Vanessa Whitburn slip up on R4 today programme

[GoodChristianaRejoice]

She said 'we've got a birth and a death'
...

Must mean Nige is kaput

Well I'm glad Nigel's gone. Ludicrous chinless accent, and the constant joyous snogging with Lizzie in the last few weeks was really meh.

Apart from the silly 'special trails' when they run 1 minute (or more?) about some storyline (as an example, I think they did something 'extra' in advance of Matt being sent to prison) presumably to boost listeners, which seem pointless (*)

something which never ceases to annoy me is how (unlike pretty much everything else they put on) they are drip feeding what will happen before the news [before the show] or after a broadcast to hint [strongly] at what will be on next day

Front Row, Saturday Review, and any book review shows or film review shows go to some effort not to divulge the plot, so why does the BBC make such a hash of yhis with the Archers ? Surely they don't need a cliff-hanger (nor do TV soaps if they are daily rather than twice a week, ike some used to be... [nostalgia spot... anyone else remember 'Crossroads' ?]

• seem pointless if these trails are meant to boost audience... ... boost it from where? anyone listening to R4 can hardly miss The Archers unless they make an effort (OK, busy with 2 jobs and family, it is possible not to have time, sorry) ... and I don't expect they attract many extra listeners when they do put these trails on anyway, as the show has a Marmite quality, ie regular listener, or not

More entertaining that the SATTC episode itself was VW's blatent lie on Today when she denied having said there was a death last night. She slipped up then tried to pretend that she had said "a potential death" when she quite clearly didn't - listen here - it's right at the end of the clip.

VW epitomises the BBC's arrogance and belief that it can do nothing wrong.

Oh dear he is dead then.

Anyone for Turps - " She slipped up then tried to pretend that she had said "a potential death" when she quite clearly didn't"

It was included in The World Tonight in the news headlines that fans of the Archers had confirmation of a death when the editor slipped up, so I guess the news section found her claim "not proven" :)

"VW epitomises the BBC's arrogance and belief that it can do nothing wrong."

Get over yourself.... It wasn't a court of law! Daft to ask her the question if they didn't want her to accidentally spill the answer.

Agreed not a court of law, but in AFT's defence, have you ever listened to the different people asked to answer listener complaints on Feedback who, if they believed the earth was flat, and said it was flat on air, would defend that view to the Nth degree however many listeners said it is a sphere.

There have been lots of instances where the BBC staff make a decision, and don't back down on it not being a popular one, and carry on in their own direction.

I was glad the woman in charge of 6 Music and Radio 2, who gave Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand the opportunity decided to 'fall on her sword' and quit as it was the first time in a long while that someone had accepted the public's opinion and she clearly understood that the material wasn't acceptable. She was the exception though, and all too many producers, editors and senior staff feel their decisions are justified no matter how much listeners complain.

Take the Today show, as an example. The Editor was pressed about whether he would ever shorten the trailers (adverts!) rather than cut an interviewee short. Studiously avoided answering - it might have "come down from on high" that they were not allowed to cut out the adverts, but he didn't say it, just banged on and on about having to judge the amount of time very carefully.

Maybe he would love to cut down on the trailers, but could not say so - instead it was like the BBC had a policy and who was he to either complain or be open about it, ie he was not going to allow the plebs to know he agreed with them/us... we will never know.

chil it's not the slip up that demonstrates her arrogance but her blatant lie in denying it. As you would have realised if you read my earlier posting properly. Have you listened to the clip?

TOtally agree with Network Guy re Feedback. The BBC are never ever wrong .

Pleased to hear the News Quiz did not let her off, either !

AFT.. yes, I've listened to the clip & I really don't see why you're making such a fuss. The whole interview was very lighthearted with much giggling from the presenters. She made a mistake followed by a clumsy lie when attempting to backtrack but I think getting on high horses about it, accusing people of arrogance & then extrapolating that to being the epitome of BBC attitudes is taking it way too far...

It's a soap...

"There have been lots of instances where the BBC staff make a decision, and don't back down on it not being a popular one, and carry on in their own direction."

