To be fair, you get the same problems when you listen to radio commentaries of other games. My view is a simple one - the commentator should describe what he sees to his best abilities without opinion. The co commentator should come in with an opinion only when there is a break in play - could be prompted by the commentator saying your views X. There should definitely be no ongoing conversation between the two. You can do this on TV as people can see what is going on but the radio/palyer listener is blind without the commentary.
Thanks for a very interesting post. It looks like you might be the best way to pass on some feedback. So here is mine:
Re Jamie Reed, I think he is fine, when he is commenting on what is happening on the pitch, but the extra chit-chat goes on when the ball's in play. At least one game recently a goal completely caught him out. If he and Pete had the chitchat while the ball was out of play (and he has told us its out of play) I'm sure that would be enough for most people.
Re the Player TV highlights, my comment is pretty similar. Last night I caught up with the last four games (the 5-6 min highlights). In each case the commentator wants to give us extra information while the ball is in play, such as "Charlton of course were Div 1 Champions last season" just as a Charlton player is about to shoot. Now, I think every single viewer knows that Charlton were League 1 champions, however I wanted to know, and still don't know, who that Charlton player was who lined up that shot. It's like that all the time. It's clearly overlaid. So I just think the commentator should concentrate on who is on the ball - something which isn't always easy to see on Player, despite the alleged "HD" quality. And my personal choice would be for a narrative report style, rather than a 'pretend live' style.
Pretty simple for me just describe the chuffin' action, if he wants to be a character get him to register on Charlton Life & share his amusing anecdotes & banter with us here - he could even have his own thread "Jamie's Japes" or "Reed All About It".....
I would be very interested to know how many of you have run your complaints through to the BBC. As for who to direct it to, a very quick google search will tell you that the director of Sport is Barbara Slater, Mark Coyle is BBC London online editor and David Robey is Managing Editor (BBC London boss). As for Emma, we hardly got rid of her, she got promoted and we got relegated!
There is not a battle here, although there is a sense some people feel they are being attacked. The issue is so simple it's untrue. Fans listening want to be told what is happening, and chit chat confined to moments when there is clearly no action, that is what they are complaining about. Issues about funding, volunteering, who is doing what are all secondary to that fundamental.
This. Very simple, very basic. Please just tell us what is happening on the pitch. I still don't know what happened with Johnny Jackson's free kick! I know we were awarded one, I know Jackson was going to take it, but then nothing but chit chat on another subject until we were suddenly defending an opposition corner! That's just not good enough. I don't want to criticise the Charlton Live team, I've been a listener going right back to the Clive R days and then Suthers, I just want to know whats happening in the game, that's all.
What exactly is very harsh Mortimerician? It's very simple for me, I am paying for a service which is not being delivered. I'm not really interested in who does what to be honest, that may seem reprehensible to you but all I want is to be told by the commentators what is happening on the football pitch.
Ok, take the point, but feed back to the BBC or to Player as opposed to the folk who are doing their best to provide a service. The ultimate sanction, I guess is to cancel the subscription...
As you obviously can't see the match, you need to commentator to put the picture in your head as to what is going on. Some are better at this than others. This isn't easy and sometimes they can be describing an attack for instance without you getting a sense of which team is attacking. I think, when there are breaks in the play - that is the point when the co-commentator should be brought in for his views. The listener should be told this so they appreciate they aren't missing anything. Conversations during play can be frustrating as it's a bit like somebody covering your eyes when you are at a match - very irritating. The commenators may see that not much is happening on the pitch but you at home think you might be missing something. Then when something develops, they break into the commentary and you don't have a sense what is going on...
...surely a radio commentary should paint pictures in the mind of the listener by saying what they (the commentator) can see happening. These descriptions should allow the listener to imagine how the game actually 'looks'. In the very old days the listener could even have drawing of the pitch with numbered grids for each area of the pitch hence 'back to square 1'. I am not saying that's the answer but describing where the ball is is a good starting point. As I said it's a tough job.
Really all I want as a listener is to know what is going on, on the pitch as it happens, and maybe some views about what is going on on the pitch to give me more information ,I am not interested in chit chat...
Excellent points from Muttley, BC, Shrew and others. For me the description should start before the game by telling us what the ground is like, who's attacking what end, what stand are the commentators sitting in (so we can visualise their viewpoint), what colours are the teams wearing and so on. Give us anything that will give us a few more clues as to what's going on. I've been in a position where I've listened to a whole match commentary and then learned, when watching the highlights later on, that the teams were wearing different colours to what I'd imagined. That should never happen. This basic information should be repeated at some point into the match as well as not everyone can tune in from the off.
