As a news and sports station that is what in my opinion 5 Live should be providing. Shouldn’t it be if you want a break from news and current affairs you tune into another radio station for your entertainment and celebrity focused content?
I don't get why there is an expectation that anyone will enjoy all of the content produced by any radio station.
5 live is clearly trying to provide different types of content at different times of day. The Bacon show is a decision to provide a less news foccussed and more entertainment based show. This will obvioiusly not please people wanting a news foccussed show at that time, but I don't personally see why this is something which any radio station should feel the need to make excuses for.
We live in an age where there is a huge amount of content produced by the BBC and other broadcasters. This can be accessed easily via other internet, dab radio, via TV, trad radio. Podcasts are available I could go on all day but the point is, when something comes on 5 live that I don't like, my instinct isn't to call for the sacking of the broadcaster that I don't enjoy, its to find something else which is to my taste.
For example, I cannot stand phone in shows, in my oppinion it is the home of the lunatic fringe and I have no interest in listening to the un qualified oppinion of the man on the street, but many do. There is an easy solution to this issue, I turn off the radio, or I put 6 music on and listen to some music for a while or whatever else I am in the mood from.
No single broadcaster can possibly please all of the people all of the time and nor should we expect them to.
Come on Mapperley, even for you that's stretching it a bit. VERY infrequent events like that don't constitute a mix of politics and news in any way during an average show.
Of course it's not pure news and politics. But despite the generic title, Five Live is not meant to be purely a news and sport station.
And the events I described aren't so inferquent. Everybody knows that the key statements to Parliament tend to be made a little easrlier in the day, before Bacon's show starts. Live press conferences on matters of genuine interest (eg : a major development in a high profile court case) are carried in all of Five Live's output.
Just because you wan't rolling news all the time that doesn't demonstrate an appetite among the wider audience for it.
Just because you wan't rolling news all the time that doesn't demonstrate an appetite among the wider audience for it.
I don’t think rolling news is what most on here are asking for, rather something slightly more intelligent, less trivial, less entertainment and celebrity focused, and not padded out with daily text ins and features like help. To quote myself:
What I want to listen to in the afternoon is a magazine format programme that mixes news, sport, reviews and intelligent interviews without being too heavy. Something like Mayo used to provide.
The reason people complain is due to the lack of alternatives in speech radio at that time of day. Also because Mayo did such a good job with afternoons for eight years or so and became part of many people's daily routine and I for one miss the more intelligent chat and features he provided.
Spot on, Streaky. We're not really asking so much, are we?
I preffered Mayo as well incidentally, but thats not the point.
The thing is, what you want is the BBC to bow to your idea of that afternoons on 5 live should be over other peoples.
At the momment they have chosen to break up the news focussed 5 live day time schedule with a magazine show, before returning to current affairs at drive time.
I personally can see the logic behind it, there are a finite amount of news stories in a day, and by doing that from 6am till 7pm there is a risk that they could end up repeating the same content as is the curse of the rolling news network. Which is only really designed to be watched/listened to for a short amount of time. (try watching sky news or bbc news for 2 hours unless there is a major breaking story, its mind numbing...)
The alternative is to do oppinion pieces, cover niche stories, or as the BBC has chosen to diversify into a more magazine show type format for a few hours.
If the format doesn't work, it'll be reflected in the ratings and i'm sure there will be a change in the format or presenter.
The issue here is that they have chosen to go a way that a what I feel is a very vocal minority don't like.
If only there was some way, for you to access different types of speech radio content at any time, then we could all listen to the sort of radio we want when the mainstream schedule didn't suit us.......
The thing is, what you want is the BBC to bow to your idea of that afternoons on 5 live should be over other peoples.
No. I don't.
It is clear that some of us want a rolling news and sport channel (but see later), whilst others want something lighter and more inconsequential. Up to both parties to make their points. Which is presumably what this forum is for.
At the momment they have chosen to break up the news focussed 5 live day time schedule with a magazine show, before returning to current affairs at drive time.
"At the moment"? But that's exactly what Mayo's programme was - except that it didn't aim at the LCD audience.
