RichardHorsman.com

My Take On Myers

2012-03-02T16:01:00.004Z

As anyone taking the trouble to navigate here will know, John Myers' report into the options for savings in BBC Local Radio is out. The full text is here, and as it's already been summarised to death I won't repeat that process. I would like to pick up, however, on a few themes.

Too many chiefs ....

The wisest advice I ever received about the BBC came from an old-time PR man who took me under his wing when I was a bright-eyed teenager. Ron did public relations in the days when journalists drank Scotch at 10am news conferences. He lived his ideal of always looking prosperous, with a smart suit and cigar, even if he only had tuppence in his pocket.

"Richard" he said one day, "Just remember they're civil servants with microphones"

Fast-forward forty years and Richard's trying to grasp the antique software Myers derides in his findings whilst on placement at the Beeb on a secondment to update skills for the all-digital newsroom.

I'm also trying to work out if the workmanlike but quaintly old-fashioned package I've managed to construct (but can't save - Capita having screwed up my privileges) needs to be compliance checked by the Man Ed, the Asst Man Ed (Actg); The News Ed; the Drive producer or the nice bloke in the corner who sorted out my swipe card.

I wouldn't for one moment suggest the guys with titles aren't working hard, but the Byzantine links between the roles need to be simplified. And how.

These are creative people with (in most cases) a wealth of experience, so let's get them down on the shop floor making great radio. Cheers, Ron <clinks tumbler of Johnnie Walker>

Sport. It's the Wild West.

Sport is a vital ingredient of Local Radio, and everyone involved knows it.

I was horrified to learn from Myers that local Man Eds are expected to barge into the board room down at the Cloggers (figuratively speaking) and negotiate their own rights to broadcast games. Whatever deal they reach, Beeb central will pick up the tab with no direct consequence for the individual station; it just racks up against central LR costs.

Try, just try to imagine what those negotiations are like. Go on.

The kid at school who probably liked Jane Austen and was regarded as a bit creative is sent in to bargain head to head with the kid from 4B who ran the Greggs' supply racket in smokers' corner. I wonder whose objectives will prevail in that deal? Especially when there are no actual consequences.

Meanwhile it seems Jim Jockstrap is absolutely required to read sports bulls all day from a separate studio because Felicity ffarnes-Barnes on news doesn't like football and can't be trusted not to give the Arsenal - Man U score as "six - love" if left to her own devices.

The arrangement suits both parties, so the sport team will reinforce difference at every opportunity. The sports specialists are steeped in loyalty, mystic codes and the need to band together against outsiders. In many stations they've become a fiefdom. No-one would accept that finance or education stories need separate readers all day - so get real.

News is sport. Sport is news. Live with it. One reader, certainly outside Breakfast and (just maybe) Drive.

They're all kids.

The average listener to BBC Local Radio is aged over fifty. The average BJ is in their mid to late twenties. Result - mismatch.

A typical desk journo on shift right now probably thinks a Bay City Roller is a pimped-up Bentley in San Francisco. The phrase 'Olde English Spangles' evokes no reaction whatsoever.

I've banged on before about the need for diversity in news and Myers effectively underscores that point. We need much more age diversity in news teams as well as an ethnic spread and a voice for wheelchair users. The Beeb should seek out and utilise older journalists (says Richard from Leeds, GSOH, aged 52 3/4 WLTM open-minded News Ed for a bit of creative treatment on the side with no strings attached).

The equipment doesn't work and the studios are falling apart.

Bin it. Buy the journos some iPhones. End of.

Louise Easton of Bauer played some cracking audio her team had filed that way to a rapt Leeds Trinity Journalism Week audience yesterday. The technical quality on 3G wasn't perfect but it didn't pop and crackle anything like as much as the last UHF radio car link I heard on my BBC local. Doing away with that infrastructure would save a fortune.

The Beeb are screwed with bad premises because of decades' worth of gaming licence fee settlements with leases, leasebacks, and a spaghetti of financial instruments of the kind which got the country in hock to the bankers.

Not much can be done about that short term; but we need to think really creatively when the next High Street Czarina is appointed; maybe we could see prefab radio station pods 'popping up' in shopping malls rather than premises in 'cultural quarters' frequented largely by -er- other cultural types as opposed to actual C2 DE punters. Don't forget BBC Radio Leeds started life in a mall, in its case the Merrion Centre.

Radio England.

I've said before that I reckon Radio England is a bad idea so I won't reiterate those arguments.

Myers disagrees. He says that evening programming is not sufficiently distinctive and reckons the network as a whole would benefit from a network programme presented by an original, committed radio animal with the wit, charisma and larger-than-life personality able (say) to to strike up instant banter on Englebert Humperdinck's chances in Eurovision from personal anecdote. Who can he have in mind for that role? We do agree that any host should not be a telly castoff with a good agent.

Myers is a bit vague about when an 'evening programme' would be scheduled. If he's talking early evening (1900-2200) that would conflict with specialist shows and would be constantly disrupted by sport. If he means 2200-0100 the idea has more merit but I don't see how the content would be sufficiently distinct from Radio 2 or Five Live.

So all in all Myers has come up with a positive and upbeat report which reflects his affection for BBC Local Radio. He may have mentioned a time or two he started off his career reading the 'lamb bank' feature on BBC Radio Cumbria.

However, standing still is not an option; substantial changes will have to be made at BBC Local Radio under Delivering Quality First. If adopted the Myers recommendations would save around £11 million rather than the £15 million envisaged under the first draft of the DQF plans.

That process will still be painful for some; to speak of having 'saved' local radio is probably a bit simplistic, many people, probably dozens across the country, will be shown the door.

All in all, however, a sometimes much-abused poor relation of Auntie's family could hardly wish for a more kindly surgeon than John Myers - IF the Trust accepts the report, and then acts upon it.

Radio Needs Apprentices

2012-02-27T07:44:00.005Z

Work experience trainees are in the news for all the wrong reasons this week as various high profile retailers stand accused of using 'slave labour' to stack shelves and clean floors; the accuracy or otherwise of the various claims and counter-claims don't concern us here, but maybe it's time to take a long, hard look at the place of work experience - or maybe more formal apprenticeships - in radio.

Workies are ingrained deep of the ecology of the industry, and always have been; at least, ever since the development of local stations offered more and less forbidding front doors to knock on than the one in Portland Place guarded by Ariel. I'd never have wormed my way into wireless without doing my share, and when any job is perceived as glamorous and exciting there will always be someone wanting to give it a go, usually for free.

Many - perhaps most - work experience candidates are useless. We've all seen the gormless teenager sit and watch a phone ring when all hell's breaking loose in the newsroom, or endured the self-obsessed career changer who witters incessantly about the one subject they find fascinating; themselves. Yet others are pure gold. The day they set foot in a radio station they know it's where they belong.

Take the one station I know intimately from having spent over 20 years in a basement in Bradford. Pennine Radio, and its later persona as The Pulse, has been a nursery to amazing talents.

The BBC's Olympics supremo Roger Mosey, Radio Humberside's Man Ed Simon Pattern, Radio Clyde's PD John Dash and Radio Futurologist James Cridland (to name but a very few) all know the little station in Forster Square very well; I pick them out for mention as they all sat at the next desk to me before moving on to bigger and better things. And they all started as unpaid work experience candidates.

But the station they joined had a newsroom of seven journos; a commercial production team of three, the same number of engineers, a features department of two and (most importantly of all) live programmes if not round the clock then at least for 20 hours a day, with the remaining four presented by Tone.

We all learned by sitting with inspiring individuals, copying what they did until we could do it unaided and maybe add something distinctive of our own. In the days when Pennine House was a wool warehouse they called the process 'learning by Nellie'. The system worked, as any roll call of Nellie's alumni will prove.

Today that's no longer possible. Not only are the teams smaller, but much of the creative work is done against ever-tighter deadlines and probably alone on a PC. Nellie doesn't have time. Programmes are networked and voicetracked, and the basement is dark from early evening onwards.

The employers have outsourced training to institutions such as mine, and I'm proud of the record we have at Leeds Trinity; if we've trained the editors of Radio Aire, Capital Yorkshire, Radio Derby, Hallam - and, yes, The Pulse we must be doing something right. But it's not the same.

This post was inspired by a Tweet from radio grandee John Myers, who was impressed when his plumber turned up with a proper apprentice and showed the lad what to do whilst he was working. It made me think.

Now's the time for some proper radio apprenticeships.

There are some hopeful signs; I know of one station in the north where the editor has taken a candidate under her wing and is teaching her the craft of news whilst the lass saves for a place on my course next year. She might even bypass Uni altogether; a bit of me thinks that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Another BBC Managing Editor was creative enough with the budget to develop a weekend receptionist to the point where, after a spell at Leeds Trinity, the person concerned has gone on to star in a College of Journalism training video. But that's news.

The area that's really crying out for modern apprenticeships is presentation. So here's a practical proposal.

Why can't every station in the land offer a graveyard slot to an aspiring presenter?

No-one listening from (say) 3am-6am matters to the corporate beancounters, nor those tuned in after seven at night in some places, or they wouldn't run automated at that time of day. The kid can't ruin the brand with a 3 month contract.

Pay the trainee a minimum wage and get the government to subsidise that. If necessary, send the kid to College (just for the early part of the waking day, natch) to collect some relevant qualifications. Provide regular snoopy sessions and feedback. Nurture some new talent.

And I know it will work.

Because in that roll call of the successful who passed through that Pennine basement I missed out some other names; Chris Moyles, Jon Culshaw, Lucio and Simon Hirst again just a small (but better known) selection of the radio talent who honed their skills offpeak in just the way I've described.

Their successors don't have the same opportunities to stretch their wings. Learn to fly on air as a pilot learns to fly in the air, not in a simulator. The radio world is crying out for new talent.

So - something for the industry to think about; something high profile, which could win favour with the government and earn Brownie points if that same radio industry was hoping, just for instance, to win permission to roll out big brands across the UK against local grumblings.

Costs the company next to nowt, especially if you coach the big star ready to compete for Britain's number one breakfast show of 2020.

A Word From Our Sponsor

2012-02-21T14:24:00.010Z

Just to say that next week is Journalism Week at Leeds Trinity University College (not that we don't live and breathe journalism for the other 51 weeks as well).

Now I'm a cynical old hack, but even I'm impressed by the lineup this year, which includes BBC correspondent Mark Easton, ITN's foreign editor Tim Singleton, Bauer Radio's head of news for Yorkshire (and former Leeds Trinity postgrad) Louise Easton, the head of all things BBC in Salford Peter Salmon, 5 Live's deputy controller Jonathan Wall, Look North's award-winning VJ Nicola Rees and ITV Yorkshire's political correspondent Ben Erlam.