When it comes to R4 opinions can be really entrenched and even the tiniest change or modernisation gets met with howls of protest. People are still whining about them dropping the theme tune from PM for goodness' sake. And the fuss when they wanted to drop 'Home Truths' even though it wasn't working. I'm not surprised programme producers go on the defensive as standard.

There's "on the defensive" and then there's an "I'm right, they're wrong" which is how I hear them with smug comments as if the listeners are something of a nuisance, not an audience entitled to views.

There are mixed views on many things, I agree, but sometimes the BBC staff do show that they sit in ivory towers and feel almost immune from criticism.

I looked in on the messageboards and opinions about changes made to the BBC Blogs, and there are endless comments where users dislike change for change's sake.

Now, admittedly there may be some degree of stubbornness among listeners / viewers / web users, but when something went wrong and templates returned to how they had been before, users were overjoyed, and then dismayed when the BBC fixed the technical glitch and they went back to grotty colour combinations and loss of some features.

I cannot go into any more detail, as I gave up regular use of their service years ago, when I saw how they were closing sections down, and then cancelling posts as 'off topic' (eg something from Women's Hour) when there was nowhere else to post it (the Women's Hour messageboard had been closed, for [get this] being too popular).

They even had some moderator say that we could not discuss the content of a programme as the message board was meant for discussion of the technical issues involved with the programmes and not allowed to be diverted into issues that were discussed. Add to that the fact they have some boards open on a 9-to-5 basis and you get the impression they don't even want contributions from users.

They have several message board areas for that soap, The Archers, (OK, I listen sometimes!) but for other material, they can close a message board after a couple of years because they felt it stretched their resources, never mind what effort / expenditure they put into things to do with The Archers.

They are arrogant, sometimes in the extreme.

Anyway, we can agree to differ on the matter, as there's nothing likely to persuade me otherwise, and your views are clearly diametrically opposed to mine.

When/if you contact Channel 4, Sky or ITV to complain do they instantly change their programming? Do you get a better response?

Their source for funding is very different, being primarily (if not totally) funded from commercials / programme sponsorship [plus fees, for Sky], and when they get significant numbers of complaints, I feel sure they consider them in relation to whether advertisers will decide not to renew any campaigns with them, and thus affect them in a significant way.

In the case of Sky they consider how many customers they can afford to lose when they put their fees up, and if they have fewer fee payers, paying much higher fees, they may actually be happy because it puts less strain on their customer services. If someone is paying them 80 quid a month for HD, multi-room, Sports, Movies and so on, service quality gets to be important to the customer, as well as Sky TV content, and other features like broadband and phone service.

The BBC has, in the past, taken a while to react to public complaints, and some might say it has now gone the opposite way, and may react (or decide on a radical course of action) perhaps too quickly.

Odds of a 20% boycott of the licence fee are low, but you can imagine how that could happen if they annoyed sufficient numbers of 'customers' and if that many households withheld the licence fee for a year, not only would the BBC be in crisis, but the courts would too (and I doubt the firm that has the contract to collect the fee on behalf of the BBC has enough staff to cope).

OK, nobody would want an "up to" 1000 pound fine, but in these economic times, if unemployment grows, and the BBC does enough to annoy people (*) then they may feel they are on thin ice, and are being more cautious, as some people would justify not paying "because food and clothing for our children are more important" and I doubt many magistrates will impose a prison sentence for non payment. The BBC has had a golden goose laying eggs and does not want to squeeze too hard...

(*) Thinking about reported fees paid to "talent" of up to 6 million pounds a year, pension pots of 2 million pounds [Radio 2/6 Music boss who took on Brand and Ross] and big salaries for lots of executives, some with apparent duplication of roles (3 or 4 have marketing or communication in their job titles).

i sympathise with both of you i heard a fascinating interview with the producer of E.E and he was SOO excited that everyone was talking about (he nearly said E.E) corrected himself to say cot death.

..he sounded young and arrogant and refused to say there was any issue. We pay their wages F.F.S.