I personally can see the logic behind it, there are a finite amount of news stories in a day, and by doing that from 6am till 7pm there is a risk that they could end up repeating the same content as is the curse of the rolling news network. Which is only really designed to be watched/listened to for a short amount of time. (try watching sky news or bbc news for 2 hours unless there is a major breaking story, its mind numbing...)
More fool you for watching two hours of repetition. (And I really don't need a condescending lesson from you on how TV news channels are constructed).
I enjoyed a more demanding and stimulating magazine programme. All I am saying is that I am happy with a magazine programme (I hope that at last you understand that, because I am truly tired of repeating it), and actually think the magazine format is just what is needed before Drive. But a magazine format that doesn't treat me as if I would be watching daytime TV if I weren't listening to the radio.
If only there was some way, for you to access different types of speech radio content at any time, then we could all listen to the sort of radio we want when the mainstream schedule didn't suit us.......
Don't be so patronising. I make full use of iPlayer when I am sitting at my computer, listening to my internet radio or using FreeSat. When I only have my trannie radio (like most of the public at certain times), that's a bit tricky.
So here's an idea. Let's reverse your suggestion. Whilst I listen to news and sport on the radio, you use iPlayer and watch (or listen to) all the brainless pap you want.
At the momment they have chosen to break up the news focussed 5 live day time schedule with a magazine show, before returning to current affairs at drive time.
I personally can see the logic behind it, there are a finite amount of news stories in a day, and by doing that from 6am till 7pm there is a risk that they could end up repeating the same content as is the curse of the rolling news network.
Afternoons on 5 Live have always had a magazine format with Mayo and before him with Ian Payne and included varied content, not just news and sport.
Mayo used to manage to fill 3 hours 5 days a week with varied and interesting content including interviews, reviews and features that wasn’t either too heavy or dumbed down so it can be done. While Bacon seems to struggle to find intelligent content to fill 2 hours 4 days a week.
I am simply stating I would prefer something a bit more intelligent to listen to than ‘text in the last time you saw a celebrity on a bus.’
The problem with your iplayer suggestion is you miss the breaking news.
So here's an idea. Let's reverse your suggestion. Whilst I listen to news and sport on the radio, you use iPlayer and watch (or listen to) all the brainless pap you want.
Spot on!!
Oh, can neel tell me how I get iplayer in the Van?
So that would be none of our points answered then?
OK. I'm going to spell it out one last time.
I enjoy listening to a rolling news and sport station, and think that a mid-afternoon magazine-style programme is a great idea, so long as breaking news stories are covered, and providing that there is a little depth to the content.
Sadly, there are occasions when I am away from my internet equipment and rely solely on the steam radio. On such occasions, I can choose from a very limited number of speech-only stations, one of which is offering me a magazine with news and sport content in mid-afternoon, but not with the depth of coverage I find satisfying.
It is not a big deal, and I am not going to need or seek medical treatment because of it. But I think I am free to chat about it on here, a forum for the discussion of radio stations , and wonder why, when I say what I would like on the station I normally listen to, I am accused of dictating content to all and sundry. Or else I am directed to listen to something else. (As if I would never have thought of that).
Well, I have now said (several times) all I wanted to say, and I don't think that this thread is going anywhere. Maybe I'll join in again the next time there is a programming change on R5L.
For those who enjoy a more lightweight discussion of radio, though with added edge and a touch of (ahem) American sophistication, here's a link to a thread that may entertain you. (Courtesy of a friend elsewhere).
So that would be none of our points answered then?
No, because I don't think the points you have made require a detailed point by point break down.
I've allready explained my position quite clearly and don't particulary feel you raised anything new of relevance.
For example, I was berated for not providing evidence that this was a vocal minority. I was quite clearly attempting to make a definative statment of fact hence prefixing the statment with "i feel".
Were I trying to make a definative statement of fact I would have said are in the minority and here are the facts to prove it. I've not done the research and therefore made no such claim
Other than that Streaky Bacon and yourself both make the point that the five live slot in question has always been a magazine show, but you go on to say that the new format is not to your taste.
But we knew that allready. Others in the thread expressed a desire for more news, that part of my post was aimed at them.
