I used to feel like that when I discovered SA. Now I can't listen to him for more than a couple of minutes.
It was better when he had his guests, though I know lots of people disagree, but at least you got to hear their views, now it's all just about him and it gets tiresome after a while.
Yes, totally agree. To be honest, I just used to like Steve for the showbiz goss. Took me a while to see a pattern developing in it though, i.e predictable the kind of people he dislikes. Can no longer bear to listen to him because most of the time it's about his bland life, e.g. his shopping...captivating he's NOT!!!
I don't get this idea that presenters should have to state everything 'in my opinion'. That should be obvious, who else would they be speaking on behalf of?
It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate.
Given that relationship with their listeners, it is very easy for someone like James Whale to state (paraphrased) "Global warming is rubbish" rather than the accurate "Global warming is open to debate".
Yes, totally agree. To be honest, I just used to like Steve for the showbiz goss. Took me a while to see a pattern developing in it though, i.e predictable the kind of people he dislikes. Can no longer bear to listen to him because most of the time it's about his bland life, e.g. his shopping...captivating he's NOT!!!
Yes, unfortunately, I feel the same way now but it took me a few years to reach that point. Up until then I thought that he was a nice, amusing bloke but am not so sure now. Much preferred when he had quests but it was all downhill into the mire since that was terminated and now his show ends with the dreadful Susan Bookbinder half hour's nonsense.
Thank goodness for BBC R4 in the morning for proper serious news and information with no ads and rasping tongued newsreaders.
Yes, unfortunately, I feel the same way now but it took me a few years to reach that point. Up until then I thought that he was a nice, amusing bloke but am not so sure now. Much preferred when he had quests but it was all downhill into the mire since that was terminated and now his show ends with the dreadful Susan Bookbinder half hour's nonsense.
Thank goodness for BBC R4 in the morning for proper serious news and information with no ads and rasping tongued newsreaders.
Today was house prices and food. I lasted 10 minutes then I too went off to BBC R4.
Given that relationship with their listeners, it is very easy for someone like James Whale to state (paraphrased) "Global warming is rubbish" rather than the accurate "Global warming is open to debate".
Would you have found it acceptable if he had said "Global Warming is rubbish, in my opinion".? Surely that is all he is expressing, his own opinion. If he was presenting it is as fact, he would be out-doing all the scientists and would no doubt make front page headlines on every single newspaper.
Today was house prices and food. I lasted 10 minutes then I too went off to BBC R4.
He had some poor soul on who described how she was in the makeup industry and had a lot of work done on her lips to add to her appearance - but the voice!!!
Why not have some voice coaching or elocution lessons instead? People have misplaced priorities, it seems.
James O'Brien is tying himself in knots this morning as he faces the prospect of the consequences of the way that the government he supported drove policies which contributed to the awful child abuse scandal...
Why was this not investigated before? How has it spread on such a scale?
James O'Brien is tying himself in knots this morning as he faces the prospect of the consequences of the way that the government he supported drove policies which contributed to the awful child abuse scandal...
Why was this not investigated before? How has it spread on such a scale?
I don't think I'll be able to take him for long this morning. He's got that tone in his voice where he sounds like he's talking to a two year old. Whispering quietly into the mic sounds very patronising and I much prefer it when he goes on a rant.
Would you have found it acceptable if he had said "Global Warming is rubbish, in my opinion".? Surely that is all he is expressing, his own opinion. If he was presenting it is as fact, he would be out-doing all the scientists and would no doubt make front page headlines on every single newspaper.
Repeating myself - "It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate."
So yes, I would find it more acceptable if ALL presenters acknowledge that opinions expressed are simply opinions and are no more informed than the listeners' own.
Would you have found it acceptable if he had said "Global Warming is rubbish, in my opinion".? Surely that is all he is expressing, his own opinion. If he was presenting it is as fact, he would be out-doing all the scientists and would no doubt make front page headlines on every single newspaper.
Some people (this sounds patronising)have difficulty deciding what is news and what is opinion.
The presenters on LBC 97.3 are in some ways a bit like an editorial in a newspaper. I do wonder how much preperation on the topics that come up is their's or given to them by the others that work on the programmes "Behind the scenes"
But if we are led to believe that commercial radio is run on a tighter budget than the BBC there may not be that many people working on each show.
