Schedule busting for election 2010
When to stay with the story and when to leave it and get back to business as usual? This is the question we have been asking quite a lot at Radio 4 over the past few days. And as many of you will know, on a number of occasions we have stayed with the story, extending news coverage and displacing scheduled programmes.
We do not do this lightly. Part of Radio 4's appeal is that, while complex, its schedule does not change shape very often. If you want to you can plan your listening for just those slots or programmes that you know will be there, according to the radio listings or as part of your regular habits. So finding that a news programme has been extended and what you thought you were about to hear has disappeared can be an upsetting experience.
But providing quality, distinctive news and current affairs coverage is a key part of what Radio 4 does. If the 'current affair' is as historic and unique as that which has evolved in Westminster since last Friday, it's expected that Radio 4 will be sharing and examining it with its listeners.
Yes there are rolling live news services available, and it is right that they stay with the big stories continuously. And yes we have a number of news sequences and other programmes on Radio 4 where we can look back at what happened an hour or two prior to coming on-air. Sometimes this is not quite enough.
We do our best to keep the key planks in place - though even The Archers might one day have to be delayed if there is something seismic launching at 1400 or 1900!
It won't happen very often, and we hope that most of the election-linked disruption to the schedule is behind us for the time being. Much of what we have displaced in the past weeks has had an airing elsewhere in the schedule, and is available on the iPlayer.
But we are a UK-wide, mass audience station. Just occasionally it will be right to bust the schedule, to help our listeners to remember "the moment I heard the news that...", and to help them do that together as one.
Tony Pilgrim is Head of Planning and Scheduling at Ö÷²¥´óÐã Radio 4
Comment number 1.
At 13th May 2010, Sid wrote:The Ö÷²¥´óÐã shouldn't be too apologetic. The whole thing may collapse like a house of cards - but lots of us hope it can be made to work. If it does, then these past few days really have been momentous, and changing a few radio programmes round won't have made much difference in the long run. For me, the postponement of scheduled programmes has heightened the sense of drama and suspense ... so I do hope it's all worth it in the end.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th May 2010, jonnie wrote:Personally I have no issue with the schedules being changed. Indeed I suspect most of us would expect Ö÷²¥´óÐã Radio 4 to interrupt any programme (including the Archers) for the breaking political election drama at the beginning of the week.
After all - it can always be rescheduled later on in the evening. Hopefully with new technology (namely DAB) the extra channels such as reserved for the 'Daily service' can be utilised for continuous coverage of important News stories - and a flag transmitted to automatically switch to that service, similar to RDS traffic in cars.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13th May 2010, Ellis P Otter wrote:My specific memory of this kind of interruption is when Princess Diana died in Paris. I was unaware of the events as I sank into my luxurious bath for a Sunday morning relaxation with the Archers omnibus.
At 10:00 I turned on the radio in eager anticipation of the drama that has no equal to hear a rolling news story. Although the news folk were talking to eachother about a car accident and paparrazi photographers, it took a full twenty minutes till anyone actually said what had happened and the name of Princess Diana was mentioned.
Clearly, the news took precedent over the programme, but if ever such a tragic event occurs again, I would ask the Ö÷²¥´óÐã News team to take into consideration the borderline moments between scheduled programmes to run a quick summary for those who may be tuning in to their particular programme, innocent of other sources of information.
Where were you when you heard Princess Diana died? In the bath
Where were you when you heard the Twin Towers fell? At work, seeing it flash up on the news channel screens
Where were you when you heard JF Kennedy was shot?Hopefully at my mother's teat, it's not a clear memory
I don't think the resignation of Brown equates to any of those moments and the Ö÷²¥´óÐã editors' judgements do keep a sense of proportion in mind.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 13th May 2010, hackneybloke wrote:It was interesting to see the comparison of TV viewing figures over the last few days. It seems that, unquestionably, the country turns to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã when there are events of national importance unfolding. if your choice is to go to the radio, or radio is your only option, then really, you'd expect quality reportage of historic events on FM. Radio 4 is the only place you could go, and on that basis i think the scheduling decision was absolutely the right one. To have not done so would have deprived millions of the opportunity of keeping abreast of developments.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 13th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against Ö÷²¥´óÐã censorship wrote:#3. At 7:56pm on 13 May 2010, Ellis P Otter wrote:
"My specific memory of this kind of interruption is when Princess Diana died in Paris. I was unaware of the events as I sank into my luxurious bath for a Sunday morning relaxation with the Archers omnibus.
At 10:00 I turned on the radio in eager anticipation of the drama that has no equal to hear a rolling news story. Although the news folk were talking to eachother about a car accident and paparrazi photographers, it took a full twenty minutes till anyone actually said what had happened and the name of Princess Diana was mentioned."
I used to know someone who managed to totally 'avoid' all mention of Princess Diana death until about 2pm (BST) on that Sunday, only when he turned up at a pre-scheduled event amid talk about cancelling it did he utter this classic sentence - "Why are we thinking of cancelling, has someone died or something?"...! No, he wasn't a hermit, just a course of events conspired to keep him and his wife away from newspapers, radio and TV, he did comment that he thought it unusually quite out when he had walked the dog.
"I don't think the resignation of Brown equates to any of those moments and the Ö÷²¥´óÐã editors' judgements do keep a sense of proportion in mind."
You missed the significance it would seem, it wasn'tr so much Brown resigning but the fist coalition in 70 years, in UK terms, a political earthquake with possible implications not just in the UK - well done R4 for staying with it.
But back to the points raised by Steve, current events are the reason for being for Radio Four, as others have said, (pre-recorded) programmes can always be rescheduled, live events can't.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)