Again, I point out. Why do you expect to like every bit of content the BBC and 5live produces? You think its dumbed down, I probably agree. But thats irrelevant.
I'm making the point that if you are so oppinionated about radio that a thread such as this has resulted then perhaps using something that gives you more controll of the scheduling would be better than getting so upset about it that this monstrosity of negativitiy is created.
Is my suggestion that you may want to concider an alternative if you find Bacon so awful really so ridiculous? A radio station must be diverse so that those that listen for a long time don't turn off through boredom, I think we all agree there. A logical conseqence of that is that some people will enjoy some parts and not others.
We all know you don't like Bacon, but surely if you have been posting in this thread as long as streaky bacon has, you have learned that you are not EVER going to like his show, but unless you expect to like everything on radio 5 I don't see the problem.
The thing is, I'm not the one who has dedicated 600+ pages to disliking a radio show.
If I don't like something I just don't bloody listen to it, I don't expect everything any radio station does to be to my taste.
I'm able to accept that sometimes I might have to compromise and listen to something that isn't 100% to my taste all the time.
You lot seem to expect the broadcasting world to produce content of exactly the kind you want, at a time that suits you exactly.
Hence, iplayer.
The thing some people seem to miss is the fact that R5 is being systematically dumbed down and destroyed for the sake of audience figures.
There are some of us that are not just saddened, but angry that such a once good station is going down the pan. So therefore we 'vocalise' our dissapointment in the vain hope that somebody out there will take notice. Unlikely but there you go, if nothing else it allows us to vent our spleens and relieve some tension.
Then people come along and tell us we have it all wrong and we shouldn't expect to have our cake and eat it blah blah blah....
Well maybe not, but a little nibble now and then wouldn't be a bad thing.
There are people on here moaning at us for having a go at RB and his verbal diarreah, saying we should listen elswhere if we don't like it.
I say if you don't like reading our posts venting our collective spleens...go elsewhere if you don't like it!!
On the other hand, if you wish to defend mr RB, then by all means do so, but not by telling us not to complain!
So, remember, it was your suggestion to use iplayer... so once again...how do I get it in the van?
So, remember, it was your suggestion to use iplayer... so how do I get it in the van?
Oh dear. Are we really going to be this petty?
Actually you probably could get iplayer in your van with some sort of ipad connected to car stereo type arrangement or something similar. But that isn't really the point.
Only the most literal of minds would assume that I was suggesting that everyone anywhere anytime can get all the content they want from the iplayer.
It was a throwaway comment, as part of a more general point which I think i've explained and defended more than enough allready.
Alas we cannot always listen to what we want, when we want, but surely the fact that you have to listen to radio 4, or whatever questionable pop radio 1 is playing this week or commercial radio or whatever is not the end of the world.
I've still not really had anything approaching an explanation of why you think 5lives output should be to your taste whenever you happen to be in your van?
I think its an odd attitude and I make no appology for that.
As for being petty...you started it by posting the iplayer link!
Actually I know exactly how I could do it in the van, but with fup's on mobiles it would end up costing too much. But that's beside the point.
Most of your comments seem to be throwaway as they're pretty pointless tbh.
Once again you miss the point, I don't want to listen to what I want when I want.. i want to listen to something that has some occasional value. I don't expect every program to be tailored to my tastes. But what I do expect from a supposedly high quality public service broadcaster is that at least something in their output is worth listening to!
To use your approach, if people want to listen/read/watch drivel, then go buy hello, or watch jeremy Kyle, or Loose women or whatever. Just give us a decent non dumbed down output!
I wouldn't expect an apology nor want one from you. A proper response would be a start without people telling me I should just just 'put up and shut up'.
Once again you miss the point, I don't want to listen to what I want when I want.. i want to listen to something that has some occasional value. I don't expect every program to be tailored to my tastes. But what I do expect from a supposedly high quality public service broadcaster is that at least something in their output is worth listening to!
To use your approach, if people want to listen/read/watch drivel, then go buy hello, or watch jeremy Kyle, or Loose women or whatever. Just give us a decent non dumbed down output!