Ben's another former Leeds Trinity postgrad trainee; as part of the regular 'month on air' which is at the heart of the course he was duty news editor for BCB Radio on the day of the London bombings in 2005, a fact I never let him forget.

Oh and there's some bloke called Jon Snow opening it all next Monday morning.

Anyway the boss had me designing an event website for the week which has now gone live; so you might want to take a look, there's a timetable and full details of all the speakers.

From Monday we'll be liveblogging on there as if our lives depended on it in the odd few moments when we're not tweeting as @JournoWeekLIVE or otherwise engaging with the full range of social media tools at the 21st century journalist's disposal. We might even have time to listen to what the speakers have to say and ask a few questions as well.

Of course with the Myers report into BBC local radio due out next week I'm hoping for some instant reaction from the wireless folk attending, and will post anything interesting here in due course.

IR: Why We Need a New Map

2012-02-16T17:49:00.003Z

I reckon it's time to give the commercial radio groups in the UK what they want.

But let's do it properly.

No-one designing commercial radio in a logical fashion would create what we have now. We're stuck with the results of four decades of tinkering.

From the first beginnings, the 19 heritage stations with strong local names and identities simulcasting on AM and FM, often stuck in regional 'second cities' to avoid duplicating the BBC map too closely, through the subsequent phases of local network development, the setting up of full national and patchy-quasi-national stations on FM and AM, the establishment of supposedly 'niche' regional stations to the filling in of the gaps with TSAs which seldom match any real communities on the ground ... it's a mess.

The regulator doesn't care, given that OFCOM has far shinier and sexier toys than wireless to play with in the digital box of delights. Politicians of all parties are indifferent; they roused themselves briefly last year to oppose big cuts in BBC Local Radio, but given that just about all commercial newsrooms in 2012 are councillor-free zones with little time even for backbench MPs, the elected members in turn have little interest in what local commercial stations put out.

Like a couple in a doomed relationship, both commercial radio and the establishment pretended for a while during the later Blair/Brown years that they actually still cared about and respected each other. In the harsher world since 2010 even that pretence has gone. So, with a few legislative tweaks to ease the process, the partners are now going their own way.

What the commercial radio groups really, really want are national brands. Lots of them. They want listeners from Land's End to John O'Groats to get the same music with the same presenters at the same time. They want to build that audience, and then sell it. That's the vital essence of commercial radio.

The heritage and the evolution gets in the way of that, so they organise a bonfire of the brands, bulldozing an arguably failed history and creating the nearest thing they can to a national station by naming dozens of geographically disparate stations the same; Heart, Smooth, Magic, Free, Signal - all the big groups are at it, and the process will accelerate over time. Niggling franchise requirements impose some constraints but the industry has confidence, and is getting its way one TSA at a time.

However, it still feels like a compromise. A coat of emulsion to hide an unsightly fixture in the front room. Maybe something more radical is required.

Like re-drawing the transmission map from scratch.

If we can accept as a starting point that all listeners across the UK should be able to access as many of the brands as possible what's then required is a re-allocation of existing transmitter sites and frequencies to allow a rollout of half a dozen proper, national stations based on the existing brands but without the faff of either simulcasting or putting out near-identical product from a dog's breakfast of studio and transmission centres. Simplify, amplify, consolidate - give the groups what they want.

I'd also want the BBC involved. I'm not technically qualified (it takes me a while to change a plug, and I don't think I'm allowed to do that any more under EU law) but I don't see the justification, with modern technology, to reserve such big chunks of scarce FM spectrum for just four services - BBC Radios 1-4.

The above may seem callous, disregarding the livelihoods of dozens, probably hundreds of people currently working in what used to be called ILR (Independent Local Radio) by sweeping away the base of local services in local communities. But in a world of brands they risk becoming at best zombie operations, and at worst they could suffer death by a thousand cuts as the groups force a quasi-network through one small step at a time.

I'd argue there's a flipside to my proposal that's a lot more positive.

A consolidation and rationalisation of transmission facilities with fewer, more powerful transmitters delivering a consistent national service to a national (and commercially attractive) audience would create a market in which the quarterly RAJAR 'battle for London' breathlessly reported in Media Guardian becomes the much more relevant battle for Britain.

The next Moyles or the next Evans has the chance of building a career that culminates in a true national gig, and the chance to give Moyles and Evans (or whoever occupies their chairs by then) a run for the telly-tax payers' money.

Improved quality and listener choice; what's not to like?

I've also saved the best for last. A rationalisation of capacity, giving the big groups a genuine national station apiece, would also free up local and regional spectrum for new entrants to the market (or, in an echo of the 'use it or lose it' diktat of the eighties, a chance for existing franchisees to offer new and distinctive services).

These new, specifically local and regional services would have to be real alternatives, not more of the same old, or they'd just cannibalise the 'parent' service. They'd provide employment (in every sense) for the best of the redundant buildings, kit and people whilst also offering new services for listeners.Creating a bigger cake, not snatching a ever-thinner slice.

The future might be DAB (that's a debate for another day), but with FM analogue switchoff on indeterminate hold, commercial radio finding a new confidence, and millions upon millions of FM receivers out there ... is it really beyond the wit of our engineers to create a new map that benefits the industry and the consumer?

IR News; Time To Relax Regulation?

2012-01-23T17:45:00.009Z

Independent Local Radio in the 1970s had higher technical standards than BBC Radio 3.

I well remember Studio A at Pennine being taken off air for an hour each week so that the engineers could check the precise rotation speed of the record decks.

Technical perfection was just one of the stipulations of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Terrified by any prospect of commercial radio being accused of peddling 'pop and prattle' the regulator also limited each station's needle time to encourage 'meaningful speech' and commercials were strictly differentiated from programmes; hence 'we'll be back after this' when the presenter didn't actually go anywhere.

Now most of the stuffier rules have gone; no longer can a snap IBA inspection result in harassed producers looking for evidence at a moment's notice of 'programming in the last seven days aimed at listeners with disabilities', or whatever.

Just one area remains tightly regulated. Commercial radio news is in a time warp. With jobs under threat I believe it could be time for that to change.

I was saddened earlier today to hear that GMG Radio, owner of the Real and Smooth brands, is to cut its news team by about a third.

If carried out in full that could mean a dozen talented journos made redundant. GMG has a proud history, bringing the first 24-hour commercial radio news bulletins to Yorkshire a decade ago and picking up factual and documentary awards with almost embarrassing regularity. Fifteen-minute extended bulletins at lunch and drive and hard-hitting documentaries had the BBC, at times, huffing and puffing to reclaim the high ground of 'community service'. And Real still pulled in listeners.

I was especially saddened - or angered - to read today that GMG Radio chief executive Stuart Taylor "doesn't anticipate that the planned staffing changes will impact materially on the overall listener experience".

In other words, Mr Taylor thinks the punters won't notice if offpeak bulls come from Leeds, Manchester, IRN or Timbuktu - which is a real slap in the face (or even a Real slap) for those journos who won the awards that grace the corporate boardroom.

But then I thought again. He has a point.

Rules on commercial radio news were drafted in an era where each local market would have one ILR station to complement local and national BBC services.

In that environment it's entirely appropriate that strict Reithian rules of balance and impartiality should apply.

However, when such rules are applied rigidly to all the stations in a mature commercial radio market (in Leeds I can easily choose from a dozen legal commercial and community FM stations) such 'Life On Mars' era regulations stifle any prospect of distinctiveness.

With all due respect to the journos producing them (and I trained a good proportion of the individuals involved) the bulletins on Radio Aire, Magic 828, The Pulse, Pulse 2, Real Yorkshire and even Capital FM (Yorkshire) sound remarkably similar.

Editors and PDs will be greatly affronted by this observation, and will indicate dozens of editorial and stylistic points of difference.

But if we put aside industry nit-picking standards and listen on a cheap tranny in a noisy workplace whilst earning an honest crust making, selling or servicing stuff ... is the news we hear really all that different? More to the point, if there was a fire, or if the reader had a choking fit and the jock opted to IRN, would the listener even be aware of the switch?

Perhaps the time has come, subject of course to suitable safeguards, to liberalise news in UK commercial radio.

So long as stations are overt about where they stand, and so long as a regulator is still there to encourage diversity of provision, what would be so wrong with letting commercial radio adopt distinct editorial positions, as newspapers have done for years?

Stations could then compete for news audiences through differing editorial positions in the same way they compete with different music formats.

The editorial position would have to be made clear in a strapline adjacent to the bulletin; 'White Rose Radio - Yorkshire's Home of Family Values' or 'Progressive FM - New Music, New Thinking for a New Generation'.

The possibilities are endless.

Yes it's radical. It could be the biggest shakeup in the radio infrastructure for a generation.

There would have to be safeguards in remote areas with only one or two available stations. But in mature metropolitan markets it could reinvigorate radio by providing greater choice for the listener. It could help differentiate stations by creating clear brand values.

It could turn the newsroom into an engine for audience growth, promoted with the sort of campaign that normally launches a new boy-girl breakfast duo. It could turn news from an expensive obligation into a station revenue generator.

Greater choice for the listener AND bigger profits. Sounds like another win-win to me.

I'd like to hear reaction to the idea before I develop these thoughts further.

Tweet me @leedsjourno or post a comment below. Commercial radio managers tend to be former jocks or accountants. News does not cross their minds as a way of building audience. But it can be, even within the existing regulatory regime.

With liberalisation the possibilities are enormous.

=====================================================================
Transparency statement: I worked as a consultant for GMG Radio for 2 years from 2003-5
=====================================================================

Monsters v Aliens

2012-01-10T16:49:00.006Z

Beneath the surface in the teaching of journalism in higher education is a long running and unresolved philosophical conflict between the 'trainers' and the 'educators'.

In fact, an impartial observer would note very quickly that it's bizarre how Britain's universities have ended up training the majority of new journalists, given that the cultures of the newsroom and of the senior common room are poles apart.

Trainers (of which I'm one) believe the absolute priority for an individual embarking on a course in journalism is to get a job actually working as a journalist.

Such trainers have little patience with the lecture hall. They can't wait to get a class 'hands on' in a live (or, failing that, at least realistic) newsroom environment.

There are a range of legal, writing and technical skills which need to be learned, tested and applied, often under severe pressure, before trainees are safe and ready to be let loose in the outside world. We aim to give them those skills, and then to use all the means at our disposal to help our graduates find a niche in the industry. Turning out skilled newsgatherers and processors who meet the requirements of the employer is paramount.

Educators, on the other hand consider the stuff of news to require critical examination.

Preferably from a distance, and with tweezers.