Once the match has started we need to be told quite clearly who's on the attack, what player has possession, how the ball is moved about and so on. Give us formations, give us descriptions, give us a continual sense that what is happening on the pitch is as important to the commentator as it is to the listener. If, and only if, play has stopped is it acceptable to talk about anything other than the match and its immediate surroundings.
Jonathan Pearce when he commentated on Capital Gold back in the 90's was the greatest at painting mind pictures. I could actually play the game out in my head when he spoke.
I think the BBC is a bit of a red herring. They buy the broadcast rights. What they do with them is up to them. The club doesn't have to use the BBC commentary. It can arrange its own for Player without discarding the rights deal, because it is not a broadcast commentary. It chooses not to do so because it can utilise the BBC feed for nothing, but ultimately it has your money and if you are not satisfied it is the club that should be held to account.
I think the BBC is a bit of a red herring. They buy the broadcast rights. What they do with them is up to them. The club doesn't have to use the BBC commentary. It can arrange its own for Player without discarding the rights deal, because it is not a broadcast commentary. It chooses not to do so because it can utilise the BBC feed for nothing, but ultimately it has your money and if you are not satisfied it is the club that should be held to account.
Interesting, but I get the feeling the club in it's present state wouldn't give a flying "@#$ about any complaints....we're between a rock & a hard place, we (I'm talking about ex-Pats here I think) need the commentary, so doing the consumer rights thing & unsubscribing is shooting yourself in the foot (although for the sake of future mobility I might hire Mr. Hulse to do that bit for me).
In response to seth plum, I apologise but I am not aware whether the BBC pay extra revenue for the player service but I doubt it. The fee for all clubs I suspect is fixed and I would also imagine it is for each club to request permission to allow the radio commentary service to be channeled through player. Again I have no idea how much money is involved, but the BBC commentators and broadcasting equipment are supplied and paid for by the BBC. Should they also pay Peter, yes in my opinion, but my opinion means nothing to the BBC and I am sure the reaction would be, well if we are paying, we get to choose who the co-commentator is and we are back to square one. The subject of commentaries was a big issue not just on this forum a few seasons ago, even before the issue of Emma Jones. One of the many criticisms was the lack of CAFC bias, therefore the fact that there is now a Charlton supporter as part of the commentary team, addresses that issue. That is not just an opinion, it is fact and surely therefore is an improvement isn't it?
In effect we did more than just moan about the situation on a forum, we actively tried with our limited powers to bring about a change and we did. Of course I guess it is the nature of things that this change has in itself brought about moans on a forum!!
At the moment it is impossible for us to do more than this. The BBC have a contract and as such provide their employees to supply the commentary. The fact that we have, with the clubs assistance been able to have a co-comentator is I believe an achievement. If we were to stand aside then the BBC would simply replace us with A N Other, either from their own staff, or from either of the clubs on show. If there has been an occasion of only one commentator, it is probably because of a last minute withdrawal of whoever should have been there.
Regarding confusion of the autonomy of Charlton Live, I personally feel that there is enough statements by the club that the service is independent, but I take your point in that we do utilise club facilities in order to broadcast. We are none of us revolutionaries or investigative journalists, simply fans trying to provide our fellow fans a service. Would we bite the hand that feeds, possibly if we all felt strongly enough about an issue.
Yes I do feel privileged, because I know that many fans would love to be in the position I'm in and I can confirm that the club do really appreciate what we do, hence the open way we are allowed behind the scenes and to interview the players and management.
Finally as I said at the outset I don't believe that our voluntary position is an issue, we should do what we do as professionally as possible and continuously learn. Regrettably most of what is complained about is out of our control and with respect should be directed elsewhere. I think the feeling of being attacked has come from various attempts to explain the position and efforts of those at Charlton Live, without the feeling of it ever being understood.
Thanks for a very interesting post. It looks like you might be the best way to pass on some feedback. So here is mine:
Re Jamie Reed, I think he is fine, when he is commenting on what is happening on the pitch, but the extra chit-chat goes on when the ball's in play. At least one game recently a goal completely caught him out. If he and Pete had the chitchat while the ball was out of play (and he has told us its out of play) I'm sure that would be enough for most people.
Re the Player TV highlights, my comment is pretty similar. Last night I caught up with the last four games (the 5-6 min highlights). In each case the commentator wants to give us extra information while the ball is in play, such as "Charlton of course were Div 1 Champions last season" just as a Charlton player is about to shoot. Now, I think every single viewer knows that Charlton were League 1 champions, however I wanted to know, and still don't know, who that Charlton player was who lined up that shot. It's like that all the time. It's clearly overlaid. So I just think the commentator should concentrate on who is on the ball - something which isn't always easy to see on Player, despite the alleged "HD" quality. And my personal choice would be for a narrative report style, rather than a 'pretend live' style.
