Monday 12 February 2018

The Today Programme has lost 300,000 listeners - a mix of Brexit, John Humphrys, and its editor, I reckon

It was recently announced that the BBC Radio 4 flagship current affairs programme, Today, had shed 300,000 listeners over the past year. Not a disaster, as it still boasts an average audience of 7.15m - but embarrassing, given that Chris Evans's Radio 2 morning show added 200,000 listeners during the same period.  Before I expatiate on the possible reasons for Today's appeal becoming more "selective", I should admit that I haven't listened to it for several years. I'm rarely up early enough these days, I loathed it back when I was routinely conscious at that time of the day, and John Humphrys's personality brings me out in hives.  Having admitted all that, I'd be very surprised if the following three factors weren't playing a major role in driving listeners away:

1. Brexit.
Given the programme's audience demographics, it's obviously listened to by far more Remainers than Leavers. But even if the ratio is as high as 70:30 (as opposed to the 48:52 split recorded in the referendum) that still means that almost one in three of its listeners will be in a state of frothing apoplexy after about 20 minutes or so, having been subjected to the usual BBC recipe of fawning interviews with creeps likes Anna Soubry, Gina Miller, Ken Clark, Nick Clegg, Michel Barnier etc; sneering, contemptuous hatchet jobs on the rare Brexiteers who are invited on for the express purpose of having their bottoms spanked; doom-laden reports whenever an obscure European politician predicts disaster for Britain post-Brexit, unbalanced by proper reporting of the endless disagreements between the EU and its member states; grotesquely misleading, farcically selective economic reports which either totally fail to mention any good news, or invariably add a health warning that what looks like good news is actually terribly worrying; and relentless, forensic examination of splits in Tory ranks over Europe, while paying scant attention to the yawning fissures in the Labour Party (which appears to have at least 17 different positions regarding Britain's future relationship with the EU - all of which are logically impossible).  The main television news bulletins, and current affairs programmes such as Newsnight and Question Time have been rendered practically unwatchable for Leavers because of their political bias: why should Today be any different?

2. John Humphrys.
I can't be bothered listing yet again the myriad reasons why I can't listen to this odious, arrogant little limpet of a man without wanting to kick the radio out the window. I've rarely encountered anyone who doesn't feel the same way about him - and yet he's still there. For God's sake - he's 74! Haven't we been punished enough. (And I'd be happy if they kicked out all the other presenters at the same time.)

3. The Editor.
Sarah Sands took over as editor a year ago. I well remember when she was appointed - briefly, thank goodness - as editor of the Sunday Telegraph in 2006. Apparently, she used to walk around the office during the redesign phase, uttering cries of "Glam, glam, glam!" She changed the masthead font. And the exciting new look ST instantly morphed into an odious, unreadable girlie rag, bereft of serious content. You know how whenever some research company phones you up to ask about your feelings towards your bank or the BBC or whatever, and they always avoid asking you the questions that would allow you to say what you really think? Well, when I, as a subscriber, got one of these calls about the Sunday Telegraph about six months into the Sandsian reign of terror, I was asked exactly those questions which allowed me to say exactly what I thought: it was almost as if they wanted me to tear it to shreds. Which I did. They must have spoken to a lot of people who thought as I did, because she was gone within weeks. I suspect she's now brought her own special brand editorial magic to Today. Good luck with that!

8 comments:

  1. I just got fed up with starting my day listening to all that artificial disgruntlement. I don't think that building a whole programme around a series of engineered confrontations - politician v opposing politician, health minister v person with an illness etc - provides any real insight into the issues it highlights.

    It's surprising how little the format has changed over the years, although it's probably more bad mannered today and has more of a campaigning flavour, to judge from the few occasions when it is on over breakfast at someone else's house..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect the reason for sticking with its outmoded format (sort of "Thinking Man's Jerry Springer") is to keep politicians and journalists hanging on every word - that's the real target audience. As long as it generates a sufficient number of "Minister in Today Row" headlines and tweets, thereby "setting the news agenda", the BBC will be happy. As for politicians, it mirrors the confrontational nature of the Commons, so ministers at least feel they know where they are. I edited a less formal late night political TV chat show in the '90s which tried to avoid the usual defendant/prosecuting counsel approach. If guests trotted out the standard boilerplate, they were mocked. Viewers seemed to appreciate this approach, so, naturally, it was abandoned.

      Delete
  2. Re Humphrys. Kingsley Amis said that the saddest sentence in the English language is " I think we will just go straight in". I think it is "And here's The World This Weekend with Mark Mardell" so be careful a what you wish for.

    I just know instinctively that the BBC are lining up this unpleasant, ginger-haired tub of venom to replace Humprys and thereby guaranteeing the loss of further thousands of listeners [although Orla Guerin might be in the frame unless she pursues a career in stand-up comedy]. This is what Allison Pearson said about "Bunter" when she was on the Mail and Mardell was away in America enjoying the BBC American Editor sinecure :

    " The BBC’s Washington Correspondent not only looks like a sweaty, red-faced squire who has been chasing the housemaid before coming on air, he is now so hefty he blocks the view of the White House behind him. Has any BBC producer told Fatty Mardell to go on a diet because he is failing the “primetime test”? I do hope so."

    It would be a classic, bloody-minded BBC gesture to show its continuing contempt for the R4 listener - not dissimilar to the shameful sacking of the excellent and charming Ed Stourton around 2009.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure they're planning to replace John Humphrys with Sir Lenny Henry - him or Camila Batmanghelidjh, who probably has a few holes in her diary these days.

      Delete
  3. Ed Stourton is a fine journalist who continues to deliver balanced discussions and programmes, a fundamental loss to Today. which is infuriating and self-satisfied - what do other Gronmark aficionados listen to as the kettle is boiling?
    Another line that depressed Kingsley Amis was 'Red or white ?'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tow which the correct response was, "Just normal-coloured whisky, thanks - triple, same amount of water, two ice cubes."

      God, that makes me feel nostalgic!

      Delete
  4. 'what do other Gronmark aficionados listen to as the kettle is boiling? '

    Classic FM (and pray they aren't playing film music or bad contemporary stuff). My liver would explode if I had to listen to radio Pyongyang that early. Or even at all, most days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Radio 4 Extra - the older the programme the better. Unless it's Steptoe & Son or The Navy Lark or anything involving Arthur Smith or Stephen Fry. Only radio station I listen to voluntarily these days.

      Delete