Skip to main content

The softer side of Today

Despite all its faults, I very much enjoy my fix of the Today programme on weekday mornings. This BBC Radio 4 show is probably technically a news magazine programme, but it is known for hard hitting political interviews, anticipating the content of reports due out later that day, and not being shy about tackling difficult issues.

However, the Today programme has a soft side - you might even say a flabby underbelly. Expose it to an artist, literary author, or classical musician and the presenter (particularly if it's James Naughtie) goes to pieces. Gone are the incisive queries and probing investigation. Instead there's a mix of awe and reverence. Do we get sharp digs at subsidies for the arts when times are tough? Nope, just more reverence.

I mentioned this on Twitter a while ago and Dave Bartram commented that they take the same approach with scientists - but it's not really true. They are more positive with scientists than politicians, but they are happy to talk about scandals and funding. You certainly don't get the sort of approach Jim Naughtie took to Placido Domingo a few days ago. I was waiting for him to say 'Can I lick your boots, Mr Domingo.' Scientists certainly don't get that soft 'I think I'm in love' voice the artists and musicians are treated to.

What I'd love is if they had a reversal day. Where they gave all the over-funded, over-valued artists a hard time, asking them to justify their existence, and instead of grilling politicians about the budget or cuts to schools, said something like: 'Oh, your performance in the chamber yesterday was magnificent, Mr Cameron. How do you feel when you stand up on the floor? Do you have to prepare yourself mentally with special exercises before taking on Prime Minister's questions?'

Now that would liven things up.


  1. I hope you're kidding that the arts are over valued and over funded. That's all.

  2. Short and sweet!

    I'm not saying they are or they aren't. Just that the standard approach with politicians is to attack everything they do, so suggesting it would be refreshing to take that approach with the arty types, and to take the fawning approach with the politicians.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope