R2OK! Forum Index R2OK!
Contact R2OK! admin

Click here for R2OK! Website


 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Facebook Feedback

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> Shows and Music on Radio 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ian Robinson
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3383
Location: Chorley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:19 pm    Post subject: Facebook Feedback Reply with quote

Radio 2's Facebook page are -for some reason- asking opinions on their presenters. Seems a rather bold move, and I think prompted by negative feedback about Chris Evans' stand-in.

Generally, from the feedback it seems lots of love for Chris Evans, very little for Madeley, none at all for Feltz (with some regretting that Kennedy was hounded out - "be careful what you wish for"). Everyone else gets fairly lukewarm, variable responses although most seem to think Steve Wright is past his prime.

A surprisingly large number of people enjoy Alan Carr's show!

Full thread here:
http://www.facebook.com/BBCR2/posts/218343481510973?notif_t=like
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RockitRon



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7565

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've mentioned the Radio 2 Facebook threads, the individual ones for the likes of Vanessa Feltz and Chris Tarrant, before, and the surprise that, not only were the overwhelming majority of comments bad but that the Beeb hadn't wiped them out of existence.

This all-in-one thread is quite mixed, isn't it? Most in favour of Captain Chris, but not Richard Madeley. They like Graham Norton and, strangely, there's not a bad word said about Zoe Ball Shocked
_________________
Ron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Evan Elpuss



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3339
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd take that with a whole sack full of salt.
'although most seem to think Steve Wright is past his prime.' To me there seems little to choose between Evans & Wright, neither can work very well without a 'posse' of performing seal immitating, grovelling sycophants whooping, applauding & laughing uproariously at his every utterance (probably 'cos they're paid to!) And both are irritating shouters. So I find it hard to fathom how these people can feel undying loyalty towards one but not the other when they are both so similar. I heard a bit of Madeley in the car today and I'll agree he wasn't particularly good but at least he isn't a manic (no, make that hyper) shouter! I'll also agree with their regret at R2's letting Sarah Kennedy go (If only Sarah would do a one woman show at a venue near enough for me to go there and hear the story first hand from her, as happened with Johnnie Walker last year) I have tried listening to Vanessa Feltz, but no, not for me, neither is Alan Carr!!
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
littlepieces



Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 1098
Location: Lowestoft

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

put my oar in by saying i think alex janice bob and huey are excellent
_________________
I found out how you can hurt an insect.It's the bees knees
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kengeo



Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Posts: 278
Location: Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RockitRon wrote:
This all-in-one thread is quite mixed, isn't it? Most in favour of Captain Chris, but not Richard Madeley. They like Graham Norton and, strangely, there's not a bad word said about Zoe Ball Shocked


Not at all surprised that R2 are asking for feedback on Farcebook, as they know most of the comments will fit in with Shennan's agenda.

Most users of Farcebook will be from the (very) much younger end of the R2 demographic, hence the favourable comments on the above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Helen May



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 17848
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the same thing when I looked last night Kengeo. A somewhat false impression to big up Shennan.

H
_________________
88 - 91 FM this is Radio 2 from the BBC!

I said it live on air in the studio with Jeremy Vine on 10/3/2005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ian Robinson
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3383
Location: Chorley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, of course, everyone likes Chris Evans over there so it's obviously the wrong sort of listener! Rolling Eyes

While I'm disappointed in the number of people who say they never listen after 7pm, you can't just dismiss the comments out-of-hand. Got to assume they're listeners and all feedback should be taken on board. Certainly as valid as views on here.

And if it's to big up Shennan he's not getting it over his appointments of Feltz, Madeley and Whiley (the only names he's actually signed during his time in charge).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Themanfromuncle



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 79
Location: Near The Beach

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hardly scientific or via a medium that is aimed at 'everybody', as the BBC trust claims Radio 2, is.

Also, once the public gets used to the dumbing down of something, that dumbed down version becomes the norm, leaving the likes of some of us on this forum (for example) being the cry in the wilderness that nobody hears.