Their prime concern is 'what journalism ought to be'; and you can rest assured that what newsrooms are doing now isn't good enough. Value judgements permeate their world. Public service good - commercial bad. Guardian good - Murdoch bad. They've brought buzzwords into the language - 'dumbing down' and 'churnalism' being two prime examples. Employers are regarded with suspicion.

The two worlds are not however mutually exclusive, and I would never suggest they are. Like the circles in a Venn diagram there are areas of overlap.

The educators would applaud correct use of spelling and grammar, good levels in audio, and a clear grasp of the laws of libel and contempt.

Trainers readily appreciate that in a post-Gilligan, post-Leveson world all journalists are under scrutiny like never before and that it's important to learn from past failings. We need to avoid sloppy practices and short cuts which, when the audience learns what's been done, result in entirely justified outrage. In other words, we need to apply the professional standards which are at the core of any vocational training worthy of the name.

Universities are of course the educators' natural habitat. Critical reflection, research and scholarship thrive on campuses, and long may that be so.

Trainers are often less comfortable in such an environment.

In news, words fight for their place in output. On campus, words proliferate. Editorial conferences are short, to the point, and often bloody. Faculty meetings take all afternoon, ramble, and are often bloody boring. In the real world of newsgathering, deadlines are absolute In academia, all too often a deadline means next week - or the week after, if you can't quite manage it.

Working editors accept only one standard, in radio that being broadcast standard.

In HE there's the concept of 'work that's good enough for a student', which results in former professionals recruited as tutors feeling obliged to say something nice about the efforts produced by their charges. And then give them a pass mark. Such condonement of the mediocre helps no-one, and can be exceptionally cruel to impressionable students, who may then nurture false hope of a career as a professional in broadcast news.

In the final analysis, both tribes need each other.

A journalism course without the rigour and discipline of newsroom practice, lacking tutors with real experience of producing news under the conflicting pressures of accuracy and speed, experienced hacks who've had to make (and maybe regret) split-second ethical judgements isn't a journalism course in any real sense.

It's Media Studies 2.0.

Likewise a training course without space for critical reflection, no opportunity for a time out in which to examine the implications of pressing the live button on a story, risks turning out efficient but robotic individuals.

Ultimately, Monsters need Aliens. Probably. And Aliens certainly need Monsters.

It's getting the balance right which is often problematic.

Diversions on Diversity

2012-01-02T20:49:00.012Z

Every broadcast employer in the country believes in diversity.

It's normally enshrined in the mission statement. At the BBC they run training courses on it. Sky made it very clear to BJTC colleges that they expect us to work harder to train a diverse range of individuals in multi-platform news skills. Bauer, Global, GMG ... all champions of diversity.

Actually defining diversity is a bit more difficult. Everyone is now just about agreed that diversity should go beyond simplistic definitions of race and physical ability; a few black faces in the newsroom, and maybe a wheelchair user or two, isn't enough.

Social background is also now routinely accepted as a measure of diversity, as (to some degree) is a candidate's home postcode. The Beeb once memorably summed up the aim as being to have newsrooms full of people who 'look and sound like the people who watch and listen to the BBC'.

If only it was so straightforward.

The starting point of agreement has to be that too many applicants for newsroom roles come from privileged backgrounds.

Just getting to the point where one can apply for a broadcast journalist position generally requires a good honours degree (Cost, from next September: £27K in fees plus 3 years of living costs and no earnings) plus, for many, a postgrad qualification (another £5K or thereabouts, plus living costs and loss of earnings) and then, for just about everyone, there's an indeterminate period of anything from a few months to a couple of years spent breaking in; a period of unpaid work experience, erratic freelance shifts, and no security.

Old timers on a salary and a pension tend to romanticise that bit, but for those without personal resources that uncertainty can be (along with the recent tripling of student loans) a daunting obstacle to entering their chosen profession.

There are other, more insidious and seldom publicised hurdles to overcome. Try, just try, getting a first freelance shift as a broadcast journalist without a driving licence and (for many stations) personal transport to get to the studio at 5am. (Cost: £ substantial).

Is it any wonder that the majority of applicants for newsroom roles, therefore, tend to be white, middle class and disproportionately from the economically prosperous south east?

Brave decisions such as the BBC's investment in Salford certainly help shift the balance but much, much more industry diversification away from London is essential; at least it is if employers really believe in diversity.

The group who, in my experience, suffer most in any downturn are those who can be loosely categorised as 'midde aged career changers', with 'middle aged' in this context meaning anything from about thirty upwards.

Such candidates, whether for an HE course or a newsroom position, bring a wealth of experience from whatever role they undertook before their news training. Experience that the various 'interchangeable Emmas' lack. Experience that makes them, to coin a phrase, 'look and sound like the people who watch and listen to the BBC' (or any other broadcaster for that matter).

If one's only life experience prior to starting work on a newsdesk is school, sixth form, school newspaper, uni, campus radio station, accredited course and work ex, with maybe a bit of waiting tables during the summer break before your trip to Caracas, no wonder it's sometimes difficult to reach West Yorkshire listeners in their forties and fifties with relevant, original stories.

I've had mixed experience with 'mature career changers'.

They come from all walks of life; I've trained a former office manager, a BT engineer, social workers, teachers, ex-military types from the Navy and the RAF, former club DJs and receptionists. Some have done exceptionally well, winning awards. setting up independent production companies and, ultimately, achieving the dream. A couple have gone into politics, on different sides of the party divide. Some have found it harder to make the transition to news. A few, sadly, have been exploited; put in real effort only to crash in flames. Especially when times are hard.

And that's the rub.

When times are this tough, employers are less likely to take a risk. They want a candidate who's oven ready; training on the job went out years ago, wannabe journos now have to learn their craft at their own expense prior to seeking a newsroom role. But in austerity Britain, editors are much more likely to go with the candidate who is most like them, or more often like they were ten years ago. Those who are genuinely diverse lose out. Even more so, it's the listeners and viewers who lose out from the insights such journalists could bring.

I feel an affinity with many of the 'diverse' candidates who end up on my blue office sofa telling me why they should be a journalist.

Back in the 'Life On Mars' years of the 70s I was the first in our family to get a place in grammar school (remember them?). The first to do A Levels (remember when they meant something?). The first to get a University degree (but no honours; that would have meant a fourth year of study). We lived in what today would be called 'social housing'; then it was just a council house. Dad was a motor mechanic, mum was a clerical assistant.

I remember what the BBC felt like then, and how impossible a job seemed to be. Commercial radio felt a bit more egalitarian, so I found a niche in Bradford, surely one of the most diverse cities in Britain, and I stayed there for 22 years.

I like to think I can empathise with what it's like to be confronted by a glass ceiling, and I've been as careful as I know how to nurture and make allowance for candidates from non-typical backgrounds.

It's a two way street.

It's simply not good enough (as one very major employer tried a few years back) to pass the buck, attempting to make diversity the Colleges' collective problem. This employer wrote to course directors threatening to withhold newsroom placements unless we [the trainers] did more to provide a steady stream of palpably diverse candidates to populate their newsrooms and thereby achieve the corporate goal. A pretty blunt stick with which to attempt such a delicate operation.

If newsrooms want true diversity they must also accept attitudes and behaviour from trainees which challenge the norms they are used to.

Of course candidates must be able to do the job; if they have an accredited qualification they have already shown they have the technical, legal, note-taking and writing skills required to satisfy the BJTC or the NCTJ.

That doesn't mean they will share the tastes, lifestyle choices or social outlook of the editor. They may well be less confident than those for whom good manners and deportment were on the 3rd year school curriculum.

Diversity requires effort on both sides, not just from the applicant. Candidates must adapt to what employers require, but employers must also adapt to deal with individuals who may be more challenging to integrate into an homogeneous team.

A diverse newsroom isn't bland. It's more difficult to manage. It may need (for example) more accommodation of carers, not just of careers and egos. The style guide may need revision to allow expressions outside the mainstream.

Listeners and viewers might even be shocked, occasionally, by the differences that emerge.

But in the longer term they'll be better served by such an operation. Are the employers of austerity Britain 2012 up to that challenge?

Let me know what you think, and about your experiences (good or bad).

The Chip Shop Test

2011-12-27T13:49:00.003Z

Congratulations to GMG Radio on their Smooth Xmas broadcast, which came to an end at midnight on Boxing Day.

As I predicted it was a 'must listen' for much of the week leading up to the big day, not only in our house but in many shops and homes I visited.

In the 21st-century world of commercial radio dominated by accountants rather than enthusiasts it's often easy to lose the gut feel for what output is going to work. By the time the concept for a service has been run by enough focus groups it tends to sound much the same as the half-dozen or so services whose names appear briefly as I autotune my DAB set following a reshuffle of bandwidth.

Bland and boring. Interchangeable. Unmemorable.

Those services which are run by enthusiasts - Planet Rock, or my personal own-time listening favourite Jazz FM stand out as distinctive. That's a purely subjective opinion, by the way, but then I'm a civilian these days, not an editor or a programmer, so I'm entitled to express a view.

There is however an easy way of telling which stations are in the ascendant and which are declining. A method which employs no consultants, no diaries, no hi-tech snoopy watches and no auditorium testing of playlists. A research tool which could save the industry a fortune.

Because it only costs £5-10 for haddock and chips with mushy peas.

The station they're listening to whilst I queue in my local chippy has been the best predictor of RAJAR for nearly 30 years. When Pennine Radio split frequencies to launch hip, trendy and happening Pennine FM on VHF and (the original!) Classic Gold on medium wave the experts confidently predicted what would happen.

The chip shop radio told another story, despite the crackle, and Classic Gold was a huge success.

When Real Radio launched in Yorkshire it boomed out of the back room where they gut the fish and peel the spuds, and the heritage market stations took a battering. For a while at least.

So it was no surprise to hear the salt of the earth (or at least salt and vinegar of the earth) counter staff singing along to Smooth Xmas in crystal clear DAB in the run up to the festivities.

And they're not the only predictors of success. Debbie who runs the coffee counter at Leeds Trinity spent weeks in a tussle with slightly younger sidekick Lesley as to whether The Pulse or Capital FM would play from the tranny by the smoothie maker. I could shout a greeting from round the corner before making eye contact with 90% accuracy as to who was running the stall that day. But they both spurn Radio 1.

There are thousands of Debbies and Lesleys and other barometers out there if only radio execs take the trouble to step outside and emulate Ray Beattie, the very first Editor of BBC Radio Leeds, who in those pre-iPhone days walked around Leeds city centre with a transistor radio clamped to his ear watching what people did whilst his programmes were on, who was listening and who wasn't.

So I wish John Simons, Chris Stevens and the GMG team all the best with Smooth 70s, the service which has taken over from Smooth Xmas now the tinsel is back in its box for another year.

I'll let you know in a couple of weeks if the outlook is sizzling - or scraps.