Perhaps each presenter does their own research? Is that looking on the internet, reading the days newspapers? Or Is the research quite light and then personal views takeover? That's the difficulty. A lot of topics come up regularly are general topics.
The only real news is what you hear in the news bullitens and then unless the story is then featured in a programme as fact or the presenter is talking to a reporter it then becomes opinion, a person's view or a discussion.
A lot of Radio 5's output goes the same way, the purest news programme on there is probably between 5am-5.30am but programmes like Stephen Nolan's have simularities to Whales, Ferari, O' Brien on LBC...or Radio 4's main news output at 6pm but all their other news programmes become like magazine/discussion/opinion in their content. They'll say they are analysing the news.
Repeating myself - "It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate."
So yes, I would find it more acceptable if ALL presenters acknowledge that opinions expressed are simply opinions and are no more informed than the listeners' own.
I think the modern media has become as you say, news is rarely presented straight. And an odd word here and there from the person who is relaying the story can slant a story.
Some people (this sounds patronising)have difficulty deciding what is news and what is opinion.
.
Spot on.
One of my sons was trying to advise his brother to give a certain, current film a miss because it had been badly reviewed. There ensued a discussion about the qualifications of paid film/art/literary critics which could equally apply to talk radio hosts. Once the public have afforded the mantle of superior knowledge to all these people, they can lose the ability to use their own judgement.
As I pointed out, just because I agree with a reviewer doesn't mean that they are necessarily right.
Repeating myself - "It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate."
So yes, I would find it more acceptable if ALL presenters acknowledge that opinions expressed are simply opinions and are no more informed than the listeners' own.
Some people (this sounds patronising)have difficulty deciding what is news and what is opinion.
The presenters on LBC 97.3 are in some ways a bit like an editorial in a newspaper. I do wonder how much preperation on the topics that come up is their's or given to them by the others that work on the programmes "Behind the scenes"
But if we are led to believe that commercial radio is run on a tighter budget than the BBC there may not be that many people working on each show.
Perhaps each presenter does their own research? Is that looking on the internet, reading the days newspapers? Or Is the research quite light and then personal views takeover? That's the difficulty. A lot of topics come up regularly are general topics.
The only real news is what you hear in the news bullitens and then unless the story is then featured in a programme as fact or the presenter is talking to a reporter it then becomes opinion, a person's view or a discussion.
A lot of Radio 5's output goes the same way, the purest news programme on there is probably between 5am-5.30am but programmes like Stephen Nolan's have simularities to Whales, Ferari, O' Brien on LBC...or Radio 4's main news output at 6pm but all their other news programmes become like magazine/discussion/opinion in their content. They'll say they are analysing the news.
I think the modern media has become as you say, news is rarely presented straight. And an odd word here and there from the person who is relaying the story can slant a story.
Yes to all of these points - especially the clarification between 'news' and 'editorials' (or 'opinions').
I'm sure there are many listeners (including those on this thread) who can happily and blithely differentiate between the two. But I'm also sure there are many listeners who can't, won't or don't.
Hence my reference earlier to the admission by NF that he didn't know who the candidate for the Independence Party was - only to be acknowledged after the election.
I find it significant that Boris Johnson was elected in London - where LBC has the most influence - while the rest of the UK councils and the London Assembly (the latter hardly discussed on LBC, being not as 'sexy' as the Mayoral election) mostly swung to New Labour.
The Media in general, as I understand it, has to at least appear to be unbiased - especially during times of election. Hence the need for Ofcom and the fact that Ken Livingstone was taken off-air during the run-up.
p.s. A special 'Thank You' to Martin Rosen, who taught me how to multiple-quote.
p.p.s Now if only I could find someone to teach me how to yodel!
No prizes for guessing JOB's topic today - again. He seems to have a predilection & fascination for this type of story. Not, I hasten to add, because he is racist !! .........Unfortunately, it puts him in bad humour.
I enjoyed NF & his interaction with, 'mum's net' this morning. :D
Comments
Yes, totally agree. To be honest, I just used to like Steve for the showbiz goss. Took me a while to see a pattern developing in it though, i.e predictable the kind of people he dislikes. Can no longer bear to listen to him because most of the time it's about his bland life, e.g. his shopping...captivating he's NOT!!!
It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate.
