The Green Room

Discussion:

Changes to the messageboard

Messages 1 - 50 of 735


First \| < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > \| Last
Message 1 - posted by Alice_mc (U2268968) , Nov 9, 2006 There are some important changes taking place to the Today messageboard from November 16 2006. We want to make the message boards more relevant to the Today audience. We want to involve listeners more in the programme and we believe the best way of doing that is through the message boards. In order to do this more effectively, we have decided to make some alterations to the boards. We will be closing the five topics that currently exist on this board, and introducing two new ones in their place. These will be: • Today’s Debate – a topic to discuss the major debates on that day’s Today Programme • Coming Up… – a topic to discuss issues forthcoming on the programme that you can help us with by sharing your thoughts and opinions Only messageboard hosts – a mix of producers and journalists - will start new threads inside the topics to help focus discussions around the subjects that we will be featuring on the programme. Each host will monitor their discussions, with the best possibly featuring on air. On the homepage of the new messageboard there will be a suggestion form so members of the community can suggest future subjects for discussion to the hosts. We believe these changes will allow the Today programme to better reflect the thoughts and opinions of its listeners, making it more relevant to its audience.

Message 2 - posted by summermeadow (U5110035) , Nov 9, 2006 the posters won't like it esp 'Only messageboard hosts – a mix of producers and journalists - will start new threads ' alternatives are five live, c4 boards This is a reply to this message

Message 3 - posted by Alpha Hooligan - Gringatcho Demento (U3245845) , Nov 9, 2006 We believe these changes will allow the Today programme to better reflect the thoughts and opinions of its listeners, making it more relevant to its audience. Quoted from this message No you don't. You believe that it will enable you to control what people talk about and will also enable you to avoid talking about "sensitive" issues. "Your thoughts, your views, your space" What a joke. AH Please note: Your Postings are being pre-moderated and will only appear after they have been approved by a Moderator. This is a reply to this message

Message 4 - posted by horatius (U4735031) , Nov 9, 2006 I thought this board was too good to be true. Whatever we might thing of our fellow posters, at least there is a lively debate. My fear is that things will become very bland with only approved topics being covered. That said the board has at times become over pre-occupied with certain topics. How about a compromise whereby board members can send a draft post to the host, with the expectation that it will be posted, but where the host has the right to "ration", so that we don't get too many posts on the same topic? Just a thought..... This is a reply to this message

Message 5 - posted by ImpeachMe (U744502) , Nov 9, 2006 Just like the BBC, it has one of the most successful messageboards around and it wants to kill it. I think the BBC have lost sight that they are here to serve the audience not for us to listen to them. This is a reply to this message

Message 6 - posted by EasternBuddie (U744869) , Nov 9, 2006 you would think you'd have learned from the storm of protest when you did this to 606, to the scottish MB and to the scottish footy boards. then again this is the bbc, when did you ever learn anything from us, we are only the licence payers after all. This is a reply to this message

Message 7 - posted by hattie (U1635690) , Nov 9, 2006 It would be better to keep the 3 most popular of the existing and substitute the 2 least popular (parliament and economy) with the 2 new fancy boards. The idea of the new boards seems to copy that of the Guardian Comment is Free site where the journalists and invited writers only are allowed to start discussions. But since the existing format on these boards is popular why can't you have both? To scrap all the existing boards does seem an attempt to curb free speech and creativity. This is a reply to this message

Message 8 - posted by errs and strays (U4573529) , Nov 9, 2006 Surely the message boards already reflect the views of listeners. Do you really mean that the views regularly expressed don't reflect the views you wish to generate? This is a reply to this message

Message 9 - posted by U3056444 (U3056444) , Nov 9, 2006 I can see it now. "How can people be forced to appreciate the benefits of multiculturalism?" "George Bush. Evil dictator or sexual pervert?" "Are YOU a victim of homophobia?" "Diversity. Fantastic or amazing?" "How can we unite to defeat the right?" Etc etc. We PAY for the BBC. We PAY for this service. We generally don't LIKE the political and ideological agendas of the BBC. So they shut the boards. This is a reply to this message