Having TV celebs on the radio to justify their huge salaries is just what the 'Dancing on ice with the stars from the Big Brother house in the jungle with the X-Factor' section of the public are now used to, and crave - hence Alan Carr being popular, apparently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I entirely agree, Uncle

The problem is that most Radio 2 listeners know nothing about the music played (unlike most of us on here) and I'm sure a lot of them turn on their radios in order to provide background noise quite simply because these days for some unknown reason most people just don't seem to be able to handle silence
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iím not a fan of the BBC Ė the Worldís leading innovator of Broadcasting know-how and technology, using cheap, unregulated, fly-by-night websites set up in a garage somewhere to communicate with their audience. At best itís a tacit admission that the World has left them behind and theyíre desperately running to catch up, at worst itís a rather clumsy, oldest swinger in town style, attempt at being cool. Itís like Harrods doing a car boot sale on a Sunday morning. Itís just not how it should be.
If it doesnít say BBC on the tin, itís not BBC in the tin.
Back to top
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:

The problem is that most Radio 2 listeners know nothing about the music played (unlike most of us on here) and I'm sure a lot of them turn on their radios in order to provide background noise quite simply because these days for some unknown reason most people just don't seem to be able to handle silence


I get the feeling that many (though not all, obviously) people under the age of 30 aren't really interested in music. Whereas it provided the keystone of young people's lives in the 50s, 60s and 70s, today it's more ephemeral and less important. Perhaps that's why people like Chris Moyles can spend well over 30 minutes talking about whatever rubbish comes into his head without playing a single piece of music on his Radio One show and why The Insufferable Evans has to indulge in all manner of banal silliness in order to fill a 3-hour slot each morning. The music is simply an irrelevance.

Will they ever be as passionate about the music they play as is - say - Tony Blackburn? I doubt it very much.

Rachel wrote:
Iím not a fan of the BBC Ė the Worldís leading innovator of Broadcasting know-how and technology, using cheap, unregulated, fly-by-night websites set up in a garage somewhere to communicate with their audience.


Er, with over 500 million registered users I'd hardly call Facebook a cheap, unregulated, fly-by-night website set up in a garage somewhere whether or not I'm a user (which I am, as it happens).
Back to top
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ColinB wrote:
Er, with over 500 million registered users I'd hardly call Facebook a cheap, unregulated, fly-by-night website set up in a garage somewhere whether or not I'm a user (which I am, as it happens).


Just because there's a lot of prawns out there doesn't make it right.

Social network type sites are nasty grubby little tools for gathering personal data. They are the first port of call for lazy, unscrupulous journalists and advertisers. The BBC should put a very large distance between itself and social network sites.
Back to top
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The details you mention Rachel sum up exactly why I will not use any social website

I simply don't trust them from a personal security point of view and I certainly think that it reflects very badly on the BBC that it chooses to do so

I realise they can be useful in some ways but my philosophy is that they should be avoided wherever possible as the disadvantages exceed the benefits
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Helen May



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 17848
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian Robinson wrote:
Ah, of course, everyone likes Chris Evans over there so it's obviously the wrong sort of listener! Rolling Eyes


It's easy for you to dismiss my comments Ian but when you think about it it's not so daft as it sounds. Chris Evans appeals to more younger listeners than old (probably a lot who listen to R1 at other times of the day) and Facebook is used more by younger people that older, hence my comment.

Just have a look at the photos of those who have commented, a lot appear to be youngsters.

I have a Facebook page, but don't like it, so rarely use it and wouldn't start commenting about the BBC on it.

H
_________________
88 - 91 FM this is Radio 2 from the BBC!

I said it live on air in the studio with Jeremy Vine on 10/3/2005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason why the BBC are using social network sites is to encourage people to listen digitally Ė on line Ė increasing the number of on-line listeners reduces the overall percentage of FM listeners when compared to all listeners Ė FM, Radio Player, DAB etc. Younger people are more likely to listen on-line, or using a portable streaming device (smart phones etc). The BBC using Social Network sites is all about turning off the FM signal as soon as possible- as soon as the scales tip to the Digital Listener side, then itís bye-bye FM, Iíd have thought Colin would have seen through their insidious love affair with on line activity.