Outside-In Thinking; Towards a New BBC

2011-12-15T09:36:00.001Z

As time runs out for audiences to make their views known to the BBC Trust over its 'Delivering Quality First' proposals (the deadline is December 21st) it's becoming obvious that the BBC, in considering DQF, has been guilty of inside-out thinking.

Bosses started with their concept of the organisation. The corporate view. The London-centric view. Like so many organisations, they could benefit from some outside-in alternatives. What would listeners across the UK, the people who actually pay the licence fee, want from any restructuring?

The suits' starting point was to ring-fence Radio 4, granting it the status of a national treasure unparallelled in world broadcasting. To pay for that safeguarding other areas had to take a hit, including the BBC's 40 local services in England.

An outsider might instead look at what local radio can contribute to the national offering.

A rational review of the BBC's resources might start with allocating some hours of Radio 4's sacred airtime to showcase some of the best output from local radio; after all, as the Corporation is constantly reminding us, it's One BBC.

Use Radio 4's airwaves to let a national audience hear the best of what's happening in every corner of England. If it's really meant to be a national radio station surely that means representing the nation to the nation, not aggrandising a self-selecting London elite.

Sadly this is where metropolitan bias kicks in. The sort of ignorant, ill-informed argument that resists moving major programmes to Salford because any cultural life outside the M25 has to be inferior to that enjoyed in the capital. Siren voices, the usual suspects, will wail about dumbing down and a loss of quality.

I'll tell you about quality.

Last year I was honoured to be asked to be a judge for the Original Journalism category of the Gillards, BBC local radio's own in-house Oscars. A very large Jiffy bag arrived on my doorstep full of entries. I was blown away with the quality of the material. Any one of those entries was more deserving of a national airing more than (to pick an example at random) Libby Purves and the smug coterie who inflict Midweek on the nation at prime time every Wednesday.

Using that national peak slot to showcase just one 45-minute documentary from each BBC local radio station in the land would fill the best part of a year with quality material from the regions, and at the same time the chance to compete for an airing in the the slot should inspire local teams to give their very best (as they often do already) way above and beyond the call of duty.

That's what you call a win-win situation. And it would save 52 hours of Radio 4's budget.

No need to stop with Midweek, either. Gardener's Question Time could be fronted by Tim and Joe from Radio Leeds' gardening show, and by their equivalents around the network.

Let Dimbleby put his feet up on a Friday evening and let Andrew Edwards front Any Questions from the National Media Museum in Bradford; he did a superb job of something very similar during the 2010 general election. And so on, and so on.

The Beeb's superb sports desks in 40-odd locations could contribute real, incisive team knowledge and local passion to Five Live football coverage. Take the Salford ideal to the next level; as Frank Bough used to say, it's time for us to go Nationwide.

I'm sure others could come up with many great ideas along the same lines. Outside in thinking. Being radical. Making Radio 4 (and maybe 5 Live) genuinely national stations, drawing on the strength of the grassroots, not killing them, and connecting the BBC to audiences in new an innovative ways.

I get the feeling that Frank Gillard, the pioneer broadcaster whose name is honoured in the local radio awards, would approve.

In Praise of Patten

2011-12-13T13:12:00.004Z

I never thought I'd find myself writing an article praising a former Tory party chairman who was a confidant of Baroness Thatcher.

However, I've just caught up with Lord (Chris) Patten's speech to the Society of Editors last month in which he made an eloquent analysis of the BBC's relationship with the tabloid press.

At a time when the profession is being dragged through the gutter at the Leveson inquiry, knives are out for journalists everywhere and the climate of score-settling means even that beacon of moral values Hugh Grant feels safe to stick his oar in (as it were) Patten spoke, I think, for all decent journalists, especially those working in local and regional news, not just those employed by the BBC.

The passage that particularly impressed was:

There is a kind of symbiosis between the BBC and the press.

We do different but complementary things. The BBC depends on the press for some of its news agenda and it gives some stories back to the press to pursue further. The style of the tabloids is not something we could or should try to match. But nor should we be snobbish or squeamish about it.

The Sun under Kelvin McKenzie added (to use the word in the old-fashioned sense) to the gaiety of the nation. I still have a copy of The Sun's front page "Up Yours Delors", written of course by "our Diplomatic Correspondent". Trevor Kavanagh is plainly one of the outstanding political writers of his generation. I have not always agreed with The Daily Mail (perhaps I am guilty of understatement) but I greatly admired its brave campaign in pursuit of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence and – which I trust won't annoy him too much – I try not to miss Quentin Letts.

It may be that I have always been more relaxed about the tabloids than some former political colleagues because I have never been convinced that they set the political agenda decisively.

I used to be the Chairman of the Conservative Party. When after the election in 1992 we heard that it was the "Sun wot won it", I reflected on the fact that our polling throughout the election campaign had shown that most of the public and its readers thought it was a Labour newspaper.

The world will move on, eventually, beyond the current hacking obsession.

Who knows, one day The Guardian might even apologise properly for fabricating the story that it was someone working on behalf of News International who deleted voicemails on murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone, thereby hyping public outrage to a critical point which precipitated the closure of the News of The World, the loss of several hundred jobs, and the setting up of Lord Leveson's inquiry.

The real story (that messages on a mobile are automatically deleted after a set period) didn't fit with The Guardian's virulent anti-Murdoch agenda. Driven by hatred of the tribal enemy they simply didn't allow the facts to get in the way of a good story, shoddy journalistic behaviour which they rightly criticise in others.

So it's good to see Patten, a man as establishment as they come, speaking out in support of gutsy, popular tabloid reporting - and by so doing helping to restore the reputation of the hundreds, maybe thousands of decent journos, particularly local and regional reporters and especially those in the broadcast sector, who have never and would never indulge in the kind of practices currently touted by the Guardian and other self-serving, self-appointed experts as the norm for all journalists.

Daring to Be Different

2011-12-02T18:58:00.007Z

I'm not going to dignify the Clarkson 'story' with any direct comment.

Mouthy presenter, outrageous remarks, sense of humour failure, jumping on bandwagon, out of context, apology, DVD to flog, crass union types, more jumping on bandwagon, blah blah blah. All been said.

But it does beg the question, given the number of times 'non-stories' surface and develop out of all proportion, as to how often editors feel themselves under pressure to go with a tale when all instincts, reason, common sense and (not least) the facts scream to ignore it.

I am forcefully reminded of the Bradford Riots of 1995. I was still a (relatively) young reporter at The Pulse in Bradford.

The departure of the previous editor had left me with the title of 'News Co-ordinator', the suits having decided that not having a replacement editor would save them a company car. But in effect I was running a small but perfectly formed news team in one of the most exciting patches in the country.

So when trouble broke out in Manningham it was my Fiat Uno, not the station's, that I drove past the police cordon into Oak Lane and parked near the junction of Lilycroft Road. That was the start of a long night and a long three or four days of reporting for The Pulse and IRN as the story unfolded.

This background is relevant to what came next.

On about day three the Programme Controller summoned me to his office. He was surrounded by a stack of tabloids, and even one or two editions of regional papers that should have known better. The theme common to all of them was the screaming headline 'Band of Gold Riots'.

The national press had, collectively, decided that the rioting in Bradford was linked to Kay Mellor's hit TV series 'Band of Gold' which was set, notionally, in Bradford's Lumb Lane, a seedy red light district which rapidly became a tourist attraction; coach parties in Bradford for a visit to the National Museum of Photography and a curry would detour down 'the Lane' in order to gawp at the sad, totally unerotic sight of sex workers touting for business on street corners.

The fact most of the filming for the series was done in the North West, chosen because Bradford wasn't derelict enough for the telly-luvvies or as convenient for the Granada canteen, needn't concern us here.

There had been sporadic outbreaks of petty vandalism. Car windows broken, mainly, as Muslim youths vented their frustration against the increased numbers of kerb crawlers who had tempted some prostitutes to ply their trade outside mosques - so when there was serious trouble in Bradford the 'obvious, innit?' reflex took over and the redtops decided 'Band of Gold' was at the heart of the trouble.

It wasn't.

The real story had to do with youths playing football in a busy street, a heavy-handed police response from coppers wearing their shiny new side-handled batons, a chase, a baby being dropped and an angry response from mums and dads concerned that their sons had been nicked. The early stages of the riot were more like a Sunday stroll in the park, bizarrely transposed to 0200. Then it got nasty. I'll write about it properly one day.

Back in the Controller's office I was given a hard time. 'Why aren't we interviewing Kay Mellor? Everyone's interviewing Kay Mellor - we need to fall into line'

I quietly but firmly explained that 'Band of Gold' had nothing to do with the story. I stuck to that line, and eventually I was let out. One by one at different times over the next few hours my colleagues were given the same treatment. I'm proud that we all stuck to our line and gave a consistent message. Mellor was irrelevant to the story.

It's not easy to take a stand against the zeitgeist.

It's even harder today when a Twitterstorm erupts and the same clip of Clarkson is endlessly replayed on rolling TV news channels desperate for something - anything - that doesn't have the word 'Euro' in the copy. And preferably with a face someone will recognise rather than a German banker.

Which is why, I suspect, many journalists and editors went against their better judgement and 'went with' Clarkson's rant at the top when they shouldn't have. They did so because they were relieved to have a tale they can actually tell (even The Economist is struggling with the fiscal crisis).

But mainly they did it because they were scared if they didn't, and everyone else did, they'd be left exposed, as I was, facing an inquisition into why they ignored it.

Journalists like to think of themselves as lone wolves, prowling in the night. In reality we're more often a flock of sheep, happiest when moving across the landscape in a tight knot. No-one wants to be exposed. If my bulletins ever led with a story no-one else had at 0700, rather than congratulate the team for a scoop or a brave decision I'd often fret until the tale was picked up and everyone else fell into line. In truth, we're happiest when everyone is saying more or less the same thing.

Which is sad, and something we need to reflect on next time some 'celeb' nonentity stupidly or cunningly says something controversial or silly to show themselves up or boost their image.

In the old days editors had a spike on which crap copy was impaled. 'Elf'n'safety means they are no more ... but if they're ever brought back I can think of several good and novel uses for one - starting with Jeremy Clarkson. Ooh.

Joke? Outrageous? One can of course complain below if offended. And tell all your mates to read this blog.

Reasons To Be Cheerful #1

2011-11-14T20:50:00.001Z

I really must take this opportunity to place on record how proud I am of my postgraduate trainees at Leeds Trinity University College this year. They've been on placement since October 10th.

Most of them are doing two or three contrasting placements with different newsrooms. Now the assessments from host editors are starting to filter back in I'm blown away to discover that no fewer than 11 out of 13 trainees for whom I have an assessment back have been graded 'A' by their supervisors. That's 85% of the class.