I have actually but until you understand that,
"i want to listen to something that has some occasional value"
Basically means you don't like the RB show and you wish the BBC would change it to something more to your taste.
You may not see value (frankly I don't think it'll win any awards either) but others do.
If others think its as bad as you think it is then the figures will suffer as people do as I've suggested and listen to something else. I'm not saying "put up and shut up" I'm saying vote with your feet.
More to the point, if you knew you could get iplayer in your van, why did you ask, other than pettyness?
Anyway, the point is, much as you think i'm a bit of a james blunt (to use the popular cockney rhyming slang) and a previous poster though I was "articulate", I can't please everyone all of the time. Neither can the BBC.
I don't think you're a 'James Blunt' at all. I don't know you so am unable to judge.
Whilst we get passionate about some of these things I'd rather not get personal, falling out with someone just because of their pov on a forum about a radio show is beyond stupid.
I just really don't think you've added anything to the debate other than you keep telling us we can't have our cake and eat it.
We already know that but............. here we go again going round in circles.
And lo... another desperate bid to bump a thread up the pile with very little constructive input whatsoever, from someone who continues to listen to a programme they hate.
I note no mention of his excellent interviews with Stewart Lee, Armando Ianucci or Jimmy Carr in the past week. Or his refreshingly light-hearted approach to the royal wedding announcement on a day when much of the British media went back to Pathe news style coverage.
The one thing I will agree with FlyinBrick is his quote in his last post: "Here we go again, going round in circles".
I note no mention of his excellent interviews with Stewart Lee, Armando Ianucci or Jimmy Carr in the past week. Or his refreshingly light-hearted approach to the royal wedding announcement on a day when much of the British media went back to Pathe news style coverage.
I have been busy of late so haven't caught so much of Bacon's show lately (used to subscribe the the podcasts, but stopped). I will agree that the Ianucci was excellent - he's good value whenever he is on R5L. It's just that good interviews are now becoming the exception rather than the norm.
I am new to posting but I am a huge fan of speech radio and have been for many years. I started listening to 5live nightly back in 1998 when Edwina Currie did the late night Currie show. Since then I have heard a lot of presenters on 5 live. The title of the thread is "Richard Bacon, how the hell does he get this job?" I've read almost all of the 25 pages of this thread and I don't seem to be any closer to the answer! I have to agree with Mapperley Ridge in the regard that a lot of the posting seems to be a personal attack on Richard Bacon. I am not in the media and I have never met the guy so I would like to avoid any personal statements.
Simon Mayo was the consummate professional, able to cover the widest range of topics with ease, depth and subtlety that was able to get a different type of information than the aggressive approach of the Today programme. He was always impeccably prepared and I don’t think I was ever aware of a time where he interviewed an author without reading the book or a director/star without watching the film. It is an impossible task to follow that with the same type of presenter. I still enjoy the film show on the Friday (although I feel the content is too baggy since it swapped to the two-hour format).
When Simon Mayo left the station, it gave an opportunity to re-shape the whole presenter line-up on 5 live. It seems to me that the directors of the station missed an excellent opportunity to mix-up the scheduling and get some excellent quality speech radio for News and Sport.
I have listened to all of the late evening presenters over the years and Richard Bacon was a long way from the top of the list over that time. The best by a long way, in my opinion, was Fi Glover, somewhat followed by Brian Hayes, both different styles of presenters. Richard Bacon, again in my opinion, was never, even in his best moments, able to live up to the quality of these presenters. (For that matter, neither was Anita Anand). I would love to have seen Fi back at 5 live, which seems like her natural format, more so than Saturday live, the Sunday Service programme was also a treat to behold with an excellent dynamic between the three presenters. I suspect personal matters will prevent that happening in the foreseeable future.
Returning to my point, how did Richard Bacon get the job? Even the defenders of Richard Bacon on this thread suggest that he is going to divide opinion. This is one of the biggest, highest profile, longest (in Mayo’s day) talk radio slots in the country. There surely has to be a select group of presenters that have the capability and skills that would match the slot with much greater synergy than Richard Bacon will ever hope to achieve, however long he keeps the position.