Last edited by Rachel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
The details you mention Rachel sum up exactly why I will not use any social website

I simply don't trust them from a personal security point of view and I certainly think that it reflects very badly on the BBC that it chooses to do so

I realise they can be useful in some ways but my philosophy is that they should be avoided wherever possible as the disadvantages exceed the benefits


I don't think that there's anything you can do on a social network site that can't be done in another way and in a way that means you don't have to share your life with the entire world- all the privacy settings under the sun won't protect you if someone really wants your data.
Back to top
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
ColinB wrote:
Er, with over 500 million registered users I'd hardly call Facebook a cheap, unregulated, fly-by-night website set up in a garage somewhere whether or not I'm a user (which I am, as it happens).


Just because there's a lot of prawns out there doesn't make it right.


No, but what it does say is that a lot of people find such a medium very useful. As indeed I do - and I don't think of myself as a prawn.

Rachel wrote:
Social network type sites are nasty grubby little tools for gathering personal data. They are the first port of call for lazy, unscrupulous journalists and advertisers.


Rubbish. Anything that is published anywhere and by whatever means is a source of research for journalists. I use Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn to make and maintain contacts, social and professional, and I find it exceedingly useful and beneficial. And why not? How is Facebook any different to a database-driven website that has a commenting system, social bookmarking, pinging system and provides RSS feeds, etc? It's all about network connectivity - and Facebook isn't exclusive in that domain. It merely pulls together existing software technologies.

Anyhow, a forum (such as this very forum right here) is just another "social networking" tool - albeit an older one; Facebook is merely an adaptation which additional layers. In a nutshell, it's all about User Generated Content; the ability to sign up and post one's own thoughts, views, advice, etc., is what they have in common. Facebook is better than an old-fashioned forum like this because it enables users to introduce other media forms and "tags" in a way that this cannot.

If you dislike the likes of Facebook, then why are you using this forum?

Rachel wrote:
The BBC should put a very large distance between itself and social network sites.


I can only re-iterate: "Rubbish"!

Rachel wrote:
I don't think that there's anything you can do on a social network site that can't be done in another way and in a way that means you don't have to share your life with the entire world- all the privacy settings under the sun won't protect you if someone really wants your data.


Nothing on the internet is secure. This forum isn't secure - and nor is any personal data you may have chosen to enter when you signed up. It runs on open-source php and writes to / reads from a MySQL database at the back end. That's not "secure" either.

ruddlescat wrote:
The details you mention Rachel sum up exactly why I will not use any social website

I simply don't trust them from a personal security point of view and I certainly think that it reflects very badly on the BBC that it chooses to do so

I realise they can be useful in some ways but my philosophy is that they should be avoided wherever possible as the disadvantages exceed the benefits


Ditto my comment above.

You could try using a pigeon to carry your messages to your intended recipient - but even then somebody might intercept it!

How about Semaphore? I hear that's a pretty good visual communication technology! Cool
Back to top
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Colin, I really don't see how you can compare a forum like this one with the likes of Facebook

There are around 300 of us on here and most of us have some knowledge of others on here and after a period of time we come to trust them because we speak with them on a regular basis and if any imposters come along (as happened a few months ago) they are very rapidly shown the door

With the likes of Facebook there are millions of members worldwide and the sheer scale of the operation makes policing it very difficult and leaves members open to exploitation by a whole host of problem people including those mentioned by Rachel

I understand that there may be a certain degree of convenience in using such sites but people only usually experience the problems when it is too late
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ColinB wrote:
I can only re-iterate: "Rubbish"!


Oh Colin, you poor thing, you can't see the prawns for the scampi. I know itís never very easy to discover that youíre one of 500 million crustaceans but trust me, it gets worse, just wait until they pop you in boiling water!


