´óÏó´«Ã½

A sunny view this time

Comments

1. At 10:32 AM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

   It seems a while since the met office predicted that July was going to be a right off - but I have to say they were in fact correct, though down here the sun shone on the 12th July.

   Lets hope that August is going to be a beautiful Month for all of us.

   Let us hope that that training has already started for the dishonest ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff that have ripped us all off.

2. At 10:40 AM on 31 Jul 2007, Joe Palooka wrote:

   Let the healing begin ;-)

3. At 10:44 AM on 31 Jul 2007, RJD wrote:

   Truth Centre eh? I don't believe you!

4. At 10:45 AM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Oh and Eddie - you really must treat yourself to one of these Internet radio's - I can't believe how easy it is to access all the 'listen again' sites - and the quality of many Radio stations' is better than DAB.

   I see Radio 4 is listed as the Hottest station in the last hour:-

   If you then click on Radio 4 it brings up all the 'on demand streams' -- amazing bit of kit really for £49

5. At 10:53 AM on 31 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   Eddie: Do I detect a hint of cynicism here? And isn't everybody being shifted up to Salford before 2011?

   It's an interesting photo, though - a good composition imho. I'd send it to the Olympics committee as a suggestion for another version of the 2012 logo (oh, and the way constructors work, that's probably about when the building will be finished).

6. At 11:13 AM on 31 Jul 2007, Lady from Auchtermuchty. wrote:

   Eddie,

   Apparently Anna Ford says "There are only two types of people at the ´óÏó´«Ã½: radiators and drains". What does she mean?

7. At 11:46 AM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Lady from Auchtermuchty : You must be referring to this :-

   If Anna Ford did say it then she's talking through her backside.

8. At 12:32 PM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

   If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ really does stop beating its wife, there will be a lot of whingers with nothing left to whine at. The devil makes work for idle hands, and I'm not sure the world is ready for the consequences if the ´óÏó´«Ã½-bashers lose their sense of moral purpose.

   Eddie, it's your spendthrift, institutionally left-wing, Israel-undermining ways that stand between us and chaos. Don't do it!

9. At 12:40 PM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

   oooohhh Eddie....a 'nest' of cranes.

   
   ´óÏó´«Ã½ Truth Centre....mmmmmm....how many Tasers do you need? I can give you a good price for a job lot.

   
   ttfn..........zzzppttelicious......init?

10. At 02:35 PM on 31 Jul 2007, Member of the public... wrote:

    To the Eddie Mair Show,

    The recent decision of GMTV managing director Paul Corley to resign over the way the company ran telephone competitions is a rare example of honourable behaviour in this affair and I think will leave executives at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ sweating over their futures. Since the first questions were raised over the integrity of certain phone-in contests, television has found itself facing a growing number of accusations of bad practice. While there have been many apologies to ´óÏó´«Ã½ viewers, heads have not rolled. True, Blue Peter editor Richard Marson stood down after the programme was found to have faked the results of a competition, but he was moved into another job at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wasn't he? Mr Corley's resignation will force other broadcasters to explain why they believe their misdeeds were not sufficiently serious to warrant the departures of senior staff. Nowhere will this pressure be felt more than at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ which is still dealing with the fallout from a series of revelations involving a documentary about the Queen, Children in Need and Comic Relief among other programmes. It is not enough in my view for television companies to apologise for incidents where they have misled viewers and hope the furore dies down, or to blame junior backroom staff for serious blunders. Senior figures must take responsibility, after all that's what they're paid for. It is no great mystery why so many television licence holders think they are not getting value for money from the ´óÏó´«Ã½: frankly, I think they are not. The most comprehensive audience survey carried out recently by the Corporation showed significant dissatisfaction with what is offered by the ´óÏó´«Ã½. If those who had been questioned had known that Mark Thomas, the Director-General, is paid four times as much as the country's Prime Minister, they might have been even more disgruntled. A salary of £788,000 a year ought to secure the services of an individual who I think is able to deliver a top-class service, rather than one which is so obsessed with celebrity that it is contracted to pay Jonathan Ross a reputed £18m over three years, and, reportedly, Little Britain stars David Williams and Matt Lucas £6m, and Graham Norton £5m over a similar period. These ludicrous sums buy the services of celebrity performers whose appeal is by no means universal. Indeed, the Corporation's unhealthy obsession with celebrity carries over into its televised sports coverage, with the result that sports commentators are now almost exclusively drawn from the ranks of highly-paid former stars who need a giant "It Could Be You" Lottery-style finger to point out a story to them. Much of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s output seems to me to be directed more at satisfying the whims of its executives – and the egos of its presenters – rather than giving viewers a diet they can actually enjoy. Small wonder that droves of us are switching channels or pressing the "off" button.

11. At 03:20 PM on 31 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Member of the public (10)

    ......"Small wonder that droves of us are switching channels or pressing the "off" button"......

    
    .....great that means there will more to go round for the rest of us?

    
    ttfn..........bbcelicious.....init?

12. At 06:23 PM on 31 Jul 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Member of the Public (10):

    I've got something for you:

    
    ...A fresh batch of paragraph-breaks. Be a pal and use them, eh?

13. At 06:48 PM on 31 Jul 2007, mittfh wrote:

    Here's my 2p worth of response to "Member of the public", make of it what you will...

    Whilst it may seem obscene that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is paying vast salaries to some of its presenters, don't forget that presenters with broadly similar status on other channels/networks are probably demanding similar salaries as well. Don't forget that whenever a presenter has deserted one channel in favour of another, it is almost always due to the 'new' channel offering a higher salary.

    The ´óÏó´«Ã½ could theoretically adopt the approach of capping salaries, and replacing presenters with new talent whenever salary expectations get too high - but that would probably cause audience figures for the show to drop, as a large part of the attractive factor for the show is the presenter. Just think of the number of shows that have been axed within a year or two of the main presenter being replaced.

    You may say that if a programme is worthwhile, it should survive regardless of presenter. However, take West End musicals for example - regardless of the talent of the rest of the cast, if the headline "star" isn't present, many audience members will readily moan and grumble to any passing journalist. Take films - Hollywood in particular relies on the public thinking "If x is in that film, it must be good" for the success of its films - those that star big name celebrities tend to earn higher box office revenue than those that don't.

    As for the call for heads to roll in the wake of the phone scams, who exactly do you want? The programmes included a radio show,
    in-house ´óÏó´«Ã½ shows, and ´óÏó´«Ã½ shows made/produced by external companies.

    What the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should really do is produce a clear set of guidelines encompassing what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour on phone-ins. Including what to do in the "usual" scenario of callers not being able to be broadcast due to a technical hitch (perhaps record the contestants, then play them back during the show - if you wanted to be extra pedantic, the presenters could say that viewers will hear a recording of the contestant as a technical hitch meant they couldn't be heard live.

    Finally, bear in mind that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has now openly admitted all the 'scams' it is aware of. So far, it's commercial rivals have only admitted a scam when discovered by journalists - as far as I know, they haven't ordered investigations of all their output to determine whether it was possible scams occured in other programmes - and it would be hard for them to do so, as they make far fewer 'in-house' programmes than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and so employ a wider range of external production companies to create programmes for them.

14. At 12:34 AM on 01 Aug 2007, wrote:

    I'm with mittfh on this, and on the use of paragraph breaks and brief posts.

    xx
    ed