Message 10 - posted by Frankacne (U1018893) , Nov 9, 2006 So as usual you think you know best and are now stifling comment and criticism. The today program carries a wide range of stories which involve a much wider list of topics and a few journalists are unlikely to have the knowledge or expertise of all those who contribute to these boards. I will write to the BBC about this as its clearly a deterioration of your service apparently designed to stifle comment. Rest assured you have not heard the last of this and first and foremost we demand to know who has taken this decision and after what consultation??? This is a reply to this message

Message 11 - posted by ImpeachMe (U744502) , Nov 9, 2006 Only messageboard hosts – a mix of producers and journalists Quoted from this message They may have well said only labour party stooges will be telling us what to discuss. Why don't they just go the whole hog and have the complete discussion themselves! This is a reply to this message

Message 12 - posted by Lady Cordelia Smyth (U2279551) , Nov 9, 2006 How on earth can it be making the board "more relevant to the Today audience" if members of that audience are to be prevented from starting conversations? I spend a lot of time defending the BBC but this shows no respect for contributors and will shut down debate. I don't suppose anyone cares what the paying public thinks though. This is a reply to this message

Message 13 - posted by Jack Jones (U2032563) , Nov 9, 2006 In some ways this is a welcome development. These boards have often been a mix of too many obsessive subjects ranging from anti-govt propaganda to Muslim-bashing. Time for a change folks This is a reply to this message

Message 14 - posted by Jade_the_Cat (U2225761) , Nov 9, 2006 Only Daryl will now be able to start new topics then ??? This is a reply to this message

Message 15 - posted by Weyland Yutani (U6195272) , Nov 9, 2006 Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:54:04 GMT, replying to Alice_mc in message 1 Only messageboard hosts – a mix of producers and journalists - will start new threads Quoted from this message Several major points spring immediately to mind: 1. We'll be needing some new Hosts. Hosts who will be engaged with the boards and those who post to them. So far -- several years -- we've only had Hosts who might as well have been hosting the Teletubbies board for all the interest they took in their Guests on Today. 2. The Today boards need to be open while the Today Programme is on the air. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to say it. 3. The "moderation" system will have to be scrapped and redesigned. I could write a book about this, but don't have the time right now. 4. The primitive software infrastructure should be either drastically improved or, preferably, replaced by something befitting the 21st century. The way it is, it's way back in the early 1980s, to be kind. 5. Guests should be able to communicate offline with Hosts and other Guests. This, along with several other obvious and venerable industry-standard messageboard features, was promised a couple of years ago, by Jeremy (the Host). But nothing came of the promise, and it was never mentioned again by any Host. This is a reply to this message

Message 16 - posted by Equal Opportunities Offender (prev MG) (U2372085) , Nov 9, 2006 Oh dear, Alice Let people have the right to express themselves,a and realised how massively out of touch BBC attitudes are with mainstream opinion, didn't you? I remember before the boards were introduced, the way the letters featured on air so closely mirrored the BBC's editorial line, with most of them - rejecting any criticism of multiculturalism or mass immigration - supporting the BBC in its spat with the government over Iraq. Well, opinion poll after opinion poll reveals what people think of immigration. The election showed that whatever people thought of Iraq, it wasn't top of their mind. And that didn't fit at all, did it? So you're going to rein us back in. I predict the boards will last a few more months, then be abolished, no doubt on cost or technical grounds. Go on, aren't you just a little bit embarrassed? This is a reply to this message

Message 17 - posted by malfunction (U1523018) , Nov 9, 2006 Only Daryl will now be able to start new topics then ??? Quoted from this message ...along with EMCtoo, Ivan, and one or two other 'independents'! This is a reply to this message

Message 18 - posted by November Criminal (U4025508) , Nov 9, 2006 You've pushed us too far this time, morons. If only hosts are able to start threads, then there will be no topics, because there are rarely any hosts. All threads will be predictable- in other words, no threads about silly little things like Orwell, the BNP, and theology (no more arguments with RosPower over Christian philosophy! I'll miss that.) When this happens, I will leave (as has already been suggested) for the Five Live board. This will kill the Today Boards. I have never heard anyone say that they wanted more intervention from the mods. Quite the opposite. I have never heard anyone complain about the Home - Green Room - International - Parliament - Economics separation. We believe these changes will allow the Today programme to better reflect the thoughts and opinions of its listeners, making it more relevant to its audience. Quoted from this message Of course, you could actually have a system where people put up topics for discussion, and discuss them if they wish. That would be truly representative. It seems woefully ironic that, as the Internet has become a tool in the new international fight for political expressions, the authorities in the UK are clamping down on really free expression. Btw: Can anyone recommend a popular, completely non-BBC board in case the Powers That Be completely foul everything up? This is a reply to this message

