and her comments are disingenuous. The word 'celebrating' has been used extensively on the BBC's website for the programme. Indeed, the logo used extensively throughout the website actually states 'The Archers. Celebrating 60 years' .

    Except, that is, on the header for The Archers blog from whence it has now been deleted..... Although it is still present on the Radio 4 blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/vanessa_whitburn/ .

    Whitburn needs to acknowledge that, by her actions, she has not only irrevocably damaged a cherished national icon but, in doing so, has also caused real and unnecessary grief to thousands of previously loyal listeners. Her apology and a resolution of this unacceptable situation is long overdue – why can she not admit that she was wrong to have done what she did?

    Truly this was her 'Ratner moment'.

  • Comment number 14.

    Well she didn't say one birth one death on the Today programme and she didn't say it would be a celebration did she?

    Hmm

  • Comment number 15.

    An excellent analysis by Prospero.
    My feelings of anger and being patronised had died down until they were re-ignited by the Feedback fiasco.

  • Comment number 16.

    Feedback stated the following:

    "We’ve had more emails on the sudden death of Nigel than anything else in a long time. Around 200 in fact, and that’s on top of the 613 complaints directly to The Archers team, and the deafening buzz in the Twittersphere. If The Archers’ editor Vanessa Whitburn wanted to win headlines on the serial’s 60th birthday, she certainly succeeded. The trouble is, she seems to be in danger of losing listeners."

    This is a really big deal! It is not just a few of us that are angry, it is the highest complaints count in Feedback's history. We have been posting and complaining wherever possible since 2nd Jan and it is now 2nd Feb and it does not seem to be dying down either.

    Are you not a little bit embarrassed Vanessa? Shame on you! You could easily get a job in TV or another radio show as your time surely is up on The Archers. Loads of us have stopped listening to it and will not come back until you leave. We are not just random people, we are the sort of fans who have listened all our lives, join Archers Addicts and contribute via these web pages.

    Is it fair that one person i.e. Vanessa Whitburn should stay in her position when a whole bunch of us have had to change our habits-of-a-lifetime because of her ill conceived decisions?

  • Comment number 17.

    I listened to 'Feedback' on Sunday evening and was absolutely aghast at the arrogance of VW, simply dismissing and side-stepping every criticism that was levelled at her. She's not going without a fight!

    Vanessa Whitburn - The Mubarak of Borsetshire!

  • Comment number 18.

    Re posting 11.
    What an excellent, cogent, well-argued analysis of the Feedback programme. Surely this, together with the hundreds and hundreds of other comments on the 60th Anniversary fiasco and general decline over recent months in the quality of TA under VW’s leadership, should make VW’s seniors at the BBC sit up and think very carefully about TA’s future direction.
    I look forward to learning the RAJAR figures. I am yet another long-term listener to TA who now does not listen to it.

  • Comment number 19.

    Ms Whitburn. This goes on and on - when is it going to stop? A huge mistake is being made by you and others at the BBC in your patronising refusal to acknowledge the many complaints. You are dealing with intelligent Radio 4 listeners. Posting 11 demonstrates that - a hugely eloquent and intelligent blog which echoes what so many of us feel. We are not going away.

  • Comment number 20.

    Gold star to Prospero and Rumble.
    Falling on deaf ears I fear.
    It's a miserable state of affairs.

  • Comment number 21.

    I've only just got here. The 60th anniversary episode was a travesty of the Archers' traditions of subtle and considered writing, driven, it would appear by dreary camp ambition of an editor clearly having little grasp of the condition or status of that which she controls. It was unfortunate that 'Feedback' failed in articulating clearly many listeners' abject despair at an editor who can neither understand nor consequently admit her misjudgement.

    All I can do is, like the average Egyptian, add my voice to the clamour. Go.

  • Comment number 22.

    I am so pleased Prospero's post is receiving the publicity and acclaim it deserves. Let me be clear - only the very first sentence is mine. Prospero says it all for me, and I only wish someone at the BBC was listening.

  • Comment number 23.

    # 22 rumble

    "I only wish someone at the BBC was listening."

    Ms Whitburn is not remotely interested in our opinions. After all, it is her programme - not ours. Apparently, we should all be grateful for whatever she chooses to dish up. After more than 20 years in the driving seat, it's obvious she always knows what's best without any input from the listeners. If the listeners don't like it, that's just too bad!

