[northernsteve]

Sorry for asking some technical anorak questions, but I'm intrigued by the set up that lets Dom control the news bulletins from a small mixer on his side of the desk, because it's an unusual set up which I don't think I've seen in any other station's studios.

Am I right in thinking that Dom and Tina's mics have faders on both the main desk Chris has and the mixer Dom operates, so that if they're faded up on either they're on air? Is Dom's mixer an extension of the main desk or is it a source that Chris has to fade up? Is that only used for news or do people like James King use it to play in clips during their bits?

[newsbeat]

http://www.360systems.com/docs/prod_ir_main2.html

News player

[shamrock student]

Hey Aled, I know you have mentioned a couple of times on air recently that you were shot at twice in Swansea...is it a on-air joke I missed sometime or is it actually true! After seeing some of the heads that got on there on the train to Fishguard during the week it woulden't surprise me

Also after reading this thread viewtopic.php?f=28&t=22028 and this week when ye were talking about the ten best Edinburgh jokes this one was judged to be unbroadcastable "As a kid I was made to walk the plank. We couldn't afford a dog." it got me thinking how restricted are you when broadcasting in the daytime. If for example yourself or Dom decided to say that joke on air, would it just mean a talking to from the boss and paperwork or can it get even worse than that. I know the show coulden't get away today with some of the material used in the afternoon show years but are things really so bad that a little seeimingly totally inoffensive silly jokes are going to cause problems?

I can only imagine it must be an extremely stressful job on your part if every single text or off the cuff remark like that has the potential to cause trouble.

[Johnny 1989]

The censorship seems to have rapidly increased since the whole "phone-in scandal", if you have a listen to the old afternoon shows in the archive thread I'm surprised they didn't get into a lot of trouble from time to time. In one show Chris calls Lizzie a tart, another a slut & in another show Dave calls Lizzie a slapper, could you imagine the outrage now if they had said similar things to Rachel or Carrie during the breakfast show

[biggspuds]

Hey Aled, I know you have mentioned a couple of times on air recently that you were shot at twice in Swansea...is it a on-air joke I missed sometime or is it actually true! After seeing some of the heads that got on there on the train to Fishguard during the week it woulden't surprise me

it was mentioned again on westwoods were am i not long ago.
make`s me laugh that story every time (SORRY ALED) but it is funny

[Aled]

are things really so bad that a little seeimingly totally inoffensive silly jokes are going to cause problems?

No. Inoffensive silly jokes are fine.

But you do have a duty to try and think on behalf of the 9 million listeners. If some people hear a joke and are offended by it then yes, we shouldn't be doing it on breakfast radio. Every house pays the licence fee so everyone has a right to enjoy the BBC's output without being offended by it.

[DevilsDuck]

Aled, can you let the radio one big wigs know that I am a licence fee payer and I am great offended by Fearne Cotton being on radio1

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

are things really so bad that a little seeimingly totally inoffensive silly jokes are going to cause problems?

No. Inoffensive silly jokes are fine.

But you do have a duty to try and think on behalf of the 9 million listeners. If some people hear a joke and are offended by it then yes, we shouldn't be doing it on breakfast radio. Every house pays the licence fee so everyone has a right to enjoy the BBC's output without being offended by it.

In that case surely you would need to ban at least 50% of records? I think thats a load of rubbish - I understand there are limits but theres no way you can vet every joke to see if a minority of people will be offended by it.

[shamrock student]

are things really so bad that a little seeimingly totally inoffensive silly jokes are going to cause problems?

No. Inoffensive silly jokes are fine.

But you do have a duty to try and think on behalf of the 9 million listeners. If some people hear a joke and are offended by it then yes, we shouldn't be doing it on breakfast radio. Every house pays the licence fee so everyone has a right to enjoy the BBC's output without being offended by it.

Yes, totally appreciate that, but with that joke I quoted my point was even if I put on a PC cap I coulden't see who could ever claim offense.I know its probably a more broad problem with UK radio in general but the line between offence and humour to the outside observer justs seems to be at a rediculously high level at the moment.