Sadly, I feel the station pursued a “Big name” rather than a big talent. Radio is a skill, and talk radio doubly so. The best, available presenter should have been offered the position, and in all probability, this should have been a full time radio personality. Instead, we got Gabby Logan and Richard Bacon… both names from TV and lacking the overall quality that is required to please the majority and not just divide opinion.
I would welcome the thread getting back to the topic and explain to me the merits of appointing Richard Bacon for this role…. Just how did Richard Bacon get this job?
I don't mean to knock you down on a first post, a lot of which is very reasonable and certainly not a personal attack.
But Richard Bacon presumably got this job by working his way up through the media. He is known from TV as a Blue Peter presenter, but after being fired from this post he had to fight his way back to a good position. A lot of people would simply have given up.
The thing is though, he's not just a TV presenter. He has done a lot of radio work. He had an excellent show on XFM, he has been on Capital (including during the 7/7 bombings), moved to 5 Live to do the night-time show and now, along with his daytime slot, also does a 6 Music show.
The guy is a clear-cut radio geek, best seen when he challenged himself to be on every single BBC network in a day some time back. He's the sort of person people on this forum should want to champion because of his love for the medium yet, like Chris Moyles, because he's not a doormat and because he's 'controversial', he's hated.
Personally I would far prefer a presenter who divides opinion than what I would see as a bland show and go character. I accept other people would prefer a straighter show, but it is impossible for the BBC to keep us all happy.
Comments
As a news and sports station that is what in my opinion 5 Live should be providing. Shouldn’t it be if you want a break from news and current affairs you tune into another radio station for your entertainment and celebrity focused content?
5 live is clearly trying to provide different types of content at different times of day. The Bacon show is a decision to provide a less news foccussed and more entertainment based show. This will obvioiusly not please people wanting a news foccussed show at that time, but I don't personally see why this is something which any radio station should feel the need to make excuses for.
We live in an age where there is a huge amount of content produced by the BBC and other broadcasters. This can be accessed easily via other internet, dab radio, via TV, trad radio. Podcasts are available I could go on all day but the point is, when something comes on 5 live that I don't like, my instinct isn't to call for the sacking of the broadcaster that I don't enjoy, its to find something else which is to my taste.
For example, I cannot stand phone in shows, in my oppinion it is the home of the lunatic fringe and I have no interest in listening to the un qualified oppinion of the man on the street, but many do. There is an easy solution to this issue, I turn off the radio, or I put 6 music on and listen to some music for a while or whatever else I am in the mood from.
No single broadcaster can possibly please all of the people all of the time and nor should we expect them to.
Much as I enjoy being called articulate, this may be a prime example of how people's oppinions can be very diverse.
Of course it's not pure news and politics. But despite the generic title, Five Live is not meant to be purely a news and sport station.
And the events I described aren't so inferquent. Everybody knows that the key statements to Parliament tend to be made a little easrlier in the day, before Bacon's show starts. Live press conferences on matters of genuine interest (eg : a major development in a high profile court case) are carried in all of Five Live's output.
Just because you wan't rolling news all the time that doesn't demonstrate an appetite among the wider audience for it.
I don’t think rolling news is what most on here are asking for, rather something slightly more intelligent, less trivial, less entertainment and celebrity focused, and not padded out with daily text ins and features like help. To quote myself:
The reason people complain is due to the lack of alternatives in speech radio at that time of day. Also because Mayo did such a good job with afternoons for eight years or so and became part of many people's daily routine and I for one miss the more intelligent chat and features he provided.
I preffered Mayo as well incidentally, but thats not the point.
The thing is, what you want is the BBC to bow to your idea of that afternoons on 5 live should be over other peoples.
At the momment they have chosen to break up the news focussed 5 live day time schedule with a magazine show, before returning to current affairs at drive time.
I personally can see the logic behind it, there are a finite amount of news stories in a day, and by doing that from 6am till 7pm there is a risk that they could end up repeating the same content as is the curse of the rolling news network. Which is only really designed to be watched/listened to for a short amount of time. (try watching sky news or bbc news for 2 hours unless there is a major breaking story, its mind numbing...)
