Does 'Radio Today' really only want comments it agrees with?

The story published by internet radio news service 'Radio Today' about Heart taking over from 'The Bay' and Smooth taking over 'Lakeland Radio', and the resultant loss of local shows, and job losses, prompted some lively comments, admittedly by the 'usual suspects'. 

This was in contrast to the complete lack of interest, and response, towards most radio ‘news’ stories. So it’s interesting that Roy of 'Radio Today' has now written:

“Whilst you can expect the usual amount of “It’s a shame the stations are losing their local names and mostly local programmes” (hell, even I love the good old days!), it still shocks me the number of people who will personally insult the people behind the decisions, and call groups like Global all the names under the sun for making progress”

“Progress” ? For whom?

The station or the listeners?

And I’m not sure why he is ‘shocked’ given that the responses are very typical of the few who bother to comment. There is nothing new, because there has been nothing new from the huge major radio groups for many years. Their unimaginative, heavily-formatted ‘one size fits all’ stations full of carefully photographed ‘presenters’ is the equivalent of a loaf of sliced white bread. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with them, but nothing to get excited about when they take over yet another station and lose the local roots and most of the local team….

Does ‘Radio Today’ really expect anyone who contributes to these very specialist forums to be excited, or make positive comments about an industry full of white sliced loaves?

Discouraging comments from fervent radio lovers is not the way to go Roy…. your 'Radio Today' cannot just pander only to the people IN radio...  like any cultural/art discussion, there has to be room for dissent...

________________________

The original news story + replies:

https://radiotoday.co.uk/2018/03/presenters-confirmed-for-new-global-stations/ 

In Praise or in Memoriam? The 'Self-op' DJ

An old photograph of Radio Trent from the middle-80s prompted 'stream of consciousness' memories of hundreds of days doing 2, 3 or even 4 hour shows - it was a photo just of the desk. Few surviving 'studio' photos don't have a grinning DJ in, or an ephemeral pop star, tarted around the UK's commercial stations to promote a long forgotten flop... 

But here we can see the switching, the faders, and of course, the 'can't live without' cartridge machines. In this respect Radio Trent was supreme, not 4, not 5... SEVEN machines to play with! A purist might argue 'they are not 3 stacks'of the 70s' as they are the later, less glamorous, 'not easy to pile on top of each other', solo machines. With these, ones index finger had to dash further between the (ever) green 'play' buttons than on the ITC 3 stacks...

Not shown are the turntables; there were 3 - but sadly the original 1976 Gates turntables (seemingly cast in one piece from American battleship metal) had been replaced with some more slender, sleek, stylish 'grams', perhaps originally designed for the radio studio on the SS Enterprise?

But I digress - I want to write about the missing ingredient.  As far back as the late 70s Gillian Reynolds lamented the solitary, insecure (self-employed) life that DJs had to lead.... And by the 21st century, no Gates, or ITC machines were to be seen in radio studios.... 

Nor were many DJs....

The commercial radio DJs who used these desks kept their jobs not only by having short holidays, a great voice, and deep knowledge of music, but because they COULD operate a desk, and could understand all the switching, and balancing needed. They knew how to cue a vinyl disc with 2, 10 or 30 seconds off the front so it perfectly followed a jingle. And they did all this as they interviewed unlikely combinations of  guests: "today Agnes from the National Trust, our beauty consultant Sue from the Guerlaine counter at Debenhams, and Barbara Windsor who is in Panto at.... " And all without even a producer in the studio....

For over 20 years radio has been infiltrated by 'money men' (and at the BBC, agents). Now the stations' philosophies does not embrace many actual 'DJs', but instead 'personalities' from the world of TV, newspapers, the theatre, or worse still, sport. And sadly the undiscerning UK radio audience never notices - they are more interested that a new voice has previously been 'seen' on Coronation Street, or singing an Lloyd-Webber song on a London stage. 

I say 'voice', and by that I don't  mean a true 'radio voice' - because we were suddenly confronted by people with little tone, timbre, pacing or WARMTH in their voice - and most loved themselves rather more than the songs they played. And rather than talk about their bus journey into 'work' (radio is NEVER work) they speak of very little of any meaning, and some have to be scripted/ recorded ahead of broadcast as they cannot get though an hour or two of 'links' without stumbling. This is fine for the 'specialist' shows Radio 2 spend a fortune on to broadcast to their smallest audiences - but even daytime listeners now have their ears assaulted by 'personalities' who have NO no idea  'how to DJ'.

• Some read out phone requests, hospital radio style... giggling regularly...

• Some hang a whole show around their 'crew' in the studio, who giggle to order...

• Few have been avid record collectors prior to their agent calling to say 'you got it !' 

• Most have no idea how to match the end of a jingle with the next song... 

Almost universally it is now no longer acceptable to actually be a 'DJ'; you have to be a 'presenter', be part of a 'team' - who speak to each other rather than THE actual listener. Only 'bubbly' Waynes and Chantelles are allowed to call-in, and then only safely pre-recorded. And for national radio you definitely need a  switched-on London 'agent' to negotiate your meteoric wages...