[Yudster]

.......... If some people hear a joke and are offended by it then yes, we shouldn't be doing it on breakfast radio. Every house pays the licence fee so everyone has a right to enjoy the BBC's output without being offended by it.

Aled, really? Are you genuinely saying that a handful of people who may or may not have an agenda and decide to become puffed up and offended about something that the vast majority of people would recognise as harmless banter (even if they don't necessarily get it) should be allowed to dictate the content of your show, or anyone else's? Because catering to that baseline denominator is the absolute epitome of dumbing down, which the BBC have been denying they are doing for years. Are you now telling us that actually that IS BBC policy? To offend absolutely no-one? Because if it is, then the BBC won't be worth listening to or watching at all soon.

[northernsteve]

To be fair, breakfast probably isn't the time to be doing anything too edgy that could be misheard by a half-asleep Daily Mail type and blown out of proportion!

[Aled]

I gave an honest reply. You can try and twist it into other meanings, but we're not really here to offend on a breakfast show are we!

[chrysostom]

to be fair the BBC are under more scrutiny than any other broadcasting corporation (save shanghai news network) - because anyone can lodge a legitimate complaint, given that their money partially does fund the BBC.

couple this with the fact that commercial news networks/media will jump on ANY mistake, or even something that could be construed as a mistake - to make them look bad, with the agenda of making public feeling towards the BBC negative, so that it will one day be disbanded or commercialised.

it's not suprising that they have to walk on eggshells at times.

[Aled]

Are we honestly saying that people here would be fine for people to be offended by what they hear on a Radio 1 breakfast show as long you laughed?

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

That wasn't what I was saying at all I can't speak for anyone else. The way you responded it appeared to be that you couldn't do anything which might risk one or two people being offended and thats just impossible. I'm not saying you should start swearing and having sex on air but you can't possibly judge what would offend everyone.

[shamrock student]

Are we honestly saying that people here would be fine for people to be offended by what they hear on a Radio 1 breakfast show as long you laughed?

No of course there should be certain material that should be off limits, its just my opinion that elements of the media seem to be muzzleing the talent of broadcasters like Chris. I mean you mentioned before that if some people are offended ye should not be broadcasting it. But if thats how high the bar is surely even saying on the air that a certain film is rubbish or even saying to Robbie Williams that his song is a grower could be construed as causing offense to a licence fee payer i.e. Robbie!

I know that without working in the media, it's probably difficult for people like myself to fully comprehend all the regulations that the show has to abide by, I guess my comments are more a reflection on UK broadcasting as a whole rather that the CM show in particular.

Aled, I hope you don't think that people like myself are just making these observations just to stir things up. Its just fascinating to learn from your point of view the mechanics of the show. I can't think of any other local or even national radio shows that give listeners such insight into how the show works.

[chrysostom]

humor which intentionally offends = shock humour.

shock humour + breakfast radio = pandering to the lowest common denominator.

BBC Trust exists to try and justify the existence of the BBC to the haters. give them ammunition in the form of what can be perceived as intentionally using shock tactics to gain a laugh - and they, and the public that hates (tabloids) will be on it in a flash. c'mon, you're not going to get any other line out of a BBC employee. being offensive unintentionally can be justified and explained as an accident - but if you make a poor decision and (as a producer) allow material to go out which could be deemed offensive and recieve complaints - then you're showing a lack of vision and understanding of your audience as a whole : not only that but you're also bringing negative heat onto a corporation which is more vulnerable that any other.

andrew. sachs.

[Yudster]

Are we honestly saying that people here would be fine for people to be offended by what they hear on a Radio 1 breakfast show as long you laughed?

Of course not. I personally wouldn't want to hear loads of swearing and overt sexual content on the radio for instance. But that's not what we're talking about is it? We're talking about people who spend their time looking for reasons to be offended (and the circulation figures of the Daily Mail would indicate that this is a significant number) latching on to perfectly harmless content and blowing it out of all proportion, not because they want to "bring down the BBC" necessarily (although the conspiracy theorists out there might argue), but very often I believe simply because that's what they like doing. If the BBC is happy to use those people to determine the level of content of their shows then we're all in very deep trouble.

