- Tim Bailey
- 10 Jul 06, 02:25 PM
Forget all the furore about Zinedine Zidane's public shame, and the inglorious end to a glorious career. What is really getting some listeners irritated is the phrase "head butt". Is it tautological? And does the butt refer to the part of the victim's body assaulted, or the part of the part of the body used by the assailant? Should it be "chest butted", for instance? Or, slightly more long-winded, "butted in the chest by ZZ's head"? After much discussion (that bemused some of the people who heard it) we have agreed that Zinedine Zidane butted Marco Materazzi in the chest. Clear?
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Ric Bailey
- 10 Jul 06, 12:51 PM
I'll be honest - Schools Question Time can be a bit of a pain.
It's a huge amount of extra work for everyone involved, way beyond the call of duty, full of hassle, etc etc. And it's risky for programme makers to give away a bit of their control.
And when I said in the last blog that I was worried about whether we'd find a suitable Joe Public panelist, aged between 18 and 25 - well, I really meant it.
So if I say there's a feeling of relief, it's not just because it's all over (arggh - we've ) - but because all the worries turned out to be totally unjustified and the response from all those involved, as well as the viewing audience, was truly inspirational.
Four young people, shortlisted for the job, appeared on a mini Question Time () to decide which one should do the real thing. All four were terrific and could have done the job.
But the winner, Matt Pollard, was amazing. Cool and confident, but not cocky; knowledgeable without sounding nerdy; politely combative. We could not have asked for more - he carried off the surrounding media interviews with the seasoned assurance of a pro (at least, once he realised he didn't have to answer the Telegraph's question about girlfriends...). A star is born. Even if he has to return to his summer job of being a waiter, it can only stand him in great stead for the future.
So thanks, Matt - and Gareth, Sarah and Louise - and of course the eight teenagers who helped produced the programme, as well as the thousands of others earlier in the challenge, who used the Question Time format in their lessons and in local events - for turning one of those high-ideal-sounding 大象传媒 objectives ("engaging young people in citizenship and politics") into an excellent programme which exuded their enthusiasm and engagement...
O God, here we go again...
Ric Bailey is deputy head of political programmes
- Tim Bailey
- 10 Jul 06, 09:41 AM
I approach this subject with a fair degree of trepidation. But a number of people have asked about the relationship between correct English grammar and 大象传媒 radio news scripts; in other words how important is correct usage of language for a news broadcaster?
The first thing to acknowledge is that for a section of the radio audience (primarily listeners to Radio Three and Radio Four, but not exclusively) the dictionary use of words is of vital importance; these listeners get very annoyed at errors or at sloppiness and they write in making their views know with what is known as great vigour. It is a foolish and arrogant broadcaster who ignores these people and their views. I most certainly don't.
Of course, most broadcasters are not foolish and they make every effort to use words correctly and to acknowledge the basic rules of grammar. And my own experience is that correspondents are keen to be told they have made a mistake - and equally keen not to repeat it. I have not come across a correspondent saying this sort of stuff is not worthy of attention.
This can be taken to extremes. I remember vividly a war correspondent filing on a phone from the battlefront with the sound of bullets and shells exploding all around him. He filed and the only response from the Radio Four desk was a producer shouting back through the sounds of war: "You have misused the word 'ironically'; you mean 'coincidentally'."
All radio broadcasters are aware that the listener usually gets only one chance to hear what they are saying; it must be clear, concise and easily understandable; there is usually not a second chance. And rules of grammar are, for the most part, agreed to ensure clarity, concision and comprehension. So there is no problem. All broadcasters should obey all the rules.
Up to a point. Radio news broadcasts are not compiled like that. They quite often deliberately break the rules. And the reason why they do so is to enhance clarity, concision and comprehension. And I think they are right. Radio news broadcasts are the illegitimate child of demotic speech and formal prose. The end - in this case informing the listeners - justifies the means: bending, if not breaking, the rules.
And of course the language changes all the time. This is a whole issue in itself. When does a word or phrase enter the mainstream; when does it become acceptable? Decisions on individual words are taken all the time. And I know a lot of people do not like the decisions. I know because they write in to tell me. The people who accept the changes, of course, don't.
So the debate goes on. As it should, and we should all take part.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'clock News
You can send us your thoughts or queries about the language used in any of our news programmes by leaving a comment below or using the form on the right hand side of the page.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
The Guardian: "Friday's launch of the 大象传媒 governors' final annual report was a sombre affair." ()
The Observer: An article on how political blogs infiltrated the mainstream media, including the 大象传媒, last week. ()