Why do I use this place? That, is a jolly good question. Itís not for social networking thatís for sure: there are much better places for that, obviously. A Pub for example: hello luv, would you like a stout? I come here because I'm a bored, lonely housewife with an overly fertile imagination and with nothing better to do- well Price-drop TV comes a very close second. But more importantly, Colin, with so much up to date social connecitivty at your finger-tips, why do you grace this old, out of date technology with your charm and wit?


Last edited by Rachel on Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ruddlescat wrote:
Colin, I really don't see how you can compare a forum like this one with the likes of Facebook


I do so because they both use very similar underlying technologies, and because they both exist to enable the sharing of information in the digital domain. They're both inherently insecure - it's just that Facebook is bigger simply because of its numbers.

ruddlescat wrote:
There are around 300 of us on here and most of us have some knowledge of others on here and after a period of time we come to trust them because we speak with them on a regular basis and if any imposters come along (as happened a few months ago) they are very rapidly shown the door


Security on Facebook is actually very good. I don't add any information to my profile that I don't want anybody else to see or gain access to through feeds, etc., and I don't allow users to gain access to my wall unless I want them to. Furthermore, if I don't like the contents of somebody else's wall - as is ported through to my own - then I can "block" them completely, effectively de-tagging and unlinking their registration with mine. One thing I don't (won't) do is to click "like" to corporate viral marketing promotions - such as the recent "BT wedding" campaign; all you're doing is giving them info about you which they can then use to target you as a marketing prospect. Are people not aware that they're doing that? I certainly am.

What's more, if somebody posts content that violates Facebook's own rules you can bet that many people will report it to Facebook admins who will block that user completely pending review. It works well as far as I can see. At least on FB you can easily and quickly block a user (a "friend" as they say) who turns out to be a spammer or troll (yes, we all know the sort!); individuals can't do that in phpBB2.0!!!

ruddlescat wrote:
With the likes of Facebook there are millions of members worldwide and the sheer scale of the operation makes policing it very difficult and leaves members open to exploitation by a whole host of problem people including those mentioned by Rachel


Well, I can only re-iterate that my experience is such that your claim isn't true - at least it's no more or less secure than any other site that relies on user generated content for its existence.

ruddlescat wrote:
I understand that there may be a certain degree of convenience in using such sites but people only usually experience the problems when it is too late


Only if they don't use common sense - but they're people who might just as well walk in front of a bus because they're engrossed in a mobile phone call. Stupid people are a fact of life, unfortunately.
Back to top
Themanfromuncle



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 79
Location: Near The Beach

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Facebook is great for me. I have, literally, just 70 contacts that are all, to a man (or woman) actual friends or colleagues, most of them in the USA and Australia. It serves a 'now or later' purpose for me that time restraints, and indeed time-zone restraints, can present with a long distance call. You can check back at your leisure. My account is locked down completely, including with the proper HTTPS security and I don't even have a picture of myself up there. I accept no friend requests unless absolutely necessary, and only the friends list can see what I'm up to.

Colin is correct, to a point, that almost any internet usage could be viewed or not completely secure. My Brother is an I.T. consultant and has run me through the whole security talk, in depth, and this fallacy that FB is some virus-riddled, easy to fake and security hellish nightmare is not the case as long as you go about your account handling in the right way, much the same as online banking.

Also, just because an old-fashioned attitude, even an astute one, says that something is better the old way, doesn't necessarily make it so, no matter how much one convinces oneself that is the case. A small section of the community believing the hype over FB security (and the like) can be as ignorant as 500 million folks believing FB is inherently safe, thus breeding arrogance, and mistakes, without taking the precautions one should.

People who are un-secure on FB are so because of their own limitations in the imagination and realism stakes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Themanfromuncle wrote:
People who are un-secure on FB are so because of their own limitations in the imagination and realism stakes.


I quite agree. One thing I meant to add above is that many of those who bemoan Facebook's apparent lack of security also access the internet with Microsoft Internet Explorer!

No, really........................... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
The BBC using Social Network sites is all about turning off the FM signal as soon as possible- as soon as the scales tip to the Digital Listener side, then itís bye-bye FM, Iíd have thought Colin would have seen through their insidious love affair with on line activity.