The alternative is to do oppinion pieces, cover niche stories, or as the BBC has chosen to diversify into a more magazine show type format for a few hours.
If the format doesn't work, it'll be reflected in the ratings and i'm sure there will be a change in the format or presenter.
The issue here is that they have chosen to go a way that a what I feel is a very vocal minority don't like.
If only there was some way, for you to access different types of speech radio content at any time, then we could all listen to the sort of radio we want when the mainstream schedule didn't suit us.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/
No. I don't.
It is clear that some of us want a rolling news and sport channel (but see later), whilst others want something lighter and more inconsequential. Up to both parties to make their points. Which is presumably what this forum is for.
"At the moment"? But that's exactly what Mayo's programme was - except that it didn't aim at the LCD audience.
More fool you for watching two hours of repetition. (And I really don't need a condescending lesson from you on how TV news channels are constructed).
I enjoyed a more demanding and stimulating magazine programme. All I am saying is that I am happy with a magazine programme (I hope that at last you understand that, because I am truly tired of repeating it), and actually think the magazine format is just what is needed before Drive. But a magazine format that doesn't treat me as if I would be watching daytime TV if I weren't listening to the radio.
"Minority"? Evidence? How do you know that it is not you who are in a minority?
Should I not be vocal? Should I just be a shrinking violet and pretend that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds?
Don't be so patronising. I make full use of iPlayer when I am sitting at my computer, listening to my internet radio or using FreeSat. When I only have my trannie radio (like most of the public at certain times), that's a bit tricky.
So here's an idea. Let's reverse your suggestion. Whilst I listen to news and sport on the radio, you use iPlayer and watch (or listen to) all the brainless pap you want.
Afternoons on 5 Live have always had a magazine format with Mayo and before him with Ian Payne and included varied content, not just news and sport.
Mayo used to manage to fill 3 hours 5 days a week with varied and interesting content including interviews, reviews and features that wasn’t either too heavy or dumbed down so it can be done. While Bacon seems to struggle to find intelligent content to fill 2 hours 4 days a week.
I am simply stating I would prefer something a bit more intelligent to listen to than ‘text in the last time you saw a celebrity on a bus.’
The problem with your iplayer suggestion is you miss the breaking news.
Spot on!!
Oh, can neel tell me how I get iplayer in the Van?
The thing is, I'm not the one who has dedicated 600+ pages to disliking a radio show.
If I don't like something I just don't bloody listen to it, I don't expect everything any radio station does to be to my taste.
I'm able to accept that sometimes I might have to compromise and listen to something that isn't 100% to my taste all the time.
You lot seem to expect the broadcasting world to produce content of exactly the kind you want, at a time that suits you exactly.
Hence, iplayer.
OK. I'm going to spell it out one last time.
I enjoy listening to a rolling news and sport station, and think that a mid-afternoon magazine-style programme is a great idea, so long as breaking news stories are covered, and providing that there is a little depth to the content.
Sadly, there are occasions when I am away from my internet equipment and rely solely on the steam radio. On such occasions, I can choose from a very limited number of speech-only stations, one of which is offering me a magazine with news and sport content in mid-afternoon, but not with the depth of coverage I find satisfying.
It is not a big deal, and I am not going to need or seek medical treatment because of it. But I think I am free to chat about it on here, a forum for the discussion of radio stations , and wonder why, when I say what I would like on the station I normally listen to, I am accused of dictating content to all and sundry. Or else I am directed to listen to something else. (As if I would never have thought of that).
Well, I have now said (several times) all I wanted to say, and I don't think that this thread is going anywhere. Maybe I'll join in again the next time there is a programming change on R5L.
For those who enjoy a more lightweight discussion of radio, though with added edge and a touch of (ahem) American sophistication, here's a link to a thread that may entertain you. (Courtesy of a friend elsewhere).
No, because I don't think the points you have made require a detailed point by point break down.
I've allready explained my position quite clearly and don't particulary feel you raised anything new of relevance.
For example, I was berated for not providing evidence that this was a vocal minority. I was quite clearly attempting to make a definative statment of fact hence prefixing the statment with "i feel".
