Great Coverage of Great National Events: The BBC Way

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

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

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

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

Caroline,



You state you are a huge personal fan of the Proms, which I think everyone would agree is great celebration of music, and whilst it costs a huge sum to put on is the sort of thing the BBC ought to be doing.



Radio 3 - which is one of the BBC's highest quality radio stations does for classical music what 6Music does for music that is (often, but not always) written for non-orchestral instruments.



So why do the same arguments of quality not apply to that station? You and the rest of the senior management appear to have written it off as 'pop' music.



Does your personal choice come into this? Both yourself and the other senior managers at the BBC seem to enjoy (personally) Radio3, but seem to fail to understand just the same pleasure listeners of 6Music get as you do for your favoured type of music.



They are both leading radio stations in their field doing much the same thing, albeit in different ways.



What is Radio3 sacrosanct and 6Music disposable?



A cynic might suggest this is simply that Radio3 (cost per listener more than DOUBLE that of 6Music, even without the recent surge in audience numbers) has friends in high places?



Be great to know your views.

Caroline, I’m sure I would be here defending the BBC’s coverage of these ‘key national events’ but unless you actually provide day-to-day services that are relevant to my life, then I’ll reserve judgement. You seem very keen on promoting the big spectacle, the things you and your fellow executive members clearly enjoy, but forgetting us poor schmucks who see small but vital, unique, completely irreplaceable services like the Asian Network and 6Music potentially being closed.



Six months ago, I would have stood on the barricades to protect the BBC from the attacks of Murdoch, The Mail Group and other interested parties. Now I’m more likely to be protesting outside Broadcasting House, trying to protect the Corporation from being dismembered by a group of its own people who clearly have no understanding, no feeling for what the BBC was set up to do. Unless they can get an all expenses paid VIP box to enjoy the show.

The BBC should not be chasing big ratings as the best way to spend our licence fee. It should provide a service that is not available anywhere else - such as 6Music. If you make high quality, entertaining, educational programmes, and it results in big ratings, then that is great. I'm not an elitist. I like Doctor Who and some mainstream shows are good quality. But you should not be filling up the schedule with shows that ostensibly are reading out the lottery numbers on peak time Saturday night. The BBC should not waste money trying to beat the X Factor in the ratings.

You obviously love music because of your comments on Radio 3. It is excellent but it and 6Music provide the same service for it's niche audience. Considering you can only get 6Music on DAB or online, it's listener figures are as good, if not arguably better, than Radio 3. And they are rising. So if Radio 3 is good enough to keep, then why should the BBC attempt to axe 6Music ? The argument falls apart. As does your earlier comments about 6Music listeners being served by the commercial sector because the average age of the listener is 37. 6Music is unique and could not, and would not, be provided anywhere else. That is why I pay my licence fee.

You're a big fan of the Proms.

You also state that you must deliver value for money.

Radio 3 costs £51 million for an audience of 1.8 million.

6 Music costs £9 million for an audience of 700,000.

Please explain why you aren't considering the closure of Radio 3 instead of 6 Music.

I agree with Clive.



Please do explain though, Caroline. In the interests of TRANSPARENCY. It would help move the debate on.

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

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

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

The topic of this blog is the BBC blowing its own trumpet about its coverage of "Great National Events". The only problem is that no figures are mentioned. How much is coverage of all the events mentioned above going to cost? Is it significantly more than the cost of maintaining 6 Music?



PS I can't understand why so many comments here are being kicked out by the moderators. I think you need to adopt some moderation in your moderating.

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

Dear Ms Thomson,



You say "The viewer does not expect one of the world's greatest sporting occasions presented from some windowless room in the basement of Television Centre."



That may well be true, but unless we go back to the early 1970s with Frank Bough presenting "Grandstand" from Lime Grove studios, that is not the realistic alternative, is it? A nicely designed modern studio set with computer generated backgrounds or matted-in live shots from remote cameras through CG "windows" would be perfectly acceptable to most - if not all - viewers and could be done at a fraction of the cost.