    The murder of Nigel brought to mind this evening's episode of Midsomer Murders. There was lots of advanced publicity and it had been flagged up well in advance that an important character would be leaving the show. I won't give the plot away for those who have recorded it, but suffice it to say there were many hints but also red herrings. The twist in the end was genuinely moving.

    Midsomer and Ambridge both have implausibly high death tolls. However, the Archers has lost the 'feel-good' factor.

  • Comment number 24.

    Just popping by to say that I agree with all of the above.

    The Feedback interview didn't address any of the key issues raised by listeners here and elsewhere and Ms W's response was again woefully dismissive and patronising.

    We're a month in now and I'm still seething at the debacle of the 60th Anniversary episode and the more general drop in quality within TA.

    Having a functioning brain I'd opt for the subtle and understated, over crass and sensationalist, every time. If I wanted the latter, I'd be watching TV rather than tuning into the radio. As it happens I'm now doing neither at 7pm.

  • Comment number 25.

    Great analysis, Prospero. But I doubt the prod team are listening - they are just desperate for everyone to move on and become adoring fans again.

  • Comment number 26.

    Just listened to the Feedback programme.
    I still don't see how any of the responses in any of the blogs or on Feedback answer the question of "Why were the characters acting so out of character?" It's a simple question.
    I think the acting was up to it's usual standard, the scripting was OK (ish) but the one thing that lets the Archers down is "THE PLOT"; it's rubbish.
    Will someone please explain to me, in words of one syllable (for a "bear of very little brain") how any of the SATTC scenarios were in character? Because I just don't see it. (Or is it me being thick?)

  • Comment number 27.

    Once again VW fails to understand that we are not mourning the death of Nigel - he isn't real. We are mourning the death of The Archers. Whatever she is saying now, the lead-up to the 60th Anniversary was definitely trailed as a 'celebration'. I stil have the radio Times that has the front-page headline "Happy 60th The Archers" - oh, the irony. I wonder what life is like on planet VW, when causing misery and doom is considered appropriate for a celebration. I am another life-long listener who has stopped listening altogether. I no longer care what happens to any of the remaining characters - they have all become VW's puppets.

  • Comment number 28.

    All a waste of breath, I'm afraid.

    Just for the record, a quick informal survey of my facebook friends produced 12 people who were regular listners of The Archers prior to the 60th anniversary episode. Of those 12, 3 have stopped listening altogether, 2 no longer listen regularly and all thought the anniversary episode (and the build up to it) unnecessarily sensationalist. None had ever used the Archers website, messageboards or blog and none belong to Archers Addicts.

    Speaks for itself I think!

  • Comment number 29.

    Is this an interview with VW or the captain of the Titanic.....'I see no iceberg"

  • Comment number 30.

    The key point here is that it ( the 60th anniversary plot) was a poorly executed bad idea that misjudged the very listeners the show was supposed to appeal to. A CHEAP TRICK NO LESS. If all Venassa can say in responce is well I think it wasnt then she seems hardly capable of intellegent debate on the matter. The rest of the discussion was just BBC whitewash.

  • Comment number 31.

    oh and there are a few of us who feel this way

    'According to Rajar figures for the last three months of 2006, the rural soap's weekly audience was down 169,000 on the previous quarter and 197,000 year on year, to 4.44 million' ( the Guardian )

  • Comment number 32.

    oops !!! damn google

  • Comment number 33.

    oh and there are a few of us who feel this way ( I'll have resort to the Daily Mail )

    'Radio revolt as 200,000 fans of The Archers switch off

    Radio 4 soap The Archers has paid the price for its most controversial storyline with the loss of nearly 200,000 listeners, figures show.,'


    Hardly a cause for celebration

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-433007/Radio-revolt-200-000-fans-The-Archers-switch-off.html

  • Comment number 34.

    Dooh!!!

    still from 2007

  • Comment number 35.

    The RAJAR listener figures ARE out expect news stories about the loss of listeners soon !!

  • Comment number 36.

    The RAJAR figures due out now will relate to the previous quarter, which finished before the 2nd January debacle. We'll have to wait until May to find out what the effect of roofgate was, although things had already started slipping (if you'll forgive the pun) before then.

  • Comment number 37.

    I have just listened to Vanessa on Feedback. I was very disappointed. I heard a comment that "several" listeners may not have liked the 60th anniversary storyline. What an understatement! Why doesn't Radio 4 do a survey to find out what proportion of Archer's listeners liked killing Nigel off.