That has to be just about the best result ever. Grade A indicates the editor's opinion to be "I would give this trainee a job if one were available".

One editor has actually gone further; Corinne Wheatley, who joined us just ten months ago hoping for the chance of an opening in news, has achieved a staff job at Viking FM in Hull. I suppose we have to record that as an A+.

Three other trainees have freelance shifts arranged with the BBC in various locations over the coming weeks and months. None of them actually graduate until next month.

So despite the gloom and doom in the economy, there is still a glimmer of hope for new entrants with the right attitude and the right training.

It's not as easy as it was (say) four years ago, when 8 or 9 out of 10 Leeds Trinity trainees could walk into roles straight off the course, but clearly the opportunities are still there for those with the determination, the flexibility - and the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time. Well done, guys.

Rehashing Hacking; Enough

2011-11-10T18:13:00.001Z

OK, let's get the obvious out of the way first.

Phone hacking is wrong. It's in the same league as spying on neighbours through uncurtained windows. Anyone who could even consider deleting the voicemails of a murdered schoolgirl is a bad person.

We know now that regrettable things happened in the noughties involving a number of hard-bitten, amoral reporters and a loophole in mobile phone security; a trick which, until it was fixed, was ludicrously easy to exploit. We know because The Guardian exposed it, and that's entirely legitimate.

The story behind the story, of course, is that The Guardian hates Murdoch. It's tribal.

The paper tried repeatedly to put phone hacking on the agenda before the story gained any traction in broadcast media or the body politic. Having tasted blood, they thirst for more. The scandal closed the News of the World; James Murdoch looks vulnerable as I write this. Even Rupert is wounded.

Their lust for righteous gratification comes at a time when local and regional media are under strain.

Alan Rusbridger's metropolitan sophisticates probably don't realise it, but every new twist they attempt in the phone-hack tale makes life more difficult for hard-working, low paid journos in every local newsroom in every corner of the UK.

I do media training for public and private organisations.

It's startling, in these sessions, to learn how professionals as diverse as police officers, business leaders, elected councillors and charity workers assume, as a given, that snooping and phone hacking are widespread practices in local radio and print newsrooms across West Yorkshire. They're not.

Trainee journalists are taught that every repetition of a false claim is a new libel.

They also learn that 'journalists' is too vague a group for any false statements about them to be actionable. But local journalists are repeatedly defamed, in the moral if not the legal definition, by endlessly recycled, self-serving phone-hack allegations.

My message to the Murdoch-haters is simple. You've had your moment .. if not in the sun, then at least sticking it to The Sun. Fight other, more worthwhile battles to preserve parliamentary privilege, or to protect journalists' sources, by all means.

But out here in the real world, the dreary, grey and provincial world we report and which the Guardianisas so detest, ordinary decent journalists are hacked off dealing with the consequences of their obsession.

Journalism Training: New Model Needed

2011-11-06T19:11:00.014Z

We've all heard the story of the traveller, lost in a strange land, who stops a peasant to ask for directions to the nearest town anyone's heard of.

"Ah, if you want to get to there, I wouldn't start from here" comes the idiot-savant's reply

The exact locations, and the accents used, depend on the national stereotypes shared by the teller and the audience, but the sentiment, I believe, applies right now to journalism training in the UK.

Given a blank sheet of paper, no-one would start from where we are.

This is where I have to pause to qualify what I'm about to propose. I have to declare an interest; I work in a university college, and I've spent nineteen pretty successful years in that environment. Nearly four hundred trainees have passed through my care, and I'm proud that a huge proportion of those have established careers in a highly competitive news industry.

For much of that time I've been pretty much left alone to operate as I see best; striking a partnership with BCB Radio, for example, to give my trainees a real-world platform from which to practice their fledgling skills safely on a real audience. Or combining media training sessions for West Yorkshire Police, or the Army, with opportunities for my trainees to learn something of the culture and values which apply in these institutions.

Making it real, whenever possible.

From a standing start in 1993 my course has built a reputation which, anecdotally at least, ensures we're near the top of the list when editors are asked to recommend good places for learning the craft of broadcast news.

The model has worked well for nearly two decades with an eager supply of fresh talent putting themselves forward for selection each year, and a grateful industry taking something like nine out of ten graduates into entry-level positions.

But now I fear the model is broken.

It's broken because prospective trainees can no longer afford the fees for a postgraduate journalism course, fees which range from around four grand upwards, on top of debts accumulated as an undergraduate. Few of my PG trainees are privileged. They've often made sacrifices, of one sort or another, to follow their dream.

But each year fewer and fewer of them are getting to the starting line.

I will never forget the bright, bubbly African-Caribbean woman from Chapeltown who came in one day for a chat about the course. She had the right instincts, a good voice and a passion to find and tell stories that would resonate with audiences.

Then she asked about the fees.

I told her. She asked about scholarships, and I told her about the limited options available. With great dignity she stood up, said 'five grand? Richard, you might as well ask me for fifty' and she left the room, never to be seen again.

The crippling debt burden, combined with with diminishing prospects of employment, is choking off opportunities for candidates.

The situation has worsened in the past few weeks with the BBC announcing 'Delivering Quality First' cuts to local radio budgets which (as I've previously blogged) could mean the virtual end of freelance shifts and the traditional apprenticeship in broadcast news which local stations have offered for more than forty years.

So we need to take a long, hard look at journalism training and maybe, just maybe, start to think the unthinkable.

In particular, the themes I hope to explore are:

Is it time to break the bonds between vocational journalism training and the universities?

Does the job of finding stories for a community, and telling them in a compelling way, really require, as an effective minimum, a good honours degree, probably a Master's qualification or a postgraduate diploma, and (here's the rub) all the academic and administrative baggage which gets caught up with the subject when teaching it in a system designed for, say, Theology or Ancient Sanskrit?

Is it also time for employers to stop passing the buck?

News organisations, state-funded and commercial alike, are delegating the costs and responsibilities of training their newsgatherers to the universities which means, in practice, onto the shoulders of individual candidates.

Do news organisations really want diversity? Or just an appearance of diversity?

'Diversity' is a word I hear a lot.

It's a cause I believe in; you can't report a city like Bradford for twenty years without rubbing up against diversity in all its wonderful and hateful forms.

Broadcasters tell us they want diversity in their newsrooms but are much less keen to employ genuinely diverse candidates than they pretend.

So I'm hoping to prompt discussion on the future of journalism training.

I hope we can have the debate in frank and honest terms without falling out. I'm relying on the concept of academic freedom, a concept which allows armchair-bound researchers to criticise dedicated and hard working news teams with impunity, to allow me to also question the assumptions and practices of the sector that employs me.

I hope others in newsrooms, anonymously if necessary, will share thoughts in a similarly open way.

Because none of us, I'm sure, would ever say that where we are now, in November 2011, is where we want to be.

We need to move on, to a new model that works.

Radio Reinvented

2011-11-02T17:47:00.009Z

I've not written about Commercial Radio for a while, despite having spent more than two decades in the industry trying to knock spots off the BBC.

So whilst others continue the debate on local radio cutbacks and DQF, I'd like to turn my attention across the divide - and express cautious optimism about developments in the independent sector.

In particular, a quiet revolution on DAB.

We saw the launch and demise of various ambitious DAB-only services in the noughties - remember OneWord, anyone? Or the excitement generated by Channel Four Radio (I can't believe this link is still up), the most ambitious proposal of all, an up-market offering which promised to deliver Jon Snow at breakfast head-to-head with Humphries and Naughtie? Which never bloody happened?

So it's good to see commercial DAB finally getting its act together, albeit in an evolved, not to say mutated, form.

First off I've got to commend Richard Wheatly and his team at Jazz FM, my personal favourite. Just because it is. It's my blog, and I can say whatever I like.

For the first time I have a 24/7 station that delivers a kind of music I want to listen to, and which provides an appropriate ambience for my office at Leeds Trinity, where the radio's always on - naturally - to remind my postgraduate news trainees of the all-pervasive nature of their chosen medium. To take Jazz FM national is an enormous achievement and I wish the station well.

My 17-year-old son is an equally devoted fan of Planet Rock. That station's giving him the kind of musical education I got from Luxembourg - the station that put the 'wave' into 'medium wave' in my youth. He gets it crystal clear (but still has a vinyl collection).

Absolute Radio have got their act together with a suite of sub-stations; 80s, 90s, Extra and Rock already show up on my digital dial with more to come, including a genre varient for my era, the 70s.

This diversification reflects real-world audience motivation in using the medium; I can determine more closely what I'm going to hear, as I could by going to Spotify or Pandora, but without losing the 'shared experience' of broadcast radio.

If I feel like a good old nostalge for my youth, original tracks are what I want to hear. The half dozen that get played to death everywhere, yes, but also a wider range of tracks.

There was more to 1976 than You To Me Are Everything, though not if you listen to a mass-market station.

Neither do I want to put up with, say, Adele who may well have been market-tested to oblivion with a song that offends no-one, in the hope that the next track played might be from Abba.

Real Abba, that is, not that dreadful Dancing Queen remake from Steps, or whatever Simon Cowell's factory has manufactured this week. Absolute's approach is proving a winner in audience terms, according to RAJAR, and others are starting to follow suit.

GMG have launched Smooth Xmas for the festive season. Non-stop Christmas music. Oh yes. I groaned as well when the project was announced (in an October heatwave) but will I be listening come peak shopping time in week commencing 19 December? You bet I will.

I well remember last year hitting the auto-zapper on my music centre at home, yelling 'give me Christmas music!' at BBC and independent stations alike when they were stubbornly refusing to play festive favourites at the precise moment I wanted them. And I also recall switching Slade off in disgust when someone played Noddy Holder's retirement banker when I wasn't, at that particular time, wanting to hear grandma rock and rolling with the rest.

There was a Radio Active parody in the 80s which envisaged a station called 'Music Was My First Love FM' that would play, er, John Miles' top-rated track over and over so a listener could enjoy it at any hour of the day or night.

Commercial DAB has morphed closer to that parody than anyone, least of all the old style Radio Authority, could have imagined. But y'know - it might just be all the better for that.

Disappointing Debate

2011-10-26T11:26:00.010+01:00

When I eventually found the web feed of the BBC Local Radio debate (on Parliament TV; the BBC itself chose to screen a TV personality, Professor Robert Winston, speaking in the Lords on its own Parliament channel) I was hoping to witness gutsy democracy in action; backbench members using their clout to call on the BBC's senior managers and Trust to think again about cuts which could see one in five local radio staff lose their job.

What I actually witnessed was an unedifying spectacle.