As ever, Colin completely missed the important parts of what I was really saying.
Back to top
ruddlescat



Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both Facebook and this forum might carry the same information security risks in theory, and I can't argue with your technical expertise Colin, but it's a well known fact that security breaches within a hugh worldwide organisation are potentially far more serious than within a small home based one

After all it's like comparing the leaking of security details within a small local Building Society with a single branch as against a similar leak in a massive international financial institution like Barclays

Ignoring the existence of the Investors Compensation Scheme which of the two examples would pose the bigger problem?

Big is not always beautiful as we all discovered when had to bail the banks out not long ago and personally I'd rather stick with a forum like this one than be a small fish in the massive dangerous and insecure pond that is Facebook
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?


Last edited by ruddlescat on Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gibbo



Joined: 31 Aug 2010
Posts: 117
Location: Wirral

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
Social network type sites are nasty grubby little tools for gathering personal data.


Only if people are stupid enough to put the data there in the first place.

When I think of the Facebook brand and users I think of ITV and ITV2, tat appealing to the lowest common denominator. And sadly I now see Radio 2 like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Themanfromuncle



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 79
Location: Near The Beach

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Internet Explorer is a disaster, It's filled with security nightmares and viruses waiting to hit you, and is badly produced and maintained at its very core.

I use Chrome and its bloomin' marvellous in look, understanding an functionality, I must say. I have Firefox as a back-up, but I rarely use it.

IE is bad for your karma, and anything else you regard as important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Themanfromuncle



Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 79
Location: Near The Beach

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gibbo wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Social network type sites are nasty grubby little tools for gathering personal data.


Only if people are stupid enough to put the data there in the first place.

When I think of the Facebook brand and users I think of ITV and ITV2, tat appealing to the lowest common denominator. And sadly I now see Radio 2 like that.


So as I use FB, I'm a lowest common denominator type of guy who is a tat inspired individual with no class or intelligence?

I say, how shocking. My head hurts now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gibbo wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Social network type sites are nasty grubby little tools for gathering personal data.


Only if people are stupid enough to put the data there in the first place.


Quite right - but that applies to any site that relies on user-generated content as discussed above, not just Facebook.

Gibbo wrote:
When I think of the Facebook brand and users I think of ITV and ITV2, tat appealing to the lowest common denominator. And sadly I now see Radio 2 like that.


I don't agree at all. It's what you make it (or not). Whilst there are evidently lots of people who will bare their all on Facebook and share every intimate detail of their lives, the more astute users rely on Facebook to maintain connections. That can apply to individuals and corporate bodies. I use Facebook not only to keep in touch with family members and friends all over the world (it's been the best means of doing this by far - despite what Rachel says) in addition to keeping my business "in the loop" with other businesses in my chosen field. In all respects it's been invaluable and I wish it had been around 10-15 years ago when I could have done with it. Making new connections in business is unbelievably difficult, but social media portals have made it much easier and more effective.

It appears that those who decry Facebook the most are people who don't use it and who therefore can't possibly see how it actually works - or can work.

The involvement by the BBC and other media organisations in Facebook is a perfectly logical and reasonable thing for them to do because it provides a means by which members of those portals can help to spread the word about what's happening and can pass on selected bits of information through embeds, tags, snippets of people's wall posts, etc., broad and wide.

I know that for my own (developing) professional presence on Facebook that's what I'd hope others would be doing! And why not?
Back to top
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
Rachel wrote:
The BBC using Social Network sites is all about turning off the FM signal as soon as possible- as soon as the scales tip to the Digital Listener side, then itís bye-bye FM, Iíd have thought Colin would have seen through their insidious love affair with on line activity.


As ever, Colin completely missed the important parts of what I was really saying.


No I didn't, I just chose not to comment. I couldn't be bothered! Anyhow, the so-called love-affair with "online" activity results directly from government policy; they want to free up analogue bandwidth in order to expand digital communication in all its glory. Take it up with your MP...
Back to top
Rachel
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ColinB wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Rachel wrote:
The BBC using Social Network sites is all about turning off the FM signal as soon as possible- as soon as the scales tip to the Digital Listener side, then itís bye-bye FM, Iíd have thought Colin would have seen through their insidious love affair with on line activity.