    Most organisations that deal with the public now recognise that denial is not an appropriate response to public displeasure and that either a timely apology is needed or a reasoned response to the public's concerns. I have read some of the hundreds of comments on this matter on the Blog. If Vanessa did not think an apology was in order she could have easily picked out 5 common themes and responded to them but she chose not to.

    In terms of Feedback itself- I think that it would have been far more appropriate for a few tough questions to have been posed to Vanessa rather than the rather banal visit to the Archers studio and chat with Tony. Perhaps its time that Vanessa was interviewed by a John Humphrey. Radio 4 you could do so much better you know!I don't want to stop listening to the Archers but I feel that I should at least for a while as this may be the only way to persuade you that you should respond in a meaningful way to your very loyal and long standing listeners.

  • Comment number 38.

    Why is it that Top Gear can admit it made mistake and apologise, but VW continues to deny she got it badly wrong?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12361790

  • Comment number 39.

    I don't know, & I don't,in fact,care what 'reactively moderated' means. I suppose Eastern Europeans under pre-1989 rules wd readily understand that phrase. For myself, I don't,because I didnt think I lived in a world of such language.

    So I try my luck, I guess, in 'BBC World" when I ask when is Vanessa Whitburn,a properly very highly regarded producer, going to get it? When is she going to be made to explain, how she led herself to make this seriously bad mistake in her governance of 'The Archers' 60th anniversary? Like most errors, it isn't the error, as bad as it is, that is the problem; it is the superior, apparently irrefutable, clarity about how there was no mistake at all; so much so that in every response she is prepared to give to Archer's listeners, she simply speaks as if she was cleared by Pravda to give an utterly anodyne, not answer, but more a soothing hot water bottle to be shared among the collective farm of unruly peasants. I have been very much otherwise a supporter of Whitburn, who I think has been a marvellously skilled producer over many really terrific years, a really great producer, but I advise her; when you have got something wrong, really very wrong, partly because you're so powerful that no-one opposes you in committee, you must then face up to the fact that you really have got it wrong, because otherwise, you are weakened, and you will end up more than merely discomforting your relationship with a large proportion of your listeners, who have previously trusted you. The bottom line is, & will remain, you can't 'celebrate' The Archers" in a tv soap-opera way through the requirements of a soap opera 'trauma' as Whitburn put it herself.Those were never Archers values. Those were never the virtues that she herself espoused. More importantly,for Ms Whitburn,- why did no one stop her? That's what she, and the BBC,really need to be thinking about. How did she let herself do that,and how was she allowed to do that, and why now is she so unresponsive to her audience? This is not in any way, right. It will forever, perhaps, even to Whitburn herself, remain a mystery as to why this 'trauma' explained the Archers to her as a celebration, when that kind of sensational storylining had very much, and very properly, been rightly eschewed by her for so many years. What a sadness for a great producer, but made worse, much, much worse, by her Pravda 'what problem are you talking about?' response. No no no, absolutely not right. Get with your your audience Ms Whitburn,and stop treating them like badly-informed malcontents, who don't understand the series that they love- that's really undeservedly low of you, and not a reflection of your intelligence.

  • Comment number 40.

    I've amended my submission, a little, in this way:

    I don't know, & I don't,in fact,care what 'reactively moderated' means. I suppose Eastern Europeans under pre-1989 rules wd readily understand that phrase. For myself, I don't,because I didnt think I lived in a world of such language.

    So I try my luck, I guess, in 'BBC World" when I ask when is Vanessa Whitburn,a properly very highly regarded producer, going to get it? When is she going to be made to explain, how she led herself to make this seriously bad mistake in her governance of 'The Archers' 60th anniversary?

    Like most errors, it isn't the error, as bad as it is, that is the greatest problem; it is the superior, apparently irrefutable, clarity about how there was no mistake at all; so much so that in every response she is prepared to give to Archer's listeners, she simply speaks as if she was cleared by Pravda to give an utterly anodyne, not answer, but more a soothing hot water bottle to be shared among the collective farm of unruly peasants.

    I have been very much otherwise a supporter of Whitburn, who I think has been a marvellously skilled producer over many really terrific years, a really great producer, perhaps, but I advise her; when you have got something wrong, really very wrong, partly because you're so powerful that no-one opposes you in committee, you must then face up to the fact that you alone really have got it wrong, because otherwise, you are weakened, and you will end up more than merely discomforting your relationship with a large proportion of your listeners, who have previously trusted you.