Members spent an hour falling over themselves to deliver a soundbite that would guarantee them prime billing in bulletins broadcast on the threatened stations; gratifying in one sense, in that there was much praise and affection for the stations and for the people making the programmes, but far, far too much of it was general and, to varying degrees, patronising. As I type this junior minister Ed Vaizey is singing a jingle in Westminster Hall for BBC Radio Oxford.

Members failed to get a grip, or a focus.

From time to time a pertinent issue would be mentioned; Radio 4's budget being just a couple of million more than the total budget for all Local Radio in England, say, or the amounts spent covering big events like the Olympics or Glastonbury. The failure to consider the impact of cuts on groups not served by other BBC services, such as elderly people outside the higher social demographics or (arguably) anyone living more than an hour's commute from central London.

But then, just as the tone was getting serious, someone else would chip in with a peon of praise for how their station coped with the snow, or how that cheeky chappie on sport was so good for morale when the Cloggers were six-nil down against the old enemy, and the moment was lost.

Would they have behaved the same discussing Murdoch and the ownership of BSkyB? Probably not, although a couple did try to use the available platform to have a pop at that particular old enemy as well.

So the morning has been and gone; it's caused a flurry, rather than a storm, and will be quickly forgotten by all except the participants, those mentioned, and those affected in one way or another by the cuts. That's the way of much parliamentary debate, after all.

I just hope those same parliamentarians who were so keen for their moment on the 1200 bulletin to reassure the voters in their patches they actually exist, and are working hard for the constituency in that there London, exert at least some pressure on the BBC Trust as the time comes to decide on the proposals.

But at least BBC Radio Oxford has a new jingle.

On MPs and Self Interest

2011-10-25T19:37:00.003+01:00

The future of BBC Local Radio will be discussed in parliament tomorrow. Well, actually it's in the annex. Westminster Hall. And at 0930 in the morning, before the main business of the day gets underway.

The ownership of BSkyB, in contrast, got green benches and questions in the main theatre.

After all the drama of the tory rebellion on the referendum vote on Monday, and with the latest twists in the Euro crisis the subject of breathless speculation from political correspondents (whose annual travel expenses alone would probably pay for a clutch of local radio journalists) it is, after all, unlikely to be the highlight of the week for many elected Members.

But perhaps it should be, and for one simple reason: for the majority of backbenchers, exposure to their constituents on BBC Local Radio is likely to be the highlight of their personal media profile.

With declining sales in regional newspapers, the near-death experience endured by ITV regional news and the retreat from anything to do with politics in my old stamping ground of commercial radio the regular invitation from the local BBC station to participate in a discussion is increasingly the only mainstream contact between Honourable Members of all parties and the commoners who voted them in.

True, some politicos have taken to social media with Tweets and Facebook entries .. but without questioning from a professional and impartial interviewer much of the blogging and tweeting is self-serving, more akin to the election leaflet than critical debate.

My fear remains that the 'Save BBC Local Radio' campaign is doomed to failure because the groups who really value the output are too discrete to make much of an impact. And also, it must be said, too discreet. The over 55 generation are the children of the second world war and its immediate aftermath, brought up to be grateful for what they have and never to make too much of a fuss.

But they do vote. A lot more conscientiously than (for example) 6music supporters, who probably find polling stations with pencils and paper and string and boxes so analogue and tiresome, darling, and not alternative enough to even be thrillingly retro.

So perhaps those same parliamentarians who show such a keen instinct for self-preservation when issues like boundary changes, expenses or reform of the House of Lords are on the agenda might be persuaded to stir themselves when it comes to protecting their own channels of communication with the punters who put them on the green benches.

The message is also being quietly but consistantly repeated by many of us involved in the training of new broadcasters from diverse backgrounds that cutting Local Radio opportunities for new talent and silencing new voices from a broad range of communities will very quickly impoverish the 'core services' the BBC is so keen to protect, including children's output and even the blessed Radio 4.

I'll be listening in on the debate tomorrow. Early. I'll give reaction here in due course.

Sharing Thoughts on DQF & Local Radio

2011-10-18T07:58:00.006+01:00

I've been known to have a bit of a go at The Guardian from time to time.

I get a bit narked with that paper's holier-than-thou attitudes on the craft of journalism, its obsession with phone hacking, and the general tone of commentators whose opinions are so self-evidently correct, politically and otherwise, that any further discussion is clearly a waste of everybody's time.

But I exempt from this general withering scorn Martin Wainwright and the Northerner team, together with columnist Martin Kelner, probably better known to ordinary mortals as the co-host of the Monday to Thursday breakfast show on BBC Radio Leeds.

In particular I commend to you Kelner's views on the DQF debate, quoted in this excellent article in Radio Today

"My conclusion – and, believe me, this is intended purely to help the BBC maintain its position as the greatest broadcasting organisation in the world – is that the BBC are the right people to run local radio, in much the same way as the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation are the right people to run Barnoldswick Parish Council."

Read on to discover how Kelner argues for a return to something not unlike 70s-style commercial radio, locally run stations free of central control harnessing the talents of those currently labouring for love in community radio, but with the whole thing paid for out of the licence fee.

Meanwhile Wainwright makes a passionate plea for local radio in this Northerner column, highlighting the achievements of BBC Radio Cumbria and the diversity of a station like BBC Radio Leeds.

In contrasting the efforts of the government to kick-start effective community action scemes across the country with the many successes of BBC Local Radio has already achieved in this field Wainwright notes:

"Good luck to the pioneers organised by Locality, the latest in a line of arms length attempts to galvanise social action, but they will be hard put to it to match BBC local radio."

Wainwright concurs with the view I've expressed in this blog that BBC Local Radio will find it difficult to muster an effective campaign against the cutbacks

"The 7,500,000 listeners whose only BBC involvement is with local radio are not the sassy, experienced campaigners who reversed plans to do away with Radio 6 Music last year."

And that remains the key issue in this debate. There is no doubt that BBC Local Radio is loved by its audience, and Wainwright puts a big number on that audience. The output is created by people who love what they do and (by and large) do it well. They certainly don't do it for the money.

Probably, as Kelner notes, they could do it better without the stultifying hand of central control.

They could get rid of the current jingle set for a start; I thought they were OK eighteen months ago but now they're staring to grate on this listener almost as much as the Autoglass 'one more thing!' radio ad campaign which marred my enjoyment of my favourite DAB station over the summer.

And am I the only one to see some (possibly sinister) forward planning in creating a common on-air brand identity for Local Radio before announcing plans for wholesale programme sharing? That move came well in advance of the telly tax freeze.

As usual, comment welcome. And it's free.

Oi Sky; Cut TX Fees - or the Puppy Gets It

2011-10-14T18:35:00.004+01:00

I see a head of steam is building around the argument that BSkyB should drop or reduce retransmission fees paid by the Beeb for the carriage of BBC TV and radio services on the Sky satellite; particularly the function for viewers in different regions of the UK to see the correct regional programmes for their postcode.

It's suggested that savings made by reducing these carriage charges could be used to 'offset' the cuts, particularly those in Local Radio.

The idea is presented by its supporters as a gesture the monopoly satellite broadcaster could make as some kind of reciprocal gesture for the funding cuts suffered by the state-funded broadcaster.

Thing is; BSkyB won't see it like that. Why should they?

They're running a business with massive infrastructure costs and they're compelled by law and historical accident to carry state-funded content on their platform, and give that content prime slots on the electronic programme guide.

I want to see BBC Local Radio survive and thrive.

But trying to exert emotional blackmail on a commercial competitor, somehow trying to suggest it's Sky's fault if the Local Radio cuts go ahead, isn't the way to do it.

Forlorn Fightback?

2011-10-12T18:21:00.007+01:00

Given the scale of BBC Local Radio cuts under DQF it's not surprising that last week's shock at the size of the savings is turning to anger.

Media Guardian reports that teams on at least two stations, BBC Radio Nottingham and BBC Radio Newcastle are launching leaflet campaigns urging listeners to lobby MPs and the BBC Trust in the hope of forcing a policy reverse like the one that saved the iPhone generation's shiny plaything BBC 6music.

BBC Local Radio staff are not, by nature, aggressive.

Their job involves a lot of smiling and nodding and empathising as they tease usable cuts out of inarticulate punters, or persuade some locally based 'expert' to come in at 0630 for comment on what GNS has decided is the issue of the day for no recompense other than a cup of dreadful coffee and a lot of producer TLC (See how I'm getting the hang of these BBC TLAs, BTW)

I was a judge for the Gillard Awards last year, and the decorum on show as dozens of BBC Local Radio staff organised themselves into a rota to board the inadequate shuttle buses between the glittering comforts of the Jury's Inn, Derby and the ceremony venue was a wonder to behold.

Just getting through a door involved much dancing and synchronised stepping-back. Pushy, they're not.

So if BBC Local Radio staff are organising themselves a banner-writing party that means they're pretty aggrieved, and with good reason.

The second point is that it's the staff, not the usual suspects.

Every organisation, the BBC included, has some people in the team who are more - what's the word; active? aware? bolshy? than their workmates. They tend to become the union reps. These are the people who look for the dark cloud behind every silver lining, and who find slights in every new programme schedule or Christmas rota. Others in the office are known to look busy when they come into range, so as not to get involved in the spat.

That's not knocking those who take a stand on plans to scale back pensions, or to freeze salaries; but these are internal issues, and whatever the justice of the argument they're not going to attract sympathy from listeners or the wider public, many of whom (including those working in commercial radio) may think that BBC terms are in any case relatively generous compared to those they are forced to put up with.

The DQF cuts, however, are an attack on what everyone in BBC Local Radio cares about; the output.

Local broadcasters habitually contribute far, far more than is ever written in a contract because of their pride in and commitment to the station. Listeners matter more than in any other service, because the listener is also your neighbour.

So DQF cuts are an attack on something you care about, in the way you care for a child or care for your home; without over-sentimentalising, it's personal.

I tweeted earlier today:

Respect to #BBC teams in Notts & Newc campaigning on local #radio cuts. If 50+ demo was as tech-savvy as #6music hipsters it might just work

Those working inside the Corporation were quick to point out that they've been told not to be seen to be campaigning against DQF cuts to their service, wherever they work in the Beeb. In HR terms that makes a lot of sense.

In political terms it prevents in-fighting providing a smokescreen for the big picture of cuts to a key institution.

In editorial terms it prevents boring audiences with a protracted spell of navel-gazing.
Ye gods, in terms of the media feeding on itself we've only just got over the phone hacking frenzy. The Harry Potters of this world still nurture dreams of another twitch from that dead horse.

Despite that, the teams in Nottingham and Newcastle (according to Media Guardian; I have no independent verification) appear to be taking a stand. That stand must have the tacit approval of their managers; it stands to reason you can't put leaflets on reception or even hand 'em out in the street without a discreet nod.