Message 19 - posted by nemesis wanted (U2313996) , Nov 9, 2006 I thought the message board hosts were "very busy" currently, one of the reasons it takes so long to go through moderation. How are these extremely busy hosts going to come up with topics, moderate, and engage in the debate with other posters if they are too busy to moderate the few messages that are held up for 24 hours. I want to discuss what i and others want to discuss, i do not wish to discuss topics brought up by producers and journalists who should be more concerned with getting their own jobs right. Looks like November 16th will be the last time i post here. This is a reply to this message

Message 20 - posted by November Criminal (U4025508) , Nov 9, 2006 More Things That I Will Miss; - Funny, random threads on the Green Board - Carl-Jones' threads. Even the anti-Semitic ones. - Showing people articles/cartoons This is a reply to this message

Message 21 - posted by U2336005 (U2336005) , Nov 9, 2006 Great then eh? The history of this MB shows that any topics initiated by the Mods are generally ignored as too dull and offering nothing of value to the cultural community. and now back to the Guardian ... This is a reply to this message

Message 22 - posted by Real-alcazar (U2245495) , Nov 9, 2006 "I think the BBC have lost sight that they are here to serve the audience not for us to listen to them." Is there a mistake here? I had until now thought that what audiences did was ... er ... listen. This is a reply to this message

Message 23 - posted by Green Room refugee (U2333731) , Nov 9, 2006 The end if The Green Room, I'm not quite sure what to say. Wonder if the bookmarks to posts will hold out. This is a reply to this message

Message 24 - posted by Grimly-Feendish (U2441374) , Nov 9, 2006 <> I wondered just how long it would take NL control freaks to turn their attention to these boards. I think I have been given the answer. I presume the producers and journalists will be government approved. Post Hutton, the BBC is a sorry sight. Ah well, it's been nice knowing you. This is a reply to this message

Message 25 - posted by YoungAdolf (U5946717) , Nov 9, 2006 I can see it now. "How can people be forced to appreciate the benefits of multiculturalism?" "George Bush. Evil dictator or sexual pervert?" "Are YOU a victim of homophobia?" "Diversity. Fantastic or amazing?" "How can we unite to defeat the right?" Etc etc. We PAY for the BBC. We PAY for this service. We generally don't LIKE the political and ideological agendas of the BBC. So they shut the boards. - Ros Power SECONDED This is a reply to this message

Message 26 - posted by Rumbustious (U4040241) , Nov 9, 2006 What a pile of steaming BBC sh**e. It's all about control. This is a reply to this message

Message 27 - posted by Weyland Yutani (U6195272) , Nov 9, 2006 Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:25:16 GMT, replying to nemesis wanted in message 19 Judging by experience, there is no chance whatsoever of any Host joining in this discussion, answering any questions, providing any useful information, or doing any hosting. Except possibly in the time-honoured Today-Host style: "I don't know. I'll ask a Moderator and report back." Never to be heard from again. This is a reply to this message

Message 28 - posted by Lady Cordelia Smyth (U2279551) , Nov 9, 2006 Audience members Do listen and occasionally (regularly actually, in my case) shout at the radio that the main question hasn't been asked, or that a vitally important point has been glossed over or that sometimes the reporting is one-sided. These message boards are the place where we should get to vent that frustration and discuss the issues WE think are newsworthy with other people. To shut off that outlet is ridiculous and actually dangerous to the BBC; some of their staff must occasionally wander onto these boards and these are probably the ONLY places where they might discern that the whole country doesn't have the same biases and blind spots that the BBC does. I bet in their working lives most of them never meet anyone who doesn't unquestioningly share their world view. This is where different viewpoints can be found and it seems amazingly short-sighted to shut that interaction down. This is a reply to this message