Were I trying to make a definative statement of fact I would have said are in the minority and here are the facts to prove it. I've not done the research and therefore made no such claim
Other than that Streaky Bacon and yourself both make the point that the five live slot in question has always been a magazine show, but you go on to say that the new format is not to your taste.
But we knew that allready. Others in the thread expressed a desire for more news, that part of my post was aimed at them.
Again, I point out. Why do you expect to like every bit of content the BBC and 5live produces? You think its dumbed down, I probably agree. But thats irrelevant.
I'm making the point that if you are so oppinionated about radio that a thread such as this has resulted then perhaps using something that gives you more controll of the scheduling would be better than getting so upset about it that this monstrosity of negativitiy is created.
Is my suggestion that you may want to concider an alternative if you find Bacon so awful really so ridiculous? A radio station must be diverse so that those that listen for a long time don't turn off through boredom, I think we all agree there. A logical conseqence of that is that some people will enjoy some parts and not others.
We all know you don't like Bacon, but surely if you have been posting in this thread as long as streaky bacon has, you have learned that you are not EVER going to like his show, but unless you expect to like everything on radio 5 I don't see the problem.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The thing some people seem to miss is the fact that R5 is being systematically dumbed down and destroyed for the sake of audience figures.
There are some of us that are not just saddened, but angry that such a once good station is going down the pan. So therefore we 'vocalise' our dissapointment in the vain hope that somebody out there will take notice. Unlikely but there you go, if nothing else it allows us to vent our spleens and relieve some tension.
Then people come along and tell us we have it all wrong and we shouldn't expect to have our cake and eat it blah blah blah....
Well maybe not, but a little nibble now and then wouldn't be a bad thing.
There are people on here moaning at us for having a go at RB and his verbal diarreah, saying we should listen elswhere if we don't like it.
I say if you don't like reading our posts venting our collective spleens...go elsewhere if you don't like it!!
On the other hand, if you wish to defend mr RB, then by all means do so, but not by telling us not to complain!
So, remember, it was your suggestion to use iplayer... so once again...how do I get it in the van?
Oh dear. Are we really going to be this petty?
Actually you probably could get iplayer in your van with some sort of ipad connected to car stereo type arrangement or something similar. But that isn't really the point.
Only the most literal of minds would assume that I was suggesting that everyone anywhere anytime can get all the content they want from the iplayer.
It was a throwaway comment, as part of a more general point which I think i've explained and defended more than enough allready.
Alas we cannot always listen to what we want, when we want, but surely the fact that you have to listen to radio 4, or whatever questionable pop radio 1 is playing this week or commercial radio or whatever is not the end of the world.
I've still not really had anything approaching an explanation of why you think 5lives output should be to your taste whenever you happen to be in your van?
I think its an odd attitude and I make no appology for that.
As for being petty...you started it by posting the iplayer link!
Actually I know exactly how I could do it in the van, but with fup's on mobiles it would end up costing too much. But that's beside the point.
Most of your comments seem to be throwaway as they're pretty pointless tbh.
Once again you miss the point, I don't want to listen to what I want when I want.. i want to listen to something that has some occasional value. I don't expect every program to be tailored to my tastes. But what I do expect from a supposedly high quality public service broadcaster is that at least something in their output is worth listening to!
To use your approach, if people want to listen/read/watch drivel, then go buy hello, or watch jeremy Kyle, or Loose women or whatever. Just give us a decent non dumbed down output!
I wouldn't expect an apology nor want one from you. A proper response would be a start without people telling me I should just just 'put up and shut up'.
I have actually but until you understand that,
"i want to listen to something that has some occasional value"
Basically means you don't like the RB show and you wish the BBC would change it to something more to your taste.
You may not see value (frankly I don't think it'll win any awards either) but others do.
If others think its as bad as you think it is then the figures will suffer as people do as I've suggested and listen to something else. I'm not saying "put up and shut up" I'm saying vote with your feet.
More to the point, if you knew you could get iplayer in your van, why did you ask, other than pettyness?
