Talk:Today programme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Today programme is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article is supported by the UK Radio task force.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

(Minor rewording to remove ambiguity. The alleged bias was by the BBC, not against the BBC.)

D'oh! My original draft said "accusations of bias on the part of the BBC". Then I thought, "oh hang on, that's ambiguous, I'd better change it..." --rbrwr

Words are slippery little bastards, aren't they? Terrific article, by the way. Respec' -- GrahamN 17:43 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know how much truth there is in the story about submarines tuning in to determine if the UK had been nuked? If the Today Programme is off air two days in a row, its the end of the world... that sort of thing? True or false, it's a common piece of info and deserves a mention, so does anyone know either way? -Nommo

Donovan (as cited in the article) spends a couple of pages discussing this. The story comes from Peter Hennessy's Muddling Through (1996), but Hennessy refused to discuss his sources with Donovan. Donovan asked BBC Executive Tony Hall and cabinet minister Ken Clarke about it and they were both rather skeptical. In any event the conditions under which Trident commanders would open their sealed orders are almost certainly secret, so the truth is effectively impossible to determine.

Muddling Through is collected journalism, so the story might have been published in some other form before. Hennessy has a new book out called The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War which is about this sort of thing and might go into this in more detail. --rbrwr

Ta. -Nommo

No problem. I've got hold of Muddling Through, which consists largely of rewritten Radio 4 Analysis programmes; the story is part of the preface, so that was probably the first time it was published. The Secret State came out last year in hardback, and there is apparently a copy in my local library, so I might go and have a quick look sometime next week. --rbrwr

I've now had a look at The Secret State, and he repeats the story without any real elaboration, citing his own book as the source. I'll work up an appropriate rendition of all this and add it to the article. --rbrwr

---

Superb article. Any encyclopedia would be proud to have it as an entry. Well done. JTD 03:52 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

I would tentatively suggest moving this page to Today programme. Any objections? Trilobite 23:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here goes.... Trilobite 03:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Marked for NPOV check. The Message Board section looks to be written by someone who disagrees with the BBC decision discussed. Use of "Much to everyone's surprise" and "effectively censor users" show bias and require citations.

The wikipedia article is discussed on the Message Board in question here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F2767107?thread=3664486

--Brendan D 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this edit funciton is no the way to add a reply, could see no other way.

What is the problem with 'to everyone's supprise'? All I can think of you may prefer is 'too all users supprise'?

'effectively censor users' seems fair if a past freedom to select any issue is to be removed. Such an action will control or censor subject matter.

I would think the

'These rules were timed so that they would curtail discussion on legislation contained in the Queen's speech[2] on 15 November 2006 during which contentious legislation like House of Lords reform would be announced.'

could be seen as, if not bias, slanting the article. It would be true but implies a specific motive that is not a known fact.

Otherwise there are quotes for and against used, which seems fair. Even though those in favour or accepting do seem to be only three or four out of the hundreds of posts.

thanks for the comments. As the main person putting in the section it is obviously hard to maintain a neutral point of view, but I have tried - and quite a few others have seen the article and Brendon is the first adverse comments I've seen. I'll see if I can reword the queen's speech reference it shouldn't imply a causal connection but as the effective curtailment of user initiated discussion will hit on the very day when many people will be going to the page to discuss the topics of the next session - it really needs to be mentioned! --Mike 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited "much to everyone's surprise" because it was only the users who were surprised which was a good point. I've modified reference to queen's speech to make it clear that the timing takes effect on one of the key dates on the UK political calenda. I'm happy with "effectively censor" as this appears to be the view of the vast majority of users. If anything I have perhaps given too much prominence to those in favour as there was a comment on the page that only 2 or even 1 person using the boards were in favour. I'm a little worried about leaving in a point of view that so few people support, but I think even if it is a very minor view, it probably needs to be mentioned. Having covered all the POV issue, unless anyone disagrees I'll remove the POV notice! --Mike 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference here is the first message on the subject[1]here is a pro-labour comment on the boards: [2] here a pro-tory (I think) [3] a request for a Host to reply [4] one entitled BBC lies [5]

The re-wording is much improved. Any implied link with the date of the Queen's speech is speculation, and message boards aren't really a particularly good source in terms of 'verifiable' information. But the re-wording is much better and draws attention to the date, rather than directly implying the events are linked. Thanks Mike.

--Brendan D 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Brendan. On reflection, it may be that the programme runs its internal admin-schedule in line with the Queen's speach. Whatever the reason, I'm glad it prompted me to look a bit into it, because as of 23rd Nov, they are pulling all the raw material - so it is useful to have had it reviewed whilst the information is still available. --Mike 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Alternative Newsboards 2 Big 8.10 Interview 3 Date discrepancy 4 Jack de Manio

[edit] Alternative Newsboards

I was a bit digusted that someone had removed the information on the alternative newsboards under the pretence of "advertising", afterall what is the article about the today programme but advertising? Moreover, having seen the number of posts on at least one of the alternative boards I did half wonder whether it might deserve an entry on its own. To only mention the BBC boards without giving at least a link to the alternative boards would be biased and misleading, particularly as there is a chance that the alternative boards may be more successful than the BBC's own in house board.

So, I've reistated the information about the alternative boards, I've corrected one link, and I believe there is at least one other board that was set up which I don't have a link.

If anything it is possible the prominence given to the BBC's own inhouse board may prove to be excessive as the new format is not proving popular and the alternative boards appear to have seen a marked increase in posts. --Mike 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rough check and I estimate about 2000 separate threads on the JamesStGeorge board on their main topic (in the same period nov05-nov06) which would put this single forum in the middle ranking of the five old BBC boards. This in itself is notable enough to warrant inclusion. The other boards I've included because they have been part of discussions I've read about alternatives to the BBC. --Mike 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The board itself has less than 200 members. Considering this is a long-running early morning news that has been around for almost 50 years, a forum with only 157 members is pretty small. Also, quoting random users in a discussion thread contradicts our reliable sources guidelines. Respectfully, who is i.moore, lucíllã døry or (darryl) to be included in a Wikipedia article? Also, are there any reliable source claiming the users left for alternative forums? If not, that last section can be considered original research, or even advertisement. -- ReyBrujo 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big 8.10 Interview

Hello, I'm new to this. I love Wikipedia, but I have not tried to contribute yet. I'd like to suggest that this article should have a reference added to 'The Ten-Past Eight', the political interviews that usually take place at that time and which have evolved quite a political significance. I was prompted to sugest this by last week's with Mr Blair. KitEwing 10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What type of reference - do you have suggestions? 213.249.162.132 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date discrepancy

"Today was launched on the BBC's Home Service on October 28, 1957..." But the first presenter (Alan Skempton) is given dates of 1956-1958. JH (talk page) 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Modified Alan Skempton's dates of presentation according to your information Dsmith1usa 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack de Manio

I decided that it was high time that Jack de Manio had an article, so I've created one. It's only a stub, and additions would be welcome. JH (talk page) 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)