Message 29 - posted by Rumbustious (U4040241) , Nov 9, 2006 Hey mods, where within the Beeb empire can we discuss any topic we like - freely? Answers on a postage stamp? This is a reply to this message

Message 30 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 I can see it now. "How can people be forced to appreciate the benefits of multiculturalism?" "George Bush. Evil dictator or sexual pervert?" "Are YOU a victim of homophobia?" "Diversity. Fantastic or amazing?" "How can we unite to defeat the right?" Etc etc. We PAY for the BBC. We PAY for this service. We generally don't LIKE the political and ideological agendas of the BBC. So they shut the boards. Quoted from this message Oh my god. I agree with Rospower. Look what you've done, BBC. You've made me agree with RosPower. I'll never forgive you! --- Seriously though, there's no reason not to have your two new areas IN ADDITION to the very popular boards. To remove these popular boards seems stupid to me. What a shame. This is a reply to this message

Message 31 - posted by Lady Cordelia Smyth (U2279551) , Nov 9, 2006 I've never agreed with RosPower before. On this, I do. This is a reply to this message

Message 32 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 Audience members Do listen and occasionally (regularly actually, in my case) shout at the radio that the main question hasn't been asked, or that a vitally important point has been glossed over or that sometimes the reporting is one-sided. These message boards are the place where we should get to vent that frustration and discuss the issues WE think are newsworthy with other people. To shut off that outlet is ridiculous and actually dangerous to the BBC; some of their staff must occasionally wander onto these boards and these are probably the ONLY places where they might discern that the whole country doesn't have the same biases and blind spots that the BBC does. I bet in their working lives most of them never meet anyone who doesn't unquestioningly share their world view. This is where different viewpoints can be found and it seems amazingly short-sighted to shut that interaction down. Quoted from this message Here, here, LCS. I fully agree with that. BBC - read that out on the today programme, I dare you. This is a reply to this message

Message 33 - posted by Stephen Jones - in our hearts we are Greenlanders (U1175342) , Nov 9, 2006 can someone from the bbc explain the reason for betraying the users of this board with your intention to ruin it. (and ruining the best messageboard around does not make any sense at all) This is a reply to this message

Message 34 - posted by bluejewel (U1725073) , Nov 9, 2006 We believe these changes will allow the Today programme to better reflect the thoughts and opinions of its listeners, making it more relevant to its audience. Quoted from this message What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing to stop any listner from anywhere in the world signing up to this board and posting anything they like for debate and participating in those debates posted by other listners. We are the listners who choose to do exactly that and the board therefore reflects our thoughts and opinions. How did you get information from other listners who do not choose to do so that they would prefer a message board on which they could not start their own debates on subjects of their choosing? As they do not participate, why should their preference overrule ours? Your new idea is rubbish. It is nothing but unjustified unilateral censorship. We don't want it. Not that you are at all interested in our views. After all, you never asked, did you? This is a reply to this message

Message 35 - posted by November Criminal (U4025508) , Nov 9, 2006 Hell, even Lucy Fir agrees with RosPower. ------------------------------------------------------ E-mail feedback; www.bbc.co.uk/radio4... It might just do the trick. This is a reply to this message

Message 36 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 I had until now thought that what audiences did was ... er ... listen. Quoted from this message But the BBC has raised the licence fee in order to pay for these interactive services. If they're going to get rid of the interactive services worth using, can I have the bit of extra money you took without asking me This is a reply to this message

Message 37 - posted by Pippop (U2370644) , Nov 9, 2006 Oh dear oh dear! I can smell the sun dried tomatoes, the polite exchange of Grauniad views with a drizzle of lemon and virgin olive oil, the gurgling of Avian spring water.....The CONTROL. NOOOOOOOOOOO! Pleeeeeeezzzzzzse! NOOOOOOOOOOO! Find some gainful employment elsewhere for these meejah types. This is a reply to this message

Message 38 - posted by Frankacne (U1018893) , Nov 9, 2006 Post Hutton, Stephen, a lot of BBC decisions dont seem to have made sense, unless of course you happen to be a Government crony. I suggest they simply rename the boards to Toady Message Board. Its as easy as a typo. This is a reply to this message