Anyway, the point is, much as you think i'm a bit of a james blunt (to use the popular cockney rhyming slang) and a previous poster though I was "articulate", I can't please everyone all of the time. Neither can the BBC.
Whilst we get passionate about some of these things I'd rather not get personal, falling out with someone just because of their pov on a forum about a radio show is beyond stupid.
I just really don't think you've added anything to the debate other than you keep telling us we can't have our cake and eat it.
We already know that but............. here we go again going round in circles.
Yesterday we had love fest on how wonderful reality TV is.
Today we have a show dedicated to the praise of Coronation Street!
I note no mention of his excellent interviews with Stewart Lee, Armando Ianucci or Jimmy Carr in the past week. Or his refreshingly light-hearted approach to the royal wedding announcement on a day when much of the British media went back to Pathe news style coverage.
The one thing I will agree with FlyinBrick is his quote in his last post: "Here we go again, going round in circles".
I have been busy of late so haven't caught so much of Bacon's show lately (used to subscribe the the podcasts, but stopped). I will agree that the Ianucci was excellent - he's good value whenever he is on R5L. It's just that good interviews are now becoming the exception rather than the norm.
Simon Mayo was the consummate professional, able to cover the widest range of topics with ease, depth and subtlety that was able to get a different type of information than the aggressive approach of the Today programme. He was always impeccably prepared and I don’t think I was ever aware of a time where he interviewed an author without reading the book or a director/star without watching the film. It is an impossible task to follow that with the same type of presenter. I still enjoy the film show on the Friday (although I feel the content is too baggy since it swapped to the two-hour format).
When Simon Mayo left the station, it gave an opportunity to re-shape the whole presenter line-up on 5 live. It seems to me that the directors of the station missed an excellent opportunity to mix-up the scheduling and get some excellent quality speech radio for News and Sport.
I have listened to all of the late evening presenters over the years and Richard Bacon was a long way from the top of the list over that time. The best by a long way, in my opinion, was Fi Glover, somewhat followed by Brian Hayes, both different styles of presenters. Richard Bacon, again in my opinion, was never, even in his best moments, able to live up to the quality of these presenters. (For that matter, neither was Anita Anand). I would love to have seen Fi back at 5 live, which seems like her natural format, more so than Saturday live, the Sunday Service programme was also a treat to behold with an excellent dynamic between the three presenters. I suspect personal matters will prevent that happening in the foreseeable future.
Returning to my point, how did Richard Bacon get the job? Even the defenders of Richard Bacon on this thread suggest that he is going to divide opinion. This is one of the biggest, highest profile, longest (in Mayo’s day) talk radio slots in the country. There surely has to be a select group of presenters that have the capability and skills that would match the slot with much greater synergy than Richard Bacon will ever hope to achieve, however long he keeps the position.
Sadly, I feel the station pursued a “Big name” rather than a big talent. Radio is a skill, and talk radio doubly so. The best, available presenter should have been offered the position, and in all probability, this should have been a full time radio personality. Instead, we got Gabby Logan and Richard Bacon… both names from TV and lacking the overall quality that is required to please the majority and not just divide opinion.
I would welcome the thread getting back to the topic and explain to me the merits of appointing Richard Bacon for this role…. Just how did Richard Bacon get this job?
But Richard Bacon presumably got this job by working his way up through the media. He is known from TV as a Blue Peter presenter, but after being fired from this post he had to fight his way back to a good position. A lot of people would simply have given up.
The thing is though, he's not just a TV presenter. He has done a lot of radio work. He had an excellent show on XFM, he has been on Capital (including during the 7/7 bombings), moved to 5 Live to do the night-time show and now, along with his daytime slot, also does a 6 Music show.
The guy is a clear-cut radio geek, best seen when he challenged himself to be on every single BBC network in a day some time back. He's the sort of person people on this forum should want to champion because of his love for the medium yet, like Chris Moyles, because he's not a doormat and because he's 'controversial', he's hated.
Personally I would far prefer a presenter who divides opinion than what I would see as a bland show and go character. I accept other people would prefer a straighter show, but it is impossible for the BBC to keep us all happy.