What about 'commercial radio' DJs ? 

'Locally' (though in truth 85% of 'local' output often comes from London) whole swathes of 17 year-olds who previously might have been taken on to do overnights on a station, or at the very least be a trainee producer, find themselves working at Lloyds Bank, or a call -centre... in-between short 'escapes' to do an hour or two on the local hospital station.

All of this went hand-in-hand with a huge change in how radio was presented.. 

...the glorious studio desk at the top of the page....

............. was replaced by a computer screen and a

NEXT

button.....

The change in how radio shows were be created meant that the computer system, soothed by someone who actually knew the music, could massage every 24 hour day into life, in a few minutes. And the 

NEXT

button.....

..... meant literally ANYONE could now be a radio 'presenter'.... 

Sadly, this ethos, while perhaps being 'ok' for kids listening (less and less ) to BBC Radio One, was also cast over all of BBC Radio 2, where now just a few REAL DJ's cling to their last years, trying to ignore the idea of 'retirement'....  In a press photo of over 40 'presenters' employed by the BBC (on this one station) the number off actual DJs was noticeably small - rather like a few pedigree dogs amidst a sea of strays at a dog's home.

If you are under 45 you may well wonder what I am whittling-on about? And the attitude towards radio (and the need for any kind of radio) of the next few generations may extinguish it all anyway. But even so the industry is now sprouting training 'academies' (at a time more radio jobs are vapourising like a Dr. Who villain), and wages in the commercial sector are going down - £20,000 a year for a self-employed DJ on some stations.

Perhaps the one glimmer of hope is the Internet? 

Dozens of stations run by old DJs, at least give their younger volunteers, a chance to be creative - learn, and love, and share good music, in dozens of formats....

p.s. I missed a key point from this Blog

When each commercial station had a team of DJs covering 24 hours, the daily social interaction both on and off-air, and in weekly meetings, was part of the 'magic' that made them so special.  

Nowadays the breakfast show team are treated like royalty, and nurtured and guided until they are 'let go' aged 39, and the DJs on the other shows 'sent' from London have often not even visited all the areas they broadcast AT!! 

The BBC 'gets its financial knickers in a twist' - again

I'm not the first to say it since Carrie Gracie's liberating / betrayal / disgraceful letter (take your pick), but THE simple answer to this woman's desire to earn the same as male journalists is to pay them the same as her! They are massively overpaid by a corporation that has for years been told to cut costs. Voila !

Of course there is more to it than that - Gracie is clearly a skilled communicator, but how often do we want, or need to hear about China? Surely, Washington and other cities are far more 'newsworthy' to the typical BBC viewer/ listener. The output from Washington is certainly higher on a day-to-day basis, and so the male staff in such locations are perhaps on higher wages because of  their experience and longevity. But Gracie, playing the 'gender balance card' the way she did, means a lot of women less-talented than her will now get 'their knickers in a twist' about the wage element of future jobs. We must not let 'gender balance' and political correctness add even more to the HUGE amount of public money consumed by the BBC. 

And here is the CORE thing that needs to be answered by the BBC 'suits'.  WHY does the BBC persist in using high wages to TIE 'talent' to Aunties apron? There is a large department endlessly promoting its staff training, work of the 'academy' (read 'broadcast school') , its 'diversity' (read 'only non-white job applicants allowed') . If the training is so good WHY can't the over-expensive, wage-rise demanding staff be TOLD to pack their bags - there must be hundreds waiting to 'be them' !

The BBC cannot have it BOTH ways. If they are not going to use new talent, close the departments nurturing it  and employ 'talent' from commercial radio and TV !

Forgetting the cost, exactly what does 'gender balance' achieve? Three years ago (Lord ) Tony Hall decreed every BBC Local Radio breakfast show had to have a female presenter as well as a male one. That over PC decision COST money, and as subsequent ratings haves shown was a DISASTER. But now, ignoring his own past failures, he is pushing for another chance to rectify the mess HE created by giving the BBC Locals back TEN MILLION POUNDS! If he were a gambler by now he'd have been checked-out of the casino... but of course few leave, and even those being 'investigated' just temporarily 'step aside'... but that's another story...

Back to Gracie, who was actually presenting the programme her letter was discussed on by others, as she had not actually quit the BBC at all, only her position reporting from Beijing. Indeed it is now known that she has "returned to her former post in the BBC newsroom" - the 'jobs for life' ethos that percolates through many levels of the BBC.  And given that lovely BBC pension I doubt she will exit 'on a point of principle'. More likely she'll push hard, protected by the likes of other overpaid, vociferous staff like Clare (£500,000+ salary) Balding. 

There must be 100 fully trained, experienced 'BBC women' with Gracies's skills who would be happy to work for aunty in Beijing. But then of course there is Gary (2 million salary) Lineker....  an individual whose precise skills are lost on most people except some (doubtless male) BBC suits who agree his 'wage'. 

So, thinking about it..

Dear BBC 'Suits',
GIVE Carrie Gracie her pay rise - it's not your money the suckers who still pay the licence fee are paying it!