Message 39 - posted by EricB (U2416972) , Nov 9, 2006 I will not wait until 16 November and have only one word to describe this foolish and shortsighted decision: "pathetic". Eric This is a reply to this message

Message 40 - posted by Agricola (U2792275) , Nov 9, 2006 This is staggering. It's rather like being told by the Royal Mail that in order to 'improve' the service, they're taking away the second post and delivering the first post at the time they used to deliver the second post! A little honesty would be refreshing: the BBC don't want people talking about things which they consider too close to the bone. And I can't bear the split infinitive in the last sentence... This is a reply to this message

Message 41 - posted by ZenDogen (U3851951) , Nov 9, 2006 Whats the best alternative board does anyone post elsewhere. Lets all get moving now. Its been nice having a some very good debates, but this just proves everthing some of us thought about the beeb. Farewell til we find non bias board. Dogen This is a reply to this message

Message 42 - posted by Alice_mc (U2268968) , Nov 9, 2006 The programme team wants to involve listeners more in the programme. Reporters and producers on the programme will be able to include more content from our discussions. This is a reply to this message

Message 43 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 We can at least thank the mysterious decision makers for one thing. Finally, we all agree on something! This is a reply to this message

Message 44 - posted by Pippop (U2370644) , Nov 9, 2006 I'm getting some therapy, even I agree with Ros Powers, sob. This is a reply to this message

Message 45 - posted by FlyingSlug (U1227802) , Nov 9, 2006 "We want to make the message boards more relevant to the Today audience. We want to involve listeners more in the programme and we believe the best way of doing that is through the message boards. In order to do this more effectively, we have decided to make some alterations to the boards. We will be closing the five topics that currently exist on this board, and introducing two new ones in their place" Dear Alice, Who are the 'we' you refer to in your message and has 'the Today audience' been asked whether they want a) to be more involved or b)whether they want the message boards to change ? If not why are you removing something which is popular and replacing it with something which will prevent Today listeners talking about whatever subjects they wish to ? Please could you explain why you don't add your new topics to the current lot (then you will quickly find out how popular they are) rather than replacing a system which the people who pay for the BBC (us !)clearly like as it is (as can be seen from the high number of posters ? As you claim to want to involve listeners more I hope you will have the courtesy to answer this listener's questions.. This is a reply to this message

Message 46 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 The programme team wants to involve listeners more in the programme. Reporters and producers on the programme will be able to include more content from our discussions. Quoted from this message Nobody is complaining about your ideas for the new 'rooms'. What everyone is complaining about is your idea to remove one of the best places for people to discuss the modern issues. By stopping people from starting threads that they think are important, how on earth do you suppose that you will get a feel for what us - your listeners - think is important? Put it this way. If your programme correctly analyses what your audience thinks is important, then your new forums will be the most active places anyway. By keeping the old forums up, you'll be able to judge how well or badly your programme content matches what we think is important. There are lots of intelligent people here. Spin won't work. This is a reply to this message

Message 47 - posted by November Criminal (U4025508) , Nov 9, 2006 I will not wait until 16 November and have only one word to describe this foolish and shortsighted decision: "pathetic". Quoted from this message Damn right. This is one of the most popular BBC Message Boards. Another few good reasons attached to not changing the structure of the boards; - It can only add to the Far Right's persecution complex. - Currently, Far Right views are being exposed as the shams they are. I flatter myself that I am a thorn in their sides. These people will just go off to the 'Ein Folk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer' type of message board in which their is no contradiction. - It will take up more time on the part of the Hosts. This is a reply to this message

Message 48 - posted by summermeadow (U5110035) , Nov 9, 2006 could a new board look like this? www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... This is a reply to this message

Message 49 - posted by wwatcher (U2345220) , Nov 9, 2006 I'm getting some therapy, even I agree with Ros Powers, sob. Quoted from this message I know. For the first time, I now know what it felt like in 1939! United we stand! (Well no, of course not. The BBC will do what it damned well likes, dressing it up with rather unforgivably lame spin) This is a reply to this message

Message 50 - posted by Rumbustious (U4040241) , Nov 9, 2006 We could always...... www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-pe... This is a reply to this message

First \| < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > \| Last


	How to reply to messages


	Alert us about a message


	Are you being safe online?