I have the very greatest respect for the editors and managers who do permit at least a controlled degree of fight from their teams; to steamroller dissent in the current circumstances would beg the question as to how much the bosses really care for the services they control. They'll end up the meat in the sandwich as senior management implement difficult decisions, and the teams they lead fight to save that which is precious to them and the listeners. Not an easy time to be in a glass cubicle.

The clinching factor may turn out to be how much collective clout the listeners can exert.

These are 50-plus punters for whom BB means Basildon Bond rather than Blackberry. The Facebook campaigns, Twitterstorms and protests which greeted Mark Thompson's BBC 6music closure announcement won't be replicated. The services threatened are too diverse, both in terms of content and geography.

So can this Mum's and Dad's Army of lower middle England; Dave, Sue, the guy who texts in to Breakfast every morning, the pensioner patiently waiting to ask a question about dahlias, the van man wound up about immigration, the bloke in milk-bottle specs in the front row at the shopping centre OB actually get their act together .. and campaign effectively?

I think it's too early to predict. Watch this space.

Tips for Newsroom Newbies

2011-10-11T17:27:00.004+01:00

Yesterday I asked the question via Twitter

#Radio types: What advice would you give my LeedsTrinityPGs starting news placements today, hoping for a first break?
AbiJaiyeola from BBC Radio Leeds was first to respond:

Talk to everyone have lots of ideas and don't be shy! Make sure people will remember you for the right reason!
karlibubbles (Karli Drinkwater) is now a producer with Sky Living. She remembers all too well the struggle to get a first foot on the ladder:

Not much has changed since class 08. Grim. I had months of uncertainty & heartbreak. It takes nerves of steel.
steve70s (Steve Wallace) is a Leeds Trinity graduate now splitting his life between Britain and the USA. His response is typically robust:

Locate the kettle, get used to opening the post, grab the freebies when you get the chance. And smile.
The need for a positive attitude is echoed by lauraharmes from the 2005 Leeds Trinity cohort, now reading bulletins for Capital FM, XFM, LBC and Classic FM in London:

Be positive, be confident without being cocky and work really hard! Make an impression. Oh and smile :)
Radio_MH_prod (Michael Hamilton) is a Leeds Trinity graduate who worked extensively in commercial radio before moving to his current role of ‘news & sport genius at the Nolan and Livesey shows on BBC Radio 5live’. He has this advice for those following in his footsteps:

Key to commercial radio journalism is the patch. Go in knowing the transmission area, issues, big stories...

...and how to pronounce the place names for when you read bulletins / do voicers.

Tim White is a former news editor of Radio Aire who now runs his own sports agency (TWMCLtd) as well as teaching broadcast journalism. He believes it’s important to make a positive impression right from the first day:

Look smart. Be proactive, ask for something else to do, don't wait to be handed a task.
Emma Blackburn (ecblackburn) is a reporter with BBC Look North. She won the BBC’s first Developing Talent Journalism Award in 2009 with a film she produced at Leeds Trinity:

Stories keep a newsroom turning, have plenty to offer&you'll make your mark. Start early leave late and enjoy!
NUJ reps @RachelBroady & @louisebolotin posting as NUJMcrSalford have a succinct message for those just starting out in the profession:

Join the NUJ. This link gives you the reasons why ...
But the last world must go to a poet, comedian and performer.

Kate Fox (katefoxwriter) is best known to listeners of BBC Radio 4 as the poet in residence on Saturday Live, and has moved on from the grubbier world of news. She urges trainees to see the big picture:

Talk to people in EVERY dept of the station. You'll bump into them all over the place in your Radio Future.

Very true. Radio is indeed a small, small world.

Thanks to all contributors; keep ‘em coming.

First Day in a Newsroom

2011-10-10T11:29:00.039+01:00

Today's the day my Postgraduate Broadcast Journalism trainees at Leeds Trinity start placement. It's the culmination of an intensive course, and the first chance they have to prove they have what it takes for a career in news.

They're entering the industry at a difficult time (DQF, anyone?); the current financial crisis is not of their making, but they're bearing the brunt of its effects.

I know we have a great team teaching on our course; it's a privilege to work alongside them, and to see the trainees develop their skills from January to September.

October and November are when those same trainees have to prove themselves actually working in a newsroom (or, more normally, several newsrooms).

So I had to think of something to say this morning; something to stiffen the sinews, to inspire without being trite, hopefully channelling Winston Churchill rather than David Brent.

Having agonised over what to say, I thought I would share the result more widely here.

What follows is what's just landed in the inbox of my 13 trainees about to enter the world of broadcast news on October 10, 2011.

It's a filthy morning in Leeds, but don't let the weather dampen your spirits as you start wowing employers with all you have learned over the past nine months.

Remember; on day one it's all in the eye contact and the handshake. Let them see your competence and your confidence. Go into any conference with ideas, be ready to participate but never seek to dominate.

When you see an opportunity to offer more than you're being asked to do, take it; subject to the golden rule that you will always, without exception, deliver what you have promised by the deadline set

Never forget that journalists in 2011 are not observing life from a cloud.
Get into the heart of the story you're covering, look for new and original insights, find the human detail that illustrates the bigger issue.

Don't be scared of performance; you are the eyes and ears of the listener or viewer, you are a friend who's privileged to be in the front line of something interesting; your reactions can be important to help their understanding.

Remember Sir Robin's Rules, especially the one about not being overawed by a powerful person. That applies inside the building as well as when you're on a story.

Make the most of your placements; they are the final link between your life as a trainee and your life as a working journalist. Network for England, and ask everyone you impress for advice on who you should approach for work; often they will pick up the phone or dash off an email on your behalf.

It's not going to be easy finding that first break at the moment; there are dark clouds over Leeds and dark clouds over quite a lot of newsrooms, especially at the BBC after last week's DQF announcement. But there will always be a need for fresh talent, and editors more than ever want the right people who can hit the ground running and get it right first time.

You need to believe that your Leeds Trinity training puts you in the best possible position to take advantage of those opportunities which do arise.
The rest is up to you.

All the best,

R

DQF - Why 'Radio England' is a Really Bad Idea

2011-10-08T16:14:00.009+01:00

It's sadly indicative of BBC 'reflex thinking' that the proposed solution to saving money on evening programming for Local Radio is to create a new network: 'Radio England', which they plan to roll out across all English stations from 1900-2200 each weekday, and for big chunks of the weekend.

Except when it isn't.

Stations will opt out from 'Radio England' when there's sport on involving a local team. When it's snowing. Whenever any local manager who cares for his or her service can think of a reason. Or even half a reason.

If anyone ever asks me to run a station (highly unlikely; even more so after writing this) the very last thing I'd ever want to do is close down from Sunday afternoon to Monday breakfast.

Evenings and weekends on BBC Local Radio should be the testbed where the corporation grows its new radio talent. Presenters, yes, and also providing an outlet for new music that gives exposure to local bands. Offpeak can also boost the BBC's oft-repeated aim to increase diversity by developing talent from under-represented communities, giving them the confidence to make the leap into mainstream roles.

It would make much more sense, if there's an immediate need to be seen to be saving money, to use the BBC's existing digital-only stations to fill any gaps in the schedule; for example, giving FM exposure to the Asian Network or 1Xtra in areas with appropriate populations. It might mean schedule changes for those existing networks, but would boost awareness of them to new audiences.

Or what about highlighting new music from the English regions on a national platform as part of the 6Music evening schedule? That would help justify the hit Local Radio has taken to save 6Music, the darling of the iPhone generation. It would also expose 6Music to listeners without the means to access DAB.

Wake up. The Beeb doesn't need another quasi-national network.

Clapped-out B-list telly celebs will be revising their CVs as I write this, hoping for a comeback gig. It's the easy option, if you're setting up a big show, to go for the name that will at least attract a glimmer of recognition from Cornwall to Tyneside. Big talent needs producing (Russell Brand, anyone?). Managing. Engineering. All of which starts gobbling up any savings.

If the BBC's going to survive its latest crisis it needs to start thinking and working smarter.

Get rid of the reflex to set up something new and shiny to solve a problem. Start making better use of the resources they have. And think really hard about the purpose of Local Radio, not least (as I argue in the post below) with regard to training the next generation of talent.

DQF - Don't Kill the Grassroots

2011-10-06T14:59:00.004+01:00

Think of the BBC as a delicate houseplant, much loved, carefully nurtured but overgrown.

The risk to its future health lies not in the pruning ordained today through 'Delivering Quality First', but in the longer-term danger of destroying its roots. And that could be the unintended consequence.

DQF pruning will be painful enough for the people filling the 'posts' being cut in Local Radio, the bit of the BBC dearest to my heart. Eleven people will be losing their role in BBC Radio Leeds, 7 or 8 at Radio Sheffield, some 280 in Local Radio as a whole.

But the longer term threat lies in the 25 percent cuts in operational budgets for those same local stations.

Implemented in full, it'll mean an end to virtually all freelance news shifts. No first opportunity for the best new talent coming through professional courses, such as mine at Leeds Trinity.

In a worst-case scenario, editors could come to rely on a supply of free labour on placement from the more reliable training institutions. But without the chance for trainees to progress to that first paid casual shift, no chance to convert odd days of freelance work into a contract, no chance to bid for whatever staff jobs do become available.

That's a potentially disastrous situation for the BBC, for prospective journalists, trainers and most importantly listeners.

People risk becoming trapped in unsuitable roles by following the oft-repeated advice to take a job - any job - to get into the building and then bide their time until the ideal role is advertised internally. That's what my trainees have been doing, with remarkable success, for almost twenty years.

Journalists on the inside when the doors are slammed shut will become increasingly tired and jaded.

They'll feel the kind of pressures we used to feel in my newsroom in the nineties; no money to cover sickness or holidays, so staff are 'persuaded' to come in with a cold, or give up leave, to avoid letting the side down. Then and now, broadcast jobs are hard to come by and it's in the culture to keep the needles wobbling no matter what toll that takes on individuals.

National reaction to DQF wil focus, understandably, on the overall job losses - 2,000 - and less justifiably on the plan to finally vacate the antique Television Centre and the unloved White City in West London.

But that's a distraction.

Crucially, the BBC must take care not to kill the grassroots - local radio news shifts, offpeak specialist music programmes, regional current affairs, and the rest - or the whole, delicate, organic system for growing future talent will wither and die.

DQF - First Impressions

2011-10-06T11:28:00.003+01:00

Like most folk with an interest in broadcast news, I've been glued to Twitter for the past hour for live updates on Mark Thompson's Delivering Quality First (DQF) proposals.

