大象传媒

Some people are unhappy? Reading the 33 comments to your own original posting I count perhaps two which are in favour of the proposal. Reading the Today message boards and looking at the commentary on this around the web turns up a similar result. I would say that the vast majority of people involved, AKA license fee payers, are dissatisfied with this.

If the people resoundingly tell you that they want to have open message boards such as that which has existed up until now in the Today boards then perhaps yes, the 大象传媒 should devote resources to moderating, maintaining and modernising this service.

The majority of those who use your boards and comment in your blog are against this new working arrangement. If this were most other democratic institutions responsible to the people I daresay a much publicised reappraisal of policy would currently be underway.

Sorry, this is perhaps one of the most idiotic proposals that the 大象传媒 has ever come up with.

I'm normally very pro-大象传媒, but I struggle to see why this would benefit anyone but the 大象传媒 themselves, and to be honest, if you make the forum awkward and stand-offish, then people will lose interest.

You can't force the conversation, people will talk about what they want to. If you want topics relevant to the shows, there is nothing stopping hosts from creating these anyway, even if it is under a particular topic.

Anyway, I suspect that you will try and justify yourself over and over again and ignore the concerns other than making excuses. These aren't people scared of change just for the sake of being argumentative, it is people angry that without any form of negotiation the you decide that you know best and want to break up an established community.

You've lost at least one poster here. I would say I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately I'm not going to be afforded the opportunity as it will be hosts creating topics.

We can "suggest" topics?

How kind.

You suggest that we "give it a chance"?

How ARROGANT.

There will be a change of Government quite soon. I will demand that the new rulers investigate your abuse of publicly funded power.

Your VICHY days will haunt you. You will be unemployable.

"Radio 4's Feedback programme is also interested in the changes. Our deputy editor Gavin Allen will be appearing on Feeback on Friday at 1330 GMT on Radio 4 to answer questions from listeners. "

Wihe replys be censored?

Also, we just know it will be blah blah blah: put up with it.

Also: it is not 'some' it is the VAST majority.

If you are a journo then get your facts right.

You had better NEVER have another article again about free speech on the Today programme.. If you do then feel free to classify yourself and all your team as hypocrites.

"I am genuinely sorry some listeners seem to be so upset about the changes we're planning."

Don't be sorry, just listen to the 90% or so of the people who do not want the boards closed. Then act on the will of the majority.

"We can only fully support as many boards as programme resources will allow."

Well reduce the number of boards, but keep at least one open like the International News board. A text based board does not cost a lot to maintain. I don't think anyone believes this is a cost issue.

"we appreciate that spending licence fee money on moderating these boards means that their use has to be clearly defined"

Well it is quite clear that you wish to define what the news is.I think the title "International News" is quite well defined. International news is not a few topics that you suggest, it is what is happing around the world. Since you are so concerned about using our money in the right way, why not actually listen to what we want? If you won't listen to us now, it hardy gives us confidence for the future system.

"Board users will still be able to suggest topics for discussion, and there is no sense in which an unreasonable veto will be exercised to screen out "inconvenient" topics"

Well we will never know will we? Since it will all be going on behind closed doors. All this "looking at user suggestions" and "deciding which topics to use" sounds like more man time and greater cost. Yet cost is one of your arguments for making the changes. Not that I believe that is the real reason for one moment.

The inability to start new threads will discourage users rather than encourage them. Perhaps that is the intention.

"I urge people who are unhappy with what is being suggested to give the new system a chance"

And I urge you to listen to the people who actually use the boards and pay your salary. Over 90% of users are against your proposed changes. I know, I painstakingly counted them all.

"we are making the changes because we want a closer relationship between users and programme producers"

Yes, that seems to be going really well already. You seem to be from the fingers-in-ears, la-la-la-la-I-Can't-Hear-You school of customer feedback.

Thank you for the prompt response Mr. Angus. I鈥檇 like 鈥楩eedback鈥� to establish when the policy change occurred in respect of 大象传媒 staff making contributions to the R4 messageboards?

I 鈥� along with many other devoted R4 listeners 鈥� have contacted 鈥楩eedback鈥� numerous times over the last 5.5 years with complaints about the R4 and Today message boards. Almost all my own submissions were accompanied with references. However there was no response from Feedback 鈥� not even an indication that R4 and 大象传媒 New Media were taking some action to rectify these failings. I hasten to add that the Graf inquiry didn鈥檛 result in any improvements either (the report received just three minutes coverage on 鈥楶M鈥� after its release 鈥� 鈥楩eedback鈥� never discussed its conclusions or recommendations. The programme had in fact requested listeners to contact them with important 大象传媒 diary dates, relating to radio issues. I contacted them and suggested that the Graf inquiry should be covered in the programme).