It may be that to you, with your personal management record at the BBC, anything under - let's think - say £100million sounds cheap for a building project. However, I can assure you that viewers do not want the BBC to be spending vast amounts on temporary luxury studios abroad (or even in the UK).



I do despair sometimes at the apparent arrogance and myopia of the current BBC management.

The coverage of the protest against the proposed closure of 6 Music outside Broadcasting House wasn't so great.

Bit disappointing that so many comments are being deleted here Mods.My last posting "wasn't related to the blog subject"....



Yeah, Proms. Great stuff. Well done BBC, you are brilliant. Blah, blah.Really looking forward to the opening night, will probably go along wearing my SAVE 6MUSIC tee-shirt. I understand contemporary music will be represented by The Thom(p)son Twins doing a cover version of 'We Want Answers'.



Yeah, love the proms me.

Oh dear, that last post of Mr Parsnips was hilarious. And completely innocuous. But did it touch a few raw nerves? Everything that is being used to justify the clearly unhinged proposal to dismantle 6Music could equally be applied to Radio 3, couldn't it? The Lords Committee knew it the other week when they questioned Thompson. But I'm sure you all wouldn't like to lose your nice boxes at the Opera House or Albert Hall, would you?

I have seen Andy Parsnip's deleted blog post and it was most definitely on the subject as Thomson raised her love of classical music and the proms and the Parsnip post addressed that area of the BBC's output. This is censorship for management convenience plain and simple BBC moderators - if your managers cannot deal with ironic humour, they are not fit to look after a major British institution - ironic wit is one of the British talents and irreverent humor a staple of British life.

I am a BBC licence payer who will watch (some of) the World Cup this summer. I would be intrigued to know (perhaps a Freedom of information request may be required) how many of the global sporting events of the past that Thomson gushes about in this blog ( e.g. Coe and Ovett's in Moscow 1980 or Fosbury in Mexico 1968) were covered from £1M (in today's money) studios on site? It is the sporting action, not the talking heads (or what the picture is behind them) that sticks in the memor



The confusion between expenditure and quality seems to be at the heart of the BBC's current problems. Spending more on better production values may feel a safe way of getting quality, but for much content it is immaterial.



To give a further example, whilst the current Dr Who is fine (if over promoted - do we really need a video game), my teenage sons have the same relationship as I had with it in the days of cardboard walls and rubbish monsters. It is the acting and plot that are what matters most.



And of course, there is the much loved (by BBC's own admission) 6Music. Good value that - both the the BBC compared to much other BBC radio - and to the cultural benefit (or economic) of the nation.

Actually I'd rather expect great events to be presented from a windowless box in television centre. Why do you think you need to send an enormous retinue of staff and "stars" to the four corners of the globe? It's the event that is important, not the BBC.



And don't even get me started on the economics of Radio 3 vs. 6 Music.

For those who missed my earlier posting before I was gagged, I hope those at the BBC understand that this is satire, I mean no harm;



"I have to disagree with the majority of comments on here and feel it right to clarify why I have put forward my proposal to close Radio 3 in my strategic review.



Radio 3 has had some, limited, success in getting a good size audience and there is no doubting its contribution to British Culture with its quality programming. But despite being widely available on FM and digital it has been getting very disappointing 'unique' listening figures and does not offer value for money to the licence holder.



The average age of Radio 3 listeners is 56 and we've found that this is an age group that is targeted by advertisers. More importantly 'popular' classical music is served well by the commercial sector, there are literally several "similar" stations to Radio 3.



Hence the BBC's decision to close Radio 3. It's not an easy decision. But the BBC has to do fewer things better and the cost-per-listener of this station is simply too high. Some of Radio 3's quality programming can be absorbed into Radio 1xtra and BBC Radio Shetland's overnight schedule. My review states quite clearly that BBC has to concentrate on quality content, knowledge and culture so there's no place for Radio 3.