    The bottom line is, & will remain, you can't 'celebrate' The Archers" in a tv soap-opera way through the requirements of a soap opera 'trauma' as Whitburn put it herself.Those were never Archers values. Those were never the virtues that she herself espoused. More importantly,for Ms Whitburn,- why did no one stop her? That's what she, and the BBC,really need to be thinking about. How did she let herself do that,and how was she allowed to do that, and why now is she now allowed to be so unresponsive to her audience? This is not in any way, right.

    It will forever, perhaps, even to Whitburn herself, remain a mystery as to why this 'trauma' explained the Archers to her as a celebration, when that kind of sensational storylining had very much, and very properly, been rightly eschewed by her for so many years. What a sadness for a great producer, but made worse, much, much worse, by her Pravda 'what problem are you talking about?' response. No no no, absolutely not right.

    Get with your your audience Ms Whitburn,and stop treating them like badly-informed malcontents, who don't understand the series that they love- that's really undeservedly low of you, and not a reflection of your intelligence.

    The Feedback debacle was almost ridiculous to listen to, and was very much to the point of how inadequate the BBC has been in dealing with this. Naturally, the present Director General is without an opinion, as he is on so many subjects.

    Whitburn has made a big mistake, but is not over-promoted. When is Mark Nobody leaving?

  • Comment number 41.

    Today's Feedback is billed as including:

    "And you suggest alternative futures for Nigel Pargetter in The Archers."

    But no mention of the growing anger amongst previuosly loyal listemers to The Archers about Whitburn's refusal to admit her error or any plans to resolve the current situation.

    I fear that Feedback may portray listeners to The Archers as people living in a fantasy land, who cannot accept the loss of a much-admired cast member - and who are now inventing their own story lines, the poor simple dears. Whereas listeners are, in the main, intelligent and articulate - and furious at being fobbed off by the BBC's self-licking lollipop response to their criticism.

  • Comment number 42.

    Distant Traveller

    I actually think that the "Top Gear" apology comes from precisely the same school as Vanessa's. They say they are sorry if people were offended but then go on to say that they were right to broadcast what they did, much as Vanessa said she was sorry if people were unhappy but the story was fine.

  • Comment number 43.

    Nick - it was just as you predicted and I'm really hacked off by it. I am not an imbecile wanting a ghost Nigel to emerge from a Dallas shower, and I know it is not real. I even know in the great scheme of things its only a programme.

    However I do totally resent a programme called Feedback wilfully misrepresenting so many peoples' comments and opinions.

  • Comment number 44.

    I had given up commenting or even reviewing the comments made and stopped listening - but the Feedback programme made me want to do violent things with a blunt instrument to innocent garden gnomes - being the closet approximate to the senior editorial team that springs to mind.

    Patronising, arrogant and totally dismissive of the volume and quantity of the negative comments about the SATTC agenda

    The issue is no longer the story line - too much said already but the arrogance and condescending nature of the response to valid criticism is the issue and it will not go away - anyway off to next door's garden - they're out but needs must.

  • Comment number 45.

  • Comment number 46.

    Whoops, was so angry at today's Feedback and busy agreeing with Nostrebor and Dusty that I pressed the button in error! I think the BBC are deliberately misunderstanding our complaints and in a way that made the lady who was so busy telling us that TA is not real sound rather foolish.

  • Comment number 47.

    # 42 marthawood4d

    Perhaps the Top Gear apology was a little halfhearted...
    In contrast, the BBC's apology to Japan regarding QI has resulted in Stephen Fry's trip being called off.

    VW has not apologised because she considers she is right and the listeners are wrong.

    It is HER show, so who cares what the listeners think?

  • Comment number 48.

    Mind you - done a bit of looking back and suspect the person who picks the pictures for this site may well agree with us. Actually proves VW does not read the blogs as the photo that accompanies this thread is less than flattering

    Anyway - we are all stuffed as the mediocre will always win out

    Having to go to three roads down as all the gnomes sheltering or broken

    Shaun the sheep on CBBC has more of an agricultural theme now and better scripting

    BYE

  • Comment number 49.

    Hi all, sorry for the cross-posting but I put this entry on the "Archer's Editor on the 60th Anniversary" blog entry. It directly relates to the BBC apology conversation @38, 42 & 47 so thought would give more examples of where BBC has said sorry. Cheers, R4M.