In view of the negative result from Feedback, I contacted Miss Jemima Kiss 鈥� a journalist with Journalism.co.uk. This is an extract from Miss Kisse鈥檚 article article(1):

Janet Morrow, acting communications manager for 大象传媒 new media and technology, said: "We are aware of issues with the message boards - primarily caused by the huge growth in their use - and are working to improve the service."

Production staff are not encouraged to contribute to discussion because the purpose of the boards is to encourage debate between listeners, according to Ms Morrow.鈥�

I hasten to add that R4 are just as much responsible as 大象传媒 New Media for this MB debacle, with two notable exceptions: Mr. Michael Rosen 鈥� presenter of WOM and Mr. Edward Morrish 鈥� R4 comedy producer. Both these individuals have always supported the R4 message boards and I鈥檓 the first person to acknowledge that.

Sincerely,

Dr. Lawrence Jones

Reference

(1) Kiss J., 鈥槾笙蟠� Doesn鈥檛 Get The Message鈥� Online Journalism News鈥� June 3rd 2004

Online reference:

The discussion, with you, or with some of your team who may comment has kind of broken down from the get-go, hasn't it?

What you're determined to ignore is TONE and AMBIENCE of a 'thing' - which everyone else can see clearly.
The boards were fast,haphazard and idiosyncratic but the (many) new users that signed in understood that implicitly and enjoyed it. Your plans sound like the result of several Editorial meetings and they are simply a dictat from your Editor. That's what we hear. Your team has destroyed something (an easy thing to do) and your proposals do not excite the public you wanted to address. What more do you want on the subject...a vote ?

This actually makes more sense than the last posting on this subject, but I still think it's a shame - by cutting out so much of the board the creative pot is reduced so much that the "More focussed" debates become "Tunnel-visioned".

I suppose this will lead to more snappy, predictable quotes which is probably more useful for the show, however debate will drop in quality meaning genuinly good ideas won't make the light of day anymore.

It's signalling the transition from a resource for the public to a resource for the show, which is the show's perrogative, but a shame that the wants of the many are sacrifced for the need of the few.

Well, the spontaneity has gone. I've been reading the same 4 post on one of the sites, re: the hUt, it seems for days. After emailing in for more response it now has 40 odd responses, very hard to digest them all at once. Most seem to be biased in favour of one perspective, the Muslim voice is more dominant there. The intellectual depth is no greater than many of the well thought out posts we used to have on the "Home" board.

Is arid less horrid for the beeb than spontaneity?

As an addendum to my last post, I do get frustrated at people who claim this kind of thing is an abuse of "Free Speech"... Since when was it a requirement for the Beeb to provide a vehicle for free speech?

If you want a real forum where people can say whatever they like, set one up yourself. And see how long it is before you get sued :)

What we had before was dialogue, and as with all dialogue it often went off at tangents, some of which were informative, some banal, some offensive and some just plain funny.

What we have now is sort of 6th form college attitude. Please write a nice clear and brief essay on a subject of our well considered choice and if we give you an "A" we will reward you by printing it.

I have a feeling that I shan't be getting any end of term prizes, and many of me mates will be rapping it over by the bike shed, innit?

Nuffin matters unless it chatters.

one word..well number "606".
go here and read the feedback to see what the future looks like for your messageboards...

Since when was the 大象传媒 there to provide free general discussion message boards? Plenty of things previously done by the 大象传媒 have been changed and axed when it was said the commercial sector was doing it, or could do it as well.

There's 1,000s of free discussion boards out there all covering the same topics.

The changes have turned a lively, dynamic discussion into what looks very like the "have your say" areas of the bbc news site, or indeed this blog.

"Board users will still be able to suggest topics for discussion, and there is no sense in which an unreasonable veto will be exercised to screen out "inconvenient" topics, whatever they might be"

In which case, why filter what can be suggested? Wasn't the old system good enough for that? I don't believe for one minute that this system will take less time to administer than the previous one, unless it has the effect of reducing the number of posts, which seems likely.

A retrograde step. The 大象传媒 are behind the times by some years.

I was most interested to read Dr. Jones鈥檚 comments on the changes.

He is absolutely right to raise the fact that it has long been the case that 大象传媒 programme-makers have failed to engage with messageboards. If there is now greater engagement then this is to be welcomed but I do not see why this could not happen with old-style boards. In fact the participation of programme-makers with an interest in their listeners is far more likely to keep conversations relevant than prescriptive straight-jacketing of what may or may not be said. Dr Jones rightly refers to Mr Rosen鈥檚 excellent contributions to the 鈥淲ord of Mouth鈥� messageboard which generally keeps to the broad themes of language which the show covers if not, exactly, the precise content of individual programmes.