Obviously I will be unavailable to comments on any of my proposals for the next 3 months as I will be busy booking my 1st class tickets to South Africa, travelling everywhere in taxis, sending reassuring emails to News International and filling out expense forms.



But do feel free to tell the BBC Trust what you think. They might care, we don't.



Taxi!

To Laura Editor - number 23



I assure you, everybody commenting here has already gone through the Strategic Review Consultation Questionnaire, with its management doublespeak loaded questions. We're frustrated by the fact that top brass - Thompson, Thomson, Davie and Parfitt - are going out of their way to not engage with the public in any way, which is something that internet users expect to happen on a blog, and something we expect from public servants. Instead we get a drip-drip of PR pieces that reiterate a 'party' line, or silence.



What we want ISN'T a brief paragraph repeating a fact that we all know - that there's a consultation going on with questions designed to get the result Mark Thompson desires - although to have an Editor drop by and say hello is welcome. (Unless "Laura" is a code name for a forum bot. But I expect you're lovely.) What we want is these people - who are our employees, each one of them - to listen to us and respond. Not just put out another statement recycling what has been said before, but to actually answer us and justify their suggestions in the face of the evidence and suggestions we have. Think of it as an appraisal.



I don't doubt for a moment that this comment will get moderated off to /dev/null so I'm taking a leaf from other commenters and posting it in an unmoderated forum as well. We have to co-ordinate to prevent control of the BBC slipping to vested interests - especially now the definite Tory victory is anything but now.



Steve

Thanks, Laura. As Steve notes, we have all responded to the consultation as it stands. It's a shockingly poor document. As I have said previously, if you are proposing to cut 6music, what are you putting in its place? If we knew this we might be able to respond constructively. Instead, we're lumbered with this half-baked idea that quite clearly isn't flying.



This incompetence and twisted-thinking relates directly to Caroline's above comments. Throwing money at something doesn't automatically increase its quality. I'd prefer to see my licence fee spent wisely on programmes that I enjoy. As Colin pointed out in response 20, it's the occasion we remember. Do I recall who was in the studio when Michael Owen scored against Argentina at World Cup 98? No. I don't.



I notice today that someone has 'resigned' as a result of the original 6music leak. The issue is not with middle-management, but with the BBC top brass. The Executive does not recognise quality and it has unhealthy fixation with audience figures. The Executive would do well to remember that they work for the BBC and not a commercial broadcaster.

I agree completely with the above comment (24). Certain individuals within the BBC are showing contempt for the public they claim to serve, and we have the right to point that out without being censored, then fed patronising soundbytes.



Anyhow, back to the Proms. They're great.



But 6Music provides a service of equal quality, costs less per listener and is more relevant to todays audience. Caroline, congratulating yourself for your coverage of cultural events while you plan to close the most culturally relevant radio station in Britain is arrogant and hypocritical. You are being driven by your own musical preferences rather than by your duty to the license-fee payer.

Obviously I agree with so many of the posts above. Radio 3 is being overlooked when it comes to the 'value-for-money' decisions, because it is obviously the personal favourite of those making the decisions. This article says it all because it is the BBC at it's 'aren't we good, let's pat ourselves on the back, chaps' best... Look at what we're doing ...again. Proms.. Doctor Who Proms Special ... World Cup (hang on, are they the only channel showing matches?!) Aren't they clever? Yes, pat on the back, folks, NOT!



You say you want to ensure value for money? What a joke! You are giving the taxpayers, the people who pay YOUR money, the same recycled programmes, and then telling us we should be PROUD of it! AND THEN there's that new 'offering' such as that DOROTHY rubbish to boot.



The ironic thing is, when you do get it right, with intelligent programming such as 6MUSIC, you decide it has to go. Or just as bad, with no idea what real music is, you think it can be tagged onto another COMPLETELY different station. Keep 6Music, then pat yourself on the back.