    681. At 09:30am on 24 Jan 2011, you wrote:
    FYI Ms Whitburn. Sorry is the hardest word according to Messers Taupin and John. Well, I beg to differ because in a 4 minute google, here are just a few randomly selected BBC apologies over the last couple of years.

    It can be done Ms Whitburn. People *WILL* respect you for being big enough to admit errors and the damage done to a loyal listenership. And for blowing the gaff on Nigel during the Today Programme.

    Please think about it. Thanks. Root4me


    Catherine Bennett - "Public repentance is all the rage, as seen at the BBC" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/miriam-oreilly-bbc-apology-bankers


    Miriam O'Reilly apology - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12168422
    QI apologises to Japan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12260577
    BBC apologises after false Queen is dead comment - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8688799.stm
    Brand/Ross apology - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7693275.stm
    Schafernaker - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11009604
    BandAid money apology - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11688535
    Apology to University of East Anglia - http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys
    You're not an MP? - http://www.channel4.com/news/bbc-apologises-for-presenters-imposter-mp-and-four-letter-g
    Hillsborough - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/5194642/BBC-issues-apology-after-Radio-1-blames-Liverpool-fans-for-Hillsborough.html
    Everton - http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/blues-get-bbc-apology.html

  • Comment number 50.

    It is, of course, absolutely the intention of the TA high command to make sure they interpret the long-running hostility to what they have been doing as merely reaction to the Pargetter death.

    Those who are long time contributors to the Archers messageboard know that what that death did was merely encapsulate almost in one handy epi more or less everything that the mbs have been saying about how Ms Whitburn has run the soap over the LAST TWO OR MORE YEARS.

    The ongoing rage has very, very little to do with the Pargetter death per se, and has everything to do with how SLs have been researched, manipulated, written, how characters have force majeure been virtually re-invented to fit the issues at stake, and anger at the shameless and misguided use of Woman's Hour as an outstation for ramping ratings.

    This criticism is NOT of the moment as VW would like the media to believe at all, but has been growing and simmering over a LONG time. And fundamentally THAT is why so many are so angry about that recent Feedback pantomime. Shame on RB / the production team for short-changing us.

    Feedback is supposed to be our voice, but it sure wasn't over the TA issue. The team seemd to have been conned and maybe even cowed by the TA people.

    Shame.

  • Comment number 51.

    Dusty Substances, yes, I've just listened to yesterday's Feedback and it was precisely as I'd imagined.

    Bolton still considers that it the loss of a character which has angered listeners and has simply failed to grasp the core issue... Cynical manipulation of plot lines and Whitburn's Kim Jon Il leadership style are the main reasons for our anger.

    So I guess we'll have to write to the meeja-luvvies at Feedback again and again until they comprehend the reason for our anger.

    Meanwhile, there has been, of course, not another word from Whitburn, let alone any apology fthe damage she has inflicted upon a much-loved British icon.

  • Comment number 52.

    VW & GW are ignoring the thousands of listeners who are no longer listening to TA because of the decline in the writing & SLs over the last 3 years. The Nigel SL was just the last straw for many of us. It was sensationalist, soapy & revoltingly-hyped in a way which has demeaned the BBC. BUT IT IS NOT THE REASON I HAVE STOPPED LISTENING: I am sick of uneven writing, issue-driven SLs & characters being changed out of all recognition.

    TA is no longer part of my life after 50 years. Radio 4 is also becoming less & less of a "friend", despite the fact I am now retired & could listen all day. And I certainly do not want to listen to trails & similar rubbish if I do tune in.

  • Comment number 53.

    I completely agree with politebirder [52]. My wife and i have stopped listening. The damage to the plots culminating in the ruinous "celebration" of The Archers 60th and the contempt that Ms Whitburn shows in her high-handed patronising comments has made the injuries worse.

    Pleased to see the comments by the head of BBC Radio on the matter though should have been made clear to the Archers producers four years ago:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8246461/BBC-radio-chief-The-Archers-must-avoid-more-sensationalist-storylines.html

  • Comment number 54.

    Breaking The Archers has broken our habit of Radio 4, far more than we would have thought. It's been interesting to us in this household how our radio habits have changed since we stopping listening to the evening episode of The Archers: we are far less likely to have the radio on after 6.30 p.m. just in the background, and once it goes off, it is now VERY unlikely for the radio to go on again until the next morning. If either of us (I'm in my 50's, and husband is nearly 70) spots something in the Radio 4 schedule, we might listen again on the internet, up to a week later, as it is very unusual for us to catch the programme by accident 'live' now.