It also seems that if someone has to sift the e-mails, chose relevant topics and then post these on the board then this will take more time than the new system supposedly makes available.

The obvious suggests itself: Keep the old style messageboards and introduce, alongside them, your proposed changes. In fact, it is pretty easy for everyone to become an "editor" and produce their own presentation of selected bits and bobs. That's what computers are good at.

I never used The Today messageboards, but I recognise the concerns it鈥檚 users have about these changes - exactly the same happened to the 大象传媒鈥檚 football forums. Can you confirm your decision to stop the public starting threads was made solely by the Today team and not imposed from above?

Jim Angus hasnt answered a single response to his blog, other than to repeat the 大象传媒's prepared statement. The very essence of bureaucracy.

I agree with the poster here who says the 大象传媒 has lost its right to comment on free speech in the future. The messageboards were a Prague Spring for freedom of speech in the UK. The 大象传媒 should have had immense pride in that. Instead they have neither the courage or vision to maintain it.

Concerning James鈥� comment (posting 15), private and most commercial message boards don鈥檛 have access to the audience-pool enjoyed by the 大象传媒, so it鈥檚 virtually impossible for them to survive over the long-term. A private message board would have to achieve a membership of at least 100 regular contributors to stay viable and interesting.

Where are 大象传媒 licence payers supposed to go if they鈥檙e keen to discuss 鈥� in public - the contents of a specific broadcast or programme? If Mr. Rosen and his production colleagues find their MB contributors an invaluable constituent of the programme, then why doesn鈥檛 this apply to 鈥楾oday鈥�, 鈥楧esert Island Discs鈥�, R4 drama, comedy鈥︹��.?

One tangential consequence of these changes is that individuals are starting to post on the R4 鈥楥hoice Is Your鈥� MB, with thread titles such as: 鈥榃hy Are Lefties Losing The Plot鈥� 鈥� clearly nothing to do with R4 programme output. The normal procedure here is for the hostess to redirect them to the Today boards, but she can鈥檛 do this now. Consequently, it will simply expedite the decline of the CIY message board 鈥� and this will also result in closure.

and the arrogance of those ruining these boards is reinforced by having a "free speech" topic on todays debate issues .....

* 16 Nov 2006,
* Sean wrote:

"As an addendum to my last post, I do get frustrated at people who claim this kind of thing is an abuse of "Free Speech"... Since when was it a requirement for the Beeb to provide a vehicle for free speech?

If you want a real forum where people can say whatever they like, set one up yourself. And see how long it is before you get sued :)"

The point is, Sean, that the internet is different, it allows anyone to have their say; not just the opinions of the 大象传媒 staff. It should not work like the rest of the 大象传媒 (on TV) where it is all controlled. It is against the principles and capabilities of the internet. We have an amazing medium - so let's use it and give everyone their chance to speak too. I can understand why so many people think this is not good enough. As for being sued - simply put in a disclaimer. It's not about the money or the cost - and we can see that. Other boards can do it - why not allow this one? I'm not impressed. This whole thing reminds me of Greg Dyke - where the 大象传媒 took so long to admit they made a mistake.

606 totally skewered and now Today goes. Where is the forum for free speech espoused by the 大象传媒, when the Great Debate was taken away from us. At the time of the Exodus, regular Today MB users were assured that the tone would not change and that it would be protected. This is pure control-freakery. The only decent option left to us is to go to the James St George board. As for consultation - We DON'T BELIEVE YOU ANYMORE. And that is possibly the worst conclusion to be drawn about the 大象传媒 and its news and production values today. When an organisation acts so shiftily in its own cause, what might it do when put under firm government pressure?

...and then comes the silence and the communication stops..and dont bother making official complaints..they just get lost ....

Well, it's now Monday, 20th Nov. The new M/Board system is not working well (for posters, that is). In this context, "focus" means the same as "limit", and amounts to an unacceptable censorship of free speech. As others have noted, the "Today" M/Board is one of the nation's premier instant discussion sites, and is funded by the taxpayer. This should mean that posters should have at least one board where THEY choose topics for discussion. OK, maybe we didn't need all the five boards that were previously available, and I can understand a logistical need to restrict posts that are effectively about the same topic, but the new "directed" board is a clear attempt to set the agenda that "fluffy", metropolitan-based politicos and journalists wish to see, rather than a genuine reflection of the views and concerns of "ordinary" people.

With the modifications I suggested, let's go back to the old system, please.

amoeba isn't this slooooooooow. Its killed dialogue. And you yourself might well have passed away since you last wrote in, if so I send my condolences.

But it IS providing jobs for the new young recruits who are after a sound bit since their rusks have been taken away.

Do you think that the long, long wait between comments is because they are having their nappies changed?