By the way, I did complete the survey.

Dear Laura Editor (Post 23),



How well do you think it reflects on the BBC that your own link to the BBC Strategy Review page has been removed by one of your own moderators?



Risible.

The main purpose of the BBC is provide adequate and sometimes over-saturated coverage of major events. Two such events are the Proms season and the football World Cup.



While the two events are very different in their own way they have a few things in common: corporate hospitality, lavish budgets and an audience that quickly tires of the wall-to-wall coverage and only returns for the big finale.



But the coverage of these events serves many other purposes. For example, the BBC is often criticized for ‘dumbing-down’, so 2,000 hours of highly unremarkable and often indescribably dull classical music on Radio 3 allows us to say “We’re not dumbing-down, oh no, look at our Proms season, that’s very intellectual”. This gives our other content producers space to make low-end programming like “Fitter than my chartered accountant” and “Divorce, Keep or Murder”.



Turning to the World Cup. I appreciate that the cost of converting Table Mountain into a luxury broadcasting suite may seem somewhat lavish, but we feel it is money well spent. It’s the middle of winter in South Africa now, if Gary, Alan, Alan and the other assorted retired millionaire footballers aren’t snug and warm in their pod they will have to dispense with their trademark open shirt look. It also gives the BBC a chance to say “We’re not dumbing-down, oh no, look at our quality studio, now over to Ray Stubbs who’s asked some drunk football fans to wave a flag and chant ‘Engerland’ badly”



It really is a fantastic chance for the BBC to provide coverage of a sport that is simply not available anywhere else within the commercial sector. It would be a false economy to not spend millions on the half of the World Cup coverage that isn’t on ITV. The licence fee payers expect a quality experience and by sending 150 staff and a battalion of top level executives 18,000 miles to South Africa we should be able to deliver it. We at the BBC are proud that the United Kingdom may or may not be watching the BBC when the England team narrowly avoid elimination from the group stages only to lose heroically against the first decent team they encounter.



Viewers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can watch a rerun of a documentary on Celtic basket weaving or something.



Taxi!

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

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

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

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

"We are not going to short-change the audience"



Caroline Delighted to see this is the case - so when are you admitting the R6 scenario has now become a complete farce, fiasco and embarrassment to the BBC you claim to love?



The Management increasingly look totally isolated and you move from one farce to another. I hear you may have a vacancy in your team now?



Radio 6 gives modern (and classic) music fans the equivalent of the proms in Classical land.



In the interests of openness and transparency that I'm pleased to see you are so in favour of can you confirm just how many complaints the BBC has received over this issue?



How much money has been wasted? Why do you not agree to meet a delegation of the license fee payers and finally answer some of our questions - you know the one's you and your colleagues continue to ignore.



Save yourself from further embarrassment and reverse the decision now.



Moderator can you please re-install the link in post 23 :



https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/bbc-strategy-review/consultation/consult_view

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

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

Whilst not expecting you to broadcast the World Cup from a basement in Lime Grove, why is the BBC wasting OUR money building a new studio and production suite in Cape Town, when you could use the International Broadcast Centre in Johannesburg, where ITV and all the other international broadcasters will be based? You will also have to fork out for extra costs, thought to be a significant six figure sum minimum, to relay a signal the 1,500km between Capetown and Johannesburg where the game feeds come in. Can you please explain the rationale for this? Could this money not be better spent supporting a rapidly expanding radio station that nurtures and promotes young musical talent in the UK?

"The viewer does not expect one of the world's greatest sporting occasions presented from some windowless room in the basement of Television Centre."



Actually, Ms. Thompson, yes we do. As Jon A-S so rightly points out, the "spend" (and Lord how I hate corporate new-media-speak; please to address us in English?) can and should be vastly reduced. Gaudy, purpose-built single-use studios for these events should be the very FIRST thing that is cut: NOT genuinely useful, educational, informative CONTENT such as 6 Music, the Asian Network, and Radio 3. Less flash, please, less "spend" while you're about it, and more of the great content the BBC is capable of providing which is unavailable in the commercial sector. Thank you.