[neebs]

So lets not tell any jokes which may offend, but it's fine to fill the news bulletins with stories of sexual infection, condoms etc at a time when young children are listening.....

[Aled]

Are we honestly saying that people here would be fine for people to be offended by what they hear on a Radio 1 breakfast show as long you laughed?

Of course not. I personally wouldn't want to hear loads of swearing and overt sexual content on the radio for instance. But that's not what we're talking about is it?

So are we saying you're the authority on what's offensive?

We may be able to find someone on these boards who are frustrated that we can't swear or have overt sexual content because of a 'few (however many that is) sensitive PC people'.

Just because you're not offended by other content are we really saying that others shouldn't be either?

Do we need to have a checklist of things that people deem okay to mention?

The jokes on that list included sexist and racist jokes. Is not broadcasting that over the top?

[Aled]

So lets not tell any jokes which may offend, but it's fine to fill the news bulletins with stories of sexual infection, condoms etc at a time when young children are listening.....

Because it's a public service duty to educate. To stop getting sexual infections use condoms etc.

On The Surgery we also list abstinence as a way of not getting sexually diseases.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

So are we saying you're the authority on what's offensive?

Didn't you just decide you were in an earlier post? Anyway its missing the point entirely.

[wireman2004]

Aled.

isn't it that the bbc trust is trying too make every person happy.

We remember the will young joke and the negitive heat that it brought from it. Mostly from the daily mail. But yet most normal listeners have taken it as a joke and for what it was worth...
Were you offended by the link in anyway??? i suspect not. because you got the joke for what it was worth.
ofcom had what. 150 - 200 complaints in that, and chris and the bbc were reprimanded from ofcom for the incident. i would hazzard a guess that all of the people who complained were not in the QUOTE demographic that you are broadcasting too. they were probably 50 - 60 year old people who DID NOT EVEN LISTEN TOO THE SHOW and are complaining because the daily mail have printed a story too sell too people and they complained because it precieved chris too be homophobic as described in the artical.

we go back too andrew sachs incident and what trinspired, Maybe russle brand went over the top. i don't know. i never heard the link personally so i can't possibly tell. but the way that the sun and mail portraid it is that was the worst thing too happen since 9/11 or something. And i have heard that there were 2 complaints until the papers brought it uip. (again going back too what i said a moment ago) all of a sudden, 200 complaints were recieved by ofcom. Unless you can show us that bbc i player traffic for that show went up significantly, it supports my previous statement that the papers printed the artical, and people who didn't even listen too the show complained to ofcom

If we want too listen to robots on the radio, we would listen too fern cotton. or key 103 or real radio.
The reason we all listen too chris is because he speaks his mind, bends the rules and doesn't give a toss what people think, and that is why there is a love him or hate him thing in the country.

Point we are making is we listen too chris because it is chris, it is intresting radio. and your figures prove it. if we didn't want too listen, we switch off. the people who complain too ofcom don't even listen too the show, and many feel you are not only trying too cater for your audience, but too people who don't listen too the show and will complain wihout listening. quick vote guys, would you complain at something that someone said was offencive before listening too tthe thing yourself???? i wouldn't, but yet we are catering for that very fact.

Nanny state britain rears it's ugly head...

[chrysostom]

your argument seems to tie itself in knots.

is the main point that you're acknowledging that the BBC has to be more careful with their content because it's at risk of negative press more than anything else, and this is why the show has to walk on eggshells

or

chris should be able to broadcast in the style he sees fit, regardless of consequences because the proportion of his fans who listen specifically for his style outweighs those who listen for another reason

as they seem to contrast each other in relation to aled, but both appear in your post.

[bmstinton93]

Aled, can you answer me a technical question please?

On my DAB radio when I listen to radio 1 it says Radio 1 on the screen as it should do but "BBC Vision Trial" keeps flashing up in its place. I know that BBC vision trial was that week this year and last year where you filmed the show but why should that be flashing up on my DAB radio now??