Given that relationship with their listeners, it is very easy for someone like James Whale to state (paraphrased) "Global warming is rubbish" rather than the accurate "Global warming is open to debate".
Yes, unfortunately, I feel the same way now but it took me a few years to reach that point. Up until then I thought that he was a nice, amusing bloke but am not so sure now. Much preferred when he had quests but it was all downhill into the mire since that was terminated and now his show ends with the dreadful Susan Bookbinder half hour's nonsense.
Thank goodness for BBC R4 in the morning for proper serious news and information with no ads and rasping tongued newsreaders.
Today was house prices and food. I lasted 10 minutes then I too went off to BBC R4.
Would you have found it acceptable if he had said "Global Warming is rubbish, in my opinion".? Surely that is all he is expressing, his own opinion. If he was presenting it is as fact, he would be out-doing all the scientists and would no doubt make front page headlines on every single newspaper.
He had some poor soul on who described how she was in the makeup industry and had a lot of work done on her lips to add to her appearance - but the voice!!!
Why not have some voice coaching or elocution lessons instead? People have misplaced priorities, it seems.
Why was this not investigated before? How has it spread on such a scale?
I don't think I'll be able to take him for long this morning. He's got that tone in his voice where he sounds like he's talking to a two year old. Whispering quietly into the mic sounds very patronising and I much prefer it when he goes on a rant.
Repeating myself - "It is quite apparent, listening to a significant proportion of callers, that there are listeners who appear to believe that the presenters to whom they are talking, by virtue of their position as broadcasters, have a superior level of knowledge of the subjects under debate."
So yes, I would find it more acceptable if ALL presenters acknowledge that opinions expressed are simply opinions and are no more informed than the listeners' own.
Some people (this sounds patronising)have difficulty deciding what is news and what is opinion.
The presenters on LBC 97.3 are in some ways a bit like an editorial in a newspaper. I do wonder how much preperation on the topics that come up is their's or given to them by the others that work on the programmes "Behind the scenes"
But if we are led to believe that commercial radio is run on a tighter budget than the BBC there may not be that many people working on each show.
Perhaps each presenter does their own research? Is that looking on the internet, reading the days newspapers? Or Is the research quite light and then personal views takeover? That's the difficulty. A lot of topics come up regularly are general topics.
The only real news is what you hear in the news bullitens and then unless the story is then featured in a programme as fact or the presenter is talking to a reporter it then becomes opinion, a person's view or a discussion.
A lot of Radio 5's output goes the same way, the purest news programme on there is probably between 5am-5.30am but programmes like Stephen Nolan's have simularities to Whales, Ferari, O' Brien on LBC...or Radio 4's main news output at 6pm but all their other news programmes become like magazine/discussion/opinion in their content. They'll say they are analysing the news.
I think the modern media has become as you say, news is rarely presented straight. And an odd word here and there from the person who is relaying the story can slant a story.
Spot on.
One of my sons was trying to advise his brother to give a certain, current film a miss because it had been badly reviewed. There ensued a discussion about the qualifications of paid film/art/literary critics which could equally apply to talk radio hosts. Once the public have afforded the mantle of superior knowledge to all these people, they can lose the ability to use their own judgement.
As I pointed out, just because I agree with a reviewer doesn't mean that they are necessarily right.
Yes to all of these points - especially the clarification between 'news' and 'editorials' (or 'opinions').
I'm sure there are many listeners (including those on this thread) who can happily and blithely differentiate between the two. But I'm also sure there are many listeners who can't, won't or don't.
Hence my reference earlier to the admission by NF that he didn't know who the candidate for the Independence Party was - only to be acknowledged after the election.
I find it significant that Boris Johnson was elected in London - where LBC has the most influence - while the rest of the UK councils and the London Assembly (the latter hardly discussed on LBC, being not as 'sexy' as the Mayoral election) mostly swung to New Labour.
The Media in general, as I understand it, has to at least appear to be unbiased - especially during times of election. Hence the need for Ofcom and the fact that Ken Livingstone was taken off-air during the run-up.
p.s. A special 'Thank You' to Martin Rosen, who taught me how to multiple-quote.
p.p.s Now if only I could find someone to teach me how to yodel!
I enjoyed NF & his interaction with, 'mum's net' this morning. :D
Morning All.
Admin Notice: This thread is continued here: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=58111503#post58111503