National commentators will concentrate on the overall job cuts (2000) and on the exit from West London - the latter of negligible interest to those of us working, or training people to work, in the regional operations of the BBC. And The Guardian will tell us that their beloved Archers is safe, even as other regional production is shunted from Birmingham to Bristol.

For Local Radio the verdict seems to be pretty much as was widely predicted; all stations safe, some sharing of afternoon and evening programmes, details being given to teams as I write this.

The shock and upset for me came in the 40% cut in regional current affairs.

That will have a devastating effect on very small teams in the regions, and could remove the regional flavour from BBC1 and BBC2 outside the specific regional news programmes (Look North etc).

The happier news is that a further thousand posts are moving to Salford; it would have been so easy to dilute the commitment to making the BBC a truly national service under the guise of financial pressure.

Moving the whole of BBC3 and flagship Radio 4 consumer show You and Yours to Salford helps secure the future of the northern production centre as an equal, not junior, partner with London.

The fact that so many London staff are still unwilling to contemplate a move north from the capital (one tweet: "Move to Salford or death? - most would choose death") keeps a glimmer of hope alive for those currently in training, or newly qualified as broadcast journalists, who are willing and very able to fill those roles and by so doing help change the complexion of the BBC to reflect that of the UK as a whole faster than would happen in more prosperous times.

The challenge facing the BBC's managers in the regions now is to achieve 11% more productivity with 11% fewer staff. That should be doable.

Losing one in ten will be tough. Those, probably a majority, already working to capacity will struggle to work 11% harder and simultaneously pick up the work of those who depart; but is everyone working flat out? Everyone? Really?

The tougher bit will be to achieve the 25% operational savings. That's bound to have a direct impact on the programmes listeners see and hear. Freelance shifts, already tight, will become virtually non-existent; perhaps more importantly, contracts will become even scarcer than they have been for the past 18 months, removing the 'bridge' between casual engagements for a day or two and staff posts with holidays and pensions. That's bad news for those of us involved in training the next generation.

More reaction to come later .......

BBC - Being Brave about Change

2011-10-03T20:11:00.006+01:00

Lots of very good broadcasters and journalists at the Beeb are in a subdued mood this week. They're about to learn the future of BBC Local Radio, and many fear the worst.

DQF - the BBC is very fond of Three Letter Acronyms, this one stands for 'Delivering Quality First' - requires the corporation to save, roughly speaking, one pound in every five it spends.

The DG (Director General; fair cop, that's only a 2LA) has already said service closures can't be ruled out.

BBC4, the unwatched posh TV channel, not to be confused with BBC Radio 4, the much-loved posh radio channel , looks a likely casualty. Mainly because every suggestion to axe something else, such as hipster favourite 6Music or the Asian Network, has been resisted by user groups the BBC isn't going to pick a fight with any day soon.

One early DQF leak suggested a forced marriage between cosy local radio and shouty sport service 5Live.

That would have been a disaster for both partners. Think Sue, a divorced housewife keen on health, personal finance and Dean Friedman shacking up with Kev, diehard footy fan living on pies and selling his soul to follow a team around Europe.

For this observer that leak was seemingly and suspiciously co-ordinated by several famously discreet Man Eds* in what I suspect to this day was a kite-flying exercise.

So Kev's sent packing, and the cash-strapped Sues of local radio are in for some make do and share across regions, with lunchtime, early afternoon and mid-evening programmes the most likely to be stretched between neighbouring stations.

Such a move will have winners and losers. One presenter and his/her team goes from local jock to regional personality at the flick of an ISDN selector. Two or three other hard working local presenters and their support face unspecified 'redeployment' or a P45.

My advice to colleagues after 30 years in and around the wireless game is simple. Don't resist. Change is inevitable. Look instead to making the best creative use of the new opportunities in whatever landscape emerges.

Injured pride and loyalty aside, if we're honest .. how good are all the lost programmes?

Some are very good. Some are mediocre at best, devotedly nurtured by teams keeping the needles wobbling. Teams that have, in many cases, seen one-too-many failed plans brought in by the TLA brigade, and are doggedly fighting for their trench oblivious of the battle beyond their slot.

Driven by self-preservation, they've forgotten what the war is about.

The clearest vision I've seen comes from John Myers, writing in his blog today.

A critical friend of BBC Local Radio, he tells the painful truth in simple language. It can't go on like it is. Nobody loves news, even if they want it on tap. The music's a mess. And personalities with ties to the community they serve are the key to success.

I've seen everything I worked for in radio demolished at least three times.

In 1985, when Pennine Radio axed all the speech programmes I produced and presented. In 1998, when I stepped down as news ed and saw a radical change in bulletin style and content. And in 2002, when I was finally handed a P45 after 22 years serving audiences in Bradford.

Yet The Pulse today is thriving, and on some measures is more successful than the station I was part of. And I've yet to sign on the dole.

So there will be a future after DQF. It won't be the same as the past. The BBC local future belongs to those who embrace the new ways of working.

* Man Eds = Managing Editors. BBC station bosses. So why aren't they 'ME's? Perhaps the ME, TLA Allocation (MET-LAA) was on holiday when they were first created.

Striking off in all directions ....

2011-09-27T20:40:00.008+01:00

Labour seem very keen to strike.

Strike people off, that is. A week or so ago it was Ed Miliband, promising to 'stike off' rogue bankers who fail to observe proper standards whilst getting obscenely rich with other people's money. Then today (albeit briefly) it was Ivan Lewis wanting to 'strike off' errant journos.

The phrase has a nice ring to it. A GP gropes a patient in his surgery - strike him off.

A lawyer fleeces her client - deserves sriking off by the Law Society as unfit to practice as a solicitor. It's doing what politicians like best; a decisive, headline grabbing gesture.

But there's a problem with journos. There's no professional body to 'strike them off' from. One tweeter alleged today the last politician to actually set up a register of state-sanctioned hacks was Mussolini. To be fair to Mr Lewis, he's denying he ever suggested a state register of official journalists. That's not what he meant by 'strike off', he told the BBC.

So what did he mean? Tear up their NUJ cards? Not all hacks carry one of those by any means. I fell out with Acorn House in the mid 80s (long story) and had no problem getting my Press ID via ITN.

And that raises another big question - which journos, exactly, could be 'struck off'? Print hacks - OK. Broadcasters - ooh er, that raises questions about interference with the BBC. And all the bloggers, tweeters and online green-ink single-issue fanatics - not a chance.

All of which leads me to believe Lewis's notion was just anoher ill-thought-through grab at an easy soundbite. It's the kind of political thinking which, when a party's in power, led to Michael Howard's Dangerous Dogs Act.

Writing policy in response to a moral panic, general outrage or public pressure can often end up being a total dog's dinner.

Why?

2011-09-24T16:58:00.002+01:00

On Monday just short of a hundred young people will start a three-year course in Journalism or Sports Journalism at Leeds Trinity. I'll be very interested to find out why they're doing it.

Back in 1977 there weren't any degree courses in Journalism. There were NCTJ certificates, earned on the job by cub reporters on newspapers. I could have gone down that route, but my parents were ambitious for their boy to be the first in the family to go to University (they really did pronounce the word with a capital 'U').
The nearest course I could find was something called 'Communication, Arts and Media' which I hated. Lots of socio-linguistic babble, and I've never been able to enjoy Japanese cinema since being forced to watch 'Rashomon' over and over. But it did give me enough spare hours hours in the week, during a three-year buffer with a grant, to get my knees under the table in local radio.

Now the J-word fills prospectuses everywhere; some Journalism courses are excellent, others are at best 'Media Studies 2.0'. What's certain is that only a small proportion of graduates can ever find a niche earning a proper living from practicing journalism in the real world, especially in the current economic situation. So what will the rest do?

Some may go over to the dark side and practice public relations; use the skills of effective communication to sell stuff. Some probably stay forever in education, and teach the skills they've learned but never practiced lower down the food chain. Some will do unrelated jobs for money and practice hobby journalism on the side - the legions of bloggers and Tweeters. Some probably just want three good years of growing up and some random letters after their name.

So 'why?' will be the first question I ask when I get in front of my first-ever class of undergraduates in October; I'll be interested to hear their (and readers') responses.

Born Again Twitterer

2011-09-21T15:40:00.055+01:00

A respected colleague ... old school journo, works in print media ... was persuaded to join Twitter recently. His first and only tweet to date: "what now?"

I shared that sentiment until the day last November when the tuition fees row broke. I was in the newsroom at BBC Radio Leeds, the oldest Yoppie in town on secondment updating skills in their all-digital newsroom.

When word came that it was all getting a bit exciting in the Victoria Gardens I naturally expected to be given the gig. "Richard, we are not worthy, get out there, show us what to do". But of course they sent their best staffer. The team cranked up into live breaking story mode. I had nothing to do.

So I remembered Twitter and logged on. A few searches for #Leeds and #students and I was in a maelstrom of information from the smartphone-savvy protestors in the front line. I began extracting nuggets of information from the torrent - an official West Yorkshire Police estimate of numbers, the school from which pupils had set off to join the fun,. Then word broke online of a change of venue; the protestors were on the point of occupying the Michael Sadler building on the University campus. I yelled. A reporter was despatched.

Again, during the summer riots, Twitter proved its worth. Former Leeds Trinity PG David Hardiman, reporting first hand from the streets of north London. The first indications of trouble in Salford, where BBC Manchester had their radio car trashed. The welcome news the journos in it were safe. The false reports of trouble in Leeds .. and the angry denials from Chapelrown residents begging to differ. These reports up to two hours ahead of other media.

So the answer to my colleague's "what now?" ? We have a valuable new aid for making sense of news for our audiences. Use it wisely.

Mission Statement

2011-09-21T14:45:00.001+01:00

All institutions have them. Something impressive to put in reception, next to that plaque from Investors in Green Folders. An ethos in a soundbite. Philosophy at tweetable length. What's needed to start my first blog is a declaration of intent. A mission statement.

I've been a journalist all my adult life. I've been in love with radio since I can remember. For some reason I was usually the one in the radio station nominated to 'look after' the work experience kid, and that role has evolved over the years until I find myself as the world's least likely academic, required to give my charges the best possible start to their radio careers. And this is my first-ever blog.

So ...

I'll aim to follow Valerie Geller's advice to 'tell the truth, and never be boring'.
I will seek to be a critical friend to those I comment on in radio and in journalism, never forgetting it's a much tougher world in the industry than out of it.
I will be fearless in promoting the practical and the vocational over the theoretical and the abstract.

I hope that'll do for a start.

Site Under Construction

2011-09-20T11:32:00.000+01:00

Please bear with me whilst I change ISP - after a long period of inactivity I'll be blogging soon about the radio industry, journalism training, and maybe some personal observations as well as restoring the information about my media skills training activities.

It's an exciting time and we'll get going very soon .....