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

You know what, I wasn't going to bother attacking this post; I figured that since it didn't directly reference the 6 Music debacle that currently occupies my attention I would let it slide.



But on re-reading, I can't help but notice yet another instance of non-joined-up thinking:



"The viewer does not expect one of the world's greatest sporting occasions presented from some windowless room in the basement of Television Centre."



This is 2010. You could broadcast from a green-screened studio in Tumbridge Wells and "The viewer" would be none the wiser.



But then I, like others who have commented here, probably wouldn't have questioned this sort of thing were I not spending disproportionate amounts of my personal time fighting the cultural vandalism (to quote Phil Jupitus, and not Mr. Parfitt) that would be the closure of 6 Music.



I have seen it suggested that 6 Music might have been targeted specifically in anticipation of the strength of protest it was expected to generate; either as a gambit against anticipated Tory pressure, or in order to deflect attention away from other aspects of the proposal, such as the closure of the Asian Network. If this turns out to have been the case, I hope it is now painfully clear that the damage done to the BBC executive board's credibility will prove far costlier than the honest path would have been.

Kamsd at #33 said "I would also like to congratulate you on uniting, and demoralising, a group of people who like me were once passionate about the virtues and the output of the BBC"



Add me to the ever growing list of the "short-changed" please!



The issue I have here are the obvious double standards being applied by Ms Thompson to some BBC output versus the foolhardy, ignorant and simply incorrect statements being made about 6 Music following proposals to close it. They don't stack up against up each other.



Our anger isn't simply about 6 Music though. It is about statements and decisions being made at the BBC that seem to lack the neccessary wisdom. This betrays the trust we used to have with the BBC.



I don't watch the Proms - but I respect it's cultural value and assume that decisions on it including cost are made in full knowledge of what it represents. Why can't the same standard be made for 6 Music? It's a slippery slope. Perhaps in 20 years time when the younger generation moves into senior BBC management, they'll throw the Proms aside using the same logic that's being used to cut back the BBC's digital radio output now.

I am not quite sure why comment 31 has been removed the day after it had been posted for being off-topic. If that's the case I'll try to align my thoughts more clearly with Caroline's blog:



Caroline, what's going on? What can of worms have you opened with threatening to close 6music? Now we're heavily scrutinising every aspect of the Beeb's work and it's been exposed for what it is: audience driven, low-quality and wasteful. The preoccupation with these headline events is an example of this, and your other services suffer as a direct result. The Executive really has to realise that an expensive project isn't necessarily a quality one. Has it not dawned on any of you to get creative? You are the BBC and creativity should ingrained. You talk about it often enough. Get creative with the staging and save some money! We expect better. Especially since it's our money that you're wasting.



To be honest, I hadn't realised the extent of the problems at the BBC until the 6music debacle. I strongly suspect that other people hadn't either. Yentob's comments yesterday were unhelpful. The Executive just don't respect the licence fee payers. We are not cash machines.

I notice you have a strange way with your figures by the way, Caroline. You claim that ‘more than 16m people watched some of the Proms last year’. Now we all know that the Last Night is the most watched concert, you yourself claim a TV audience of 4.5m. The other 11.5m – did they all watch the mainstream recitals and performances? Really?



What you appear to have done is take the 2008 figure across all platforms (including radio) – presumably a figure in which some people both listened and watched. Do they count as double? How would you know?



Similarly, the quote that ‘84% of people see sport as a vital way of bringing society together’. I presume this refers to sport as an activity, rather than as couch potato TV viewing. But I don’t know because you haven’t provided references. Very important if you want to real off statistical research to your advantage.