    Instead of Radio 4, there's tiny amounts of Radio 3, lots more Radio 7 and almost permanent internet radio such as gregoriaans or musica religiosa, both of which knock spots off what Radio 3 has become over the last 10 years.

    For us, it's been a remarkable exercise in how chopping out a 10-year habit of a 14-minute programme has restructured our whole radio listening for the last 6 weeks since THAT episode. The one thing worse than the clunky death of Nigel was the salvation of the awful bullying Hellen, which shows that it was a cumulative effect that has turned us off.

    Anecdotally, most of the dozen or so people I know locally who have mentioned they listen to The Archers, I found about only since That Episode, curiously enough, and they mentioned it only to whinge about it about how let down they felt. ALL who listened to The Archers have stopped listening. Most of them go back decades in their loyalty/habit, not that I'm expecting THAT sort of comment to be taken by anyone at the BBC as representing any potential significance for viewing figures. Bah.

  • Comment number 55.

    I finally turned the Archers off for good after 15 years after hearing the smug, self-satisfied and patronising replies of the editor to listeners' comments on Feedback. She ignored the just criticisms of the Anniversary edition plot, blaming it on writer's creative instincts, which she said she could not control. What then is an editor for?
    In reply to listeners' criticisms she merely said she hoped they would come back, implying they would because they just couldn't keep away. Well, in our household there is now radio silence, and do you know, life is absolutely fine!

  • Comment number 56.

    Here's an interesting theory that some of you might have missed on the messageboard.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/NF2693940?thread=8053543

  • Comment number 57.

    @56
    That makes far more sense!
    It would have been better to have stuck with the Helen phantom pregnancy but skip the baby snatching, than the charade we've had to endure! They could still have had the Helen angst, and Emma fearing it may happen after what had happened on EE.
    Too late now!

  • Comment number 58.

    This is the first time I've posted on a BBC blog. I just wanted to say "goodbye to the Archers". Like so many others I won't be listening again. I'm not leaving it. It has left me. It just isn't "an everyday story of countryfolk" any more. It's horrible.

    I can't bear the constant whining and upset any more. Even Clarrie is becoming a pain in the backside with her insecurity and jealousy about her job,and her resentment of Emma. And the the constant bickering between David and Ruth (and yes, I have picked up on the fact that it's David's guilt that's driving it but I really don't care any more) is quite simply boring and deeply unpleasant to encounter at the end of a busy day.

    I've been listening since it started. My mum switched it on when I was 5 yeas old and I haven't missed many episodes since. But I don't think this sort of affection and loyalty counts for anything any more.

    I heard a comment on Today this morning about there being moves to "renew" the Radio 4 audience (Youngsters, thank God, were twittering like mad to say leave it alone, it's alright as it is." - but I don't suppose that will make a blind bit of difference either.) So I believe that I am no longer the target audience, despite the fact that I'm planning living many more years, along with a lot of us in this ageing society.

    But the joyous thing about the Archers is that it was a National Treasure, transcending these narrow categories - but not any more.

    I think the BBC is very unwise. I think it's running scared. It's at risk of being reduced and sold off. But if it tries to defend itself by by making ridiculous changes such as those made to the Archers it will make itself indefensible.

    I do not put it too strongly when I say I am truly frightened by this possibility. The loss of one of the few decent institutions (despite it's many errors) left in this sad and sorry world would be a real loss and a deep grief. It's started with the reduction of the World Service. I don't think it's going to end there. I do hope I'm wrong.



  • Comment number 59.

    When will an editor be employed to give the programme some integrity and consistency.

  • Comment number 60.

    Does anyone know when the RAJAR figures are due out please? I was looking for them and found this editorial. Not that anyone at The Archers will be interested, but I gave up listening to it in the new year and what was really sad was that I haven't missed it at all. Thats after about 40 years, including the time I had to listen because my Father did... I haven't passed the habit on... I did defect to Radios 6 and 7, mainly 7 when the Archers are on because I'm a sucker for a whodunnit or a decent sci-fi or classic drama. Having switched over, of course, I find I miss programmes on Radio 4 but never have time to catch up. I was even relaxed about the change to 4+ until I discovered that my favourite early hours drama slot has changed to ....The Archers...Is someone trying to drive me away?

  • Comment number 61.

    May 12th It will be a triunph...

    Wouldn't bother trying to catch up either. Sam old same old...

 

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.