As ever, Colin completely missed the important parts of what I was really saying.


No I didn't, I just chose not to comment. I couldn't be bothered!


Is that because you feel bad about propping up a BBC policy that you are compelled to support with one hand but disagree with on the other? Wink Don't answer, I'm bored with this now.
Back to top
ColinB
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
Is that because you feel bad about propping up a BBC policy that you are compelled to support with one hand but disagree with on the other? Wink Don't answer, I'm bored with this now.


I'm neither propping up nor denigrating BBC policy in this respect - I'm merely attempting to dispel a few myths about Facebook that are often propogated by people who don't actually know how the system works in relation to "security" and the like.

Like I said, many of those people complain about security whilst continuing to use Internet Explorer! (I know which is the greater threat to personal security....).
Back to top
RockitRon



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7565

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
Don't answer, I'm bored with this now.


I'm not surprised.
What a thoroughly depressing thread this turned out to be.

I'm under no illusion about the security of the net or social networking sites, including this one, but then big business probably knew more about me than I know myself long before R2ok and Facebook came along. And of course it's used as a tool by every business on there, from charities and campaigns, through all those artist/band sites and the BBC to Heinz, who recently invited people to buy a limited edition tomato ketchup with Guinness there.
_________________
Ron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ian Robinson
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3383
Location: Chorley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RockitRon wrote:
I'm not surprised.
What a thoroughly depressing thread this turned out to be.

Yeah. I should have known better, really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fred



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something I don't often do... I'm going to have a rant!

It is interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that such a large number of users on Radio 2's Facebook page don't seem to appreciate the significance or quality of the specialist music/post-7pm/overnight shows - these being what Radio 2 is all about, and what distinguishes it from the commercials.

I don't see why so many of the people commenting there are getting so upset at the fact that Richard Madeley is doing Breakfast, nor why they think that setting up a "Get Richard Madeley off Radio 2" Facebook group (that really does exist Rolling Eyes) is going to make any difference to the decisions made by BBC management... I am of the opinion that if someone doesn't like what they're listening to on the radio, then they should re-tune to something else, just like changing channel on the TV when yet another football match is being broadcast, or the person watching it before has accidentally left it on BBC 3! Laughing

I personally enjoy most of the shows on Radio 2* - I think that there is room for both personality/celebrity lead programmes and more specialist shows aimed at those who prefer particular musical genres - on the same station.

Its a shame that a large number of those who want general background entertainment shows like Chris Evans or Vanessa Feltz don't seem to want to know about Sunday evening Radio 2, or Friday Night Is Music Night... and I can imagine that a lot of Jo Whiley's listeners would switch back to Radio 1 when Big Band Special comes on at 9:30 on a Monday evening (though this scheduling could work well as it would introduce her former Radio 1 listeners to some of Radio 2's specialist shows straight away)!

*The only one that I refuse to listen to being Alan Carr (and I never listened to Russell Brand, back in the days when he had a show).
_________________
Fred Hart
Student & Broadcaster
Website: http://www.fred-hart.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fred



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Sorry - just wanted to get that off my chest. I can appreciate R2OK members who want the specialist music shows to be more prominently placed in the schedule - but I think that listeners who want the reverse are missing the point of Radio 2...)
_________________
Fred Hart
Student & Broadcaster
Website: http://www.fred-hart.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ian Robinson
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3383
Location: Chorley, Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
Its a shame that a large number of those who want general background entertainment shows like Chris Evans or Vanessa Feltz don't seem to want to know about Sunday evening Radio 2, or Friday Night Is Music Night...

Yes, as I said above, this is the aspect that most annoys me about the comments over there. The worry is if BBC bosses continue to tinker with the evenings and weekends in order to attract the sort of people who are commenting there about Chris Evans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    R2OK! Forum Index -> Shows and Music on Radio 2 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com