But you have history with this. The, by now infamous, 4000 unique listeners statistic you and your colleagues were throwing around last month in your attempts to smear the 6Music audience for having the temerity to occasional listen to other BBC radio services. You didn’t quote any source for that either, did you?

Ms Thompson says - "The viewer does not expect one of the world's greatest sporting occasions presented from some windowless room in the basement of Television Centre."



Might I just point out that earlier this year the BBC covered the Super Bowl from Florida in this manner, which is also one of the world's greatest sporting occasions. It was the 3rd year the BBC have covered the game. In the first 2 years, they had a studio at the site of the game (in addition to their commentary team). This year the studio presenters Jake Humphery (?) and Mike Carlson presented from a 'windowless' room (no idea if it was in the basement) and handed over to the commentary team at various times during the game. And you know what? It made NO DIFFERENCE! I enjoyed the coverage as much as in previous years. Perhaps the BBC should follow this template for other sporting events and save some money to spend on other worthwhile ventures.

Why is BBC2 showing repeats when there is a good show on maps on BBC4?

Look, you lot all think you know how to run a broadcasting company do you? We work our behinds off 6 hours a day, 5 days a week to bring you such gems as 'Helping Posh, Loaded People to Find Their Second Home' and

'Celebrities In My Attic'. I have 12 months experience in quality TV and before that I used to be a marketing manager for Malcolm's Cat Foods. So I don't think anyone can question whether I deserve my £400,000 per year wage with confidential expense account.



Turning to the World Cup. Really, I've heard so much bickering on here, stuff like "should the BBC build a studio?", "should the BBC cover soccer?" and "why can't more BBC executives go out and watch all the matches?".



I think it's time to stop the debate and get behind our team.

They may not be perfect and some of them may be ineffectual and ready for retirement, but they need our support. So come on everyone, get behind them and support the BBC executive team.

Far fewer presenters at Glastonbury please. Could we get to see more of the bands and far less of the, generally, tedious presenters? You could save tax payers money and produce a better programme!



Do not axe 6Music; I don't think you realise how important this little station is to so many of us ... it is a big big part of what I feel makes up our identity and culture.

On the whole the BBC's coverage of major national events is excellent - the exhaustive coverage of the Proms, the World Cup and the Olympics are a credit and I fully support the BBC's continuing mission of information, education and...um...entertaintion? Entertainment, sorry. However the contention that "The viewer does not expect one of the world's greatest sporting occasions presented from some windowless room in the basement of Television Centre." is, in my opinion, simply incorrect. I personally would be most happy for the presenting team to be sitting in a studio, perhaps in front of a green screen. If it meant that the cost savings were put to a better use (and I'm sure many of the posters here have some ideas on that score) I see no reason for the non-pitchside team to be anywhere particularly picturesque. As a previous poster has stated, it worked (albeit on a much smaller scale) for the Superbowl so why not the World Cup? Iconic moments and knowledgeable top quality broadcasting are not a product of a fancy-looking studio but of knowledgable and enthusiastic reporters and presenters.

I have emailed my MP (Jeremy Hunt) about the censorship applied to my post.



It was not off topic as it explicitly mentioned the World Cup studio and proper oversight of BBC expenditure. The fact that itw as taken off after initial moderation implies it must have been a management action.

Stop blocking people - you're a public servant on £400K+ and you're accountable to us.



Nothing is off topic.

"Bringing our audiences the World Cup, the Proms, and the other landmark events that really resonate with everyone..."



Hate to break it to you Caroline, but they don't 'really resonate' with 'everyone'. I happen to enjoy classical music, and have a huge amount of recordings, but the amount of times I've watched the proms can be counted on one hand (not including the thumb).



"It's no secret that I am a huge fan of the Proms"



Hmmm, I wonder if that's played a big part of the so-called 'reasoning' which would have 6 Music on the chopping block, and Radio 3 shielded from harm.



