Alex Riley 2

I have raised my objections to Alex Riley at length in Comedy Board threads over the last few weeks so will keep this brief - and measured.

It's misleading to suggest that filling in the gaps between programmes with humour is the only viable course of action. Properly researched background material about programmes - which needn't involve giving away the plot - could prepare us and enhance our listening experience.
When a presenter tries to compete with the shows, as Riley does, instead of serving them, it diminishes that experience and does a disservice to the makers of those programmes.

***

Perhaps this debate really boils down to what you perceive the role of the presenter to be.

In my view it's to serve as a sort of palate cleanser, and needn't go much beyond giving us the essential info we need in order to understand and appreciate what's coming next. This doesn't necessarily mean absolute impersonality but the focus should certainly be on the programmes rather than the announcer's own character.

I recognise that BBC 7 is not solely catering to Radio 4 listeners like me but certain announcers run the risk of alienating that portion of the audience. Isn't a happy medium possible in terms of presenting style?

***

And I generally hate presenters who intrude their annoying 'personalities', as if: (a) they were more important than the programmes; and (b) they knew something personally about you, the viewer/listener, which entitles them to intrude on your private mental space."

Not my words but I understand and endorse them.

It's easy to see why this issue has inspired such passion. Radio is more intimate than TV. Gone are the days of the family grouped round the wireless; now it's more likely to be a case of one individual talking, close up, to another - you only have to think how many people listen via earphones these days.

So there's no need to shout or mug mercilessly (and the adverts are simply another form of shouting). You have our attention and our goodwill already: the act of tuning into to a largely spoken word station itself implies a greater willingness to listen. This isn't a music station with a dozen rivals to shout down, especially now that the nearest thing to a threat, Oneword, is no more (I make no comment about the fact that the low level twittering now on its frequency attracts a sizeable audience).

When my local park was converted into a Country Park there was some penny-pinching during the process, which led a rival politician to attack the council for buying a Rolls Royce without wheels. That is how I feel about BBC 7 at present. Yes, the amount of repeats is annoying but on the whole the content is superb. I love hearing Russell Davies remind me of some minor comedian I'd forgotten I liked. I love suddenly coming across some Hancock episode I've never heard, or to be reminded afresh of those small, highly polished marvels of melancholy created by Graham Fellowes, or the unexpected gift of a deeply satisfying drama by Nick Warburton. I only wish all these programmes had the setting they deserve.

As for the idea that "we can safely say that the BBC can act on this and be sure that it will pretty much have universal approval and support" ... I wish I had your optimism.

***

A reading which, sadly, makes rather more sense.

I sometimes wonder whether the hidden purpose of these message boards is to wear us all out, typing endless unread (by the powers that be) comments into a void, so no one will have the energy left to storm Broadcasting House ... Do any of these comments have any discernable effect?

"But since that thus it is by destiny,
What can I more but have a woeful heart,
My pen in plaint [or keyboard, in this case], my voice in woeful cry..."

... but of course poetry never changed very much either.