Because, as you are well aware of, on most other 'cold analysis' counts, 6 is ahead of 3, and it's impossible for anyone to deny it and remain credible. Is there one yardstick for your preferences, and another for what you're indifferent to?



In all kinds of undesirable senses, this is going to turn into the most expensive 'budget-saving/housekeeping' the BBC has ever made. Is the migraine for all concerned really worth the (relative) 6 million drop in the ocean..? All this pointless reshuffling of the furniture has only given 6 Music the PR campaign Auntie was too stingy to give it; and with a mushrooming legion of new fans already making themselves known with official statistics, the already wobbly ground those who gave this hare-brained idea the thumbs-up is all set to cave in.



Time to face the music Carol, even if you don't like the tune. Though perhaps if you put some time aside, pricked up your ears a bit, and listened with full attention, you'd notice the value in it that so many others have come to develop such a meaningful bond with.

Oh, isn't it wonderful that you will always cover the big events over several platforms just like putting The Proms on BBC Three (Somewhere that it doesn't fit in one slight way), but you don't want to cover small events like the Summer Sundae festival on 6Music. Events that because of 6Music, I have continually been to for year. Yes, I listen to things on my favourite under fire station and actually go out and do.



Good to see the BBC is turning into a big commercial cop out. I really am bored of seeing new stuff on the BBC.

I take issue that 6 music is not relevant to this discussion.



The author of this blog has been one of the leading faces/voices of the proposal to close 6 music spouting an argument that has been discredited from passionate listeners and artists as well as the music industry itself. She and others have failed to follow up multiple requests to a reasonable public discussion on these matters. So when we see a blog like this which is full of contradictions, which did not apply when she was discussing 6 music, we have every right to be incensed and ask questions.

I note your comments regarding re-instating my comment Bridget. The fact that you feel it necessary to remove comments mentioning 6Music by rote concerns me regarding the management culture you may be working under.



I should expand on my previous comment by stating that the scrutiny on such expenditure should be extended to all such events, including Glastonbury - this is not particularly a 6Music related point.

"It's no secret that I am a huge fan of the Proms"



Sad to say the more I read from management the worse it gets! So its OK to spend millions on something that has a relatively small audience WHEN YOU ARE A FAN is it Caroline ?



Your very own BBC stats just issued



https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/siteusage/



show 6 music to have :



a) More unique listeners than Radio 3 (despite 6 being only available on digital) 1 extra and Radio7



b) Over three (3) times more monthly listening hours than 1 extra



c) Over four (4) times more listening hours than Radio 7 and double that of Radio 3



d) A quick comparison of the charts for 1 extrahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/chart/singles



and Radio 1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles/



Show eight of the top ten songs are IDENTICAL



And are exactly the same chart fodder on nearly every commercial station in the country!



e) Not one of the songs on the current 6 playlist https://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/listen/playlist.shtml



Is in either of the other two stations charts thus clearly proving 6 music is a unique listening experience that neither R1 or R2 - not any commercial station - could ever replicate.



Thus 6 music is exactly the sort of station the BBC should be concentrating on due to its unique and cultural values - like your beloved Radio 3.



As it is assured Management are reading these posts please have the decency to give this one a public reply. Why have you picked out 6 music and kept your favourites intact when the budget for 6 is a mere fraction of 3?



Looking forward to a clear concise response why you can not move part of the budget from some of these "Great National Events" to SAVE 6 MUSIC



Tim

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

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

Dear Caroline,



I've just Googled 'great radio broadcasts'. Names like Churchill, Martin Luther King and Kennedy came up, the Hindenburg disaster and Orson Welles were also listed. Each historic, each remembered by the generation living at the time. I remember John Arlott, the BBC cricket commentator whose output was informative, entertaining and so full of typical English idiosyncrasy it was almost poetic.



Do you see where I'm going with this?



Now apply that rationale to coverage now and to the World Cup and the Proms.



Do you have to throw money at an event to make it memorable for your viewers and listeners?



Maybe some of us don't need to hear the opinions of the personalities employed in the talking shop that events generate. Knowledgeable commentary is very welcome, but is that always present throughout? Are your talking heads always articulate, interesting and well-informed?



What is the ratio of total programme length to actual event?

Can you really justify the large proportion of sporting ex-participants talking about very little?



So having considered your explanation of the expansive big event budget, could it be said that you really value form far more than content?



Big things stick in the memory for many reasons but, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, money is not the decider, quality is. Look at the film market. Costner's The Postman cost $63m and was an almighty flop, 'The Blair Witch Project' end production costs were below $750,000 and it grossed $248m to much critical acclaim.



Another rather more basic phrase would be 'Fur coat and no drawers...'



If you can't find the budget for quality like 6Music that is unique, why are you throwing money at big events covered by several other broadcasters and sending celebs to pass opinions on them when really they don't have that much to say when they get there?



So I would urge you to invest a little less in the flashy fur coat of broadcasting of which you appear to be very fond - and I'd like to see a few more pairs of good quality knickers for my money please?

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

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

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

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

"Unique listeners" "commercial demographic"



Explain

It's hugely reassuring to see your commitment to quality coverage of important national and international events and I'm sure that this dedication will be expressed in the form of condemning the proposed closure of 6music, since this is a station that provides unique coverage of breaking music news daily and high quality coverage of hugely popular events such as Glastonbury, Reading, Leeds and SXSW festivals. Of course you are aware that destroying 6music would give a large chunk of this coverage to commercial radio, thus threatening the BBC's special status as a quality broadcaster and losing large numbers of listeners and viewers.

Astonishing success today for Radio 6 - looking forward to confirmation later today that the BBC have made a dreadful mistake and did not actually realise what it had. What an absolute PR disaster by the BBC this whole thing has been - now is time to admit you were wrong and the initial reasons you gave for it needing to close are all proven fictitious.



You expect transparency at the Beeb - so now is the time to admit you GOT IT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, Tim. Astonishing success for 6music with the new RJAR figures out.



Caroline - this goes to prove that you don't have to throw money at something to make it hugely successful.

On the subject of national events, yes you do broadcast important (I prefer it to the overused "iconic") events irrespective of ratings success - as you should. It's right that the BBC goes on covering these events - you have the experience, access, funds and in some cases a duty to do so.

The way you cover these events should be debated. I don't want Wimbledon, or the World Cup, or Glastonbury, or the Proms to be covered by a presenter in a basement studio in Television Centre. Neither do I want production teams large enough to carry out a military invasion, senior BBC management swanning around with their free weekend passes or a procession of pundits diverting screen time away from the event itself. As others have pointed out, the lasting memories are of the event itself, not what Tom, Dick or Harry said about it afterwards. There is a optimum of expenditure and quality of coverage somewhere in between. You must demonstrate value for money, and that means greater transparency and accountability.

You bemoan the "simplistic debate" about staffing numbers, which I take as a reference to the controversy over the size of the BBC team deployed at events such as Glastonbury, the Olympics and the like. The debate would be far less simplistic if you made public your accounts in a way that enabled proper scrutiny.

My second point is a more general one on the "About the BBC" Blog. Having read a few of the blog entries now, what depresses me the most is the patronising communication style which seems to permeate the upper echelons of BBC management. You may well all be lovely people, but you come across as detached, corporate and aloof. There are repeated references to "the viewer" and "the audience" in virtually all the blog entries - have you forgotten that you are addressing the very same? Or perhaps you have actually forgotten how to address your audience? They read more like speeches intended for media industry conferences, and as such the blog feels more like an exercise in self-congratulation or self-justification rather than a genuine attempt to engage with licence payers. Have you carried out any research as to how many of those who comment on these blogs are satisfied by the experience?

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

Ms Thomson. Glastonbury is our Proms.



Only 6Music and BBC Four can do it justice.



Now, please leave things you simply don't understand alone