No problem and I will of course pass the feedback on Prague, but equally I cannot gaurantee any success.
Re the TV highlights, the ones you mention are filmed and commentary provided by FLI, so not down to me at all I'm afraid. Complaints would need to be directed via the club on this issue.
Regrettably most of what is complained about is out of our control and with respect should be directed elsewhere. I think the feeling of being attacked has come from various attempts to explain the position and efforts of those at Charlton Live, without the feeling of it ever being understood.
KB, many thanks for taking the effort to reply so thoroughly. I think, reading this thread, that many posters do have a decent understanding of what you have explained.
We are in the hands of the BBC on this. They will commentate how they like. We are now, in the shape of Peter Finch trying to have a Charlton perspective on things. This is a positive thing compared with a neutral co-commentator. There are etiquette issues regarding interrupting the BBC commentators. Peter Finch and the Charlton Live team are dyed in the wool Addicks, voluntarily trying to provide something special for the fans.
Maybe the above list isn't exhaustive, but I hope it indicates that I get the point somewhat. On the point of understanding each other, well when I wrote to Jamie Reed last year his reaction wasn't really one of 'understanding' listeners frustration but a feeling of 'disappointment' that the commentaries weren't universally liked. The Charlton Live team are close to the action when it comes to the commentaries, and, yes, I know that your advice is to take it to the suitable authority, but interacting with the BBC commentators regularly, couldn't the Charlton Live team influence the BBC commentators to try to improve?
Or perhaps no improvement is necessary?
What the general listener is asking for, judging by this thread, seems so obvious and simple that we shouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm there Seth, surely not! :-)
I will run with the notion that it isn't meant as such and just ask you a question, aside from the fact that we do actually all want the same thing.
If you ran a radio operation and of the thousands of listeners to a broadcast you received one negative feedback or even fifty, would this be sufficient to make you believe that a change of approach was needed?
If you were a professional in any field with years of experience having been through the appropriate training and who knows with degree level qualifications behind you. Would you take advice from anyone who only did the same profession as a part time volunteer?
When you answer those questions honestly, you might begin to understand our position.
KB. Apologies if I seem sarcastic, it isn't my intention at all. The prize I have my eyes on, is for the match audio commentaries to describe the action. I suspect many posters on here share that aspiration.
Do we all want the same thing? Well I will try to look at it through the opposite perspective: The match commentaries are fine and we should leave things be. That is not the feedback from posters on here, but as you say there may be thousands out there who listen to the player commentary, who don't contribute to Charlton Life, and who are perfectly content with what is provided. The few less happy listeners have all kind of pitched up here, in a small and unrepresentative group, but don't justify a change of approach. We should now draw a line under this, keep calm and carry on.
Hmmmn.
Back to my perspective, I shall probably continue to listen to player from the oppo commentary, and thereby not get the Charlton perspective, but in the hope of getting the action.
As for the professional pulling rank on the volunteer, well the dynamic is more complex, but the volunteer can still be assertive if they have been asked or invited to help the professional out.
If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing?
No apologies required, sarcasm, criticism, dislike and yes even compliments are all part of the colouful reactions we expect to receive.
Assertive volunteers, professionals bowing down to the will of the amateur, its a lovely utopian idea. My turn for a Hmmmn.
The tone of you post makes it clear to me now why we are having this discusion, in that you believe that we or maybe just I are simply subservient apologists with no interest in improving the service offered to Charlton fans. This despite evidence to the contrary.
That is a shame, a little sad and maybe a good reason for me to make no further comment on this subject.
In the meantime, we will try to continue to improve the service delivered to fans in our own small way while we will let those on here direct complaints to forums or even where they are supposed to go. I wonder who will have the most success?
feed back to the BBC or to Player as opposed to the folk who are doing their best to provide a service. The ultimate sanction, I guess is to cancel the subscription...
Given that most overseas addicks rely on the service, option 1 sounds a much better choice
Sooooooooo
Anyone wanna talk about how we are gonna do that?
Or we gonna continue sidetracking and achieve nothing?
a) Jamie Reed does not do all of the commentaries b) people are still complaining about his commentary (poor guy) c) it sounds liek we coudl use a more systematic form of feedback about commentaries than a single email sent by a single subscriber to a single commentator
This has become like the Monty Python dirty knife sketch! How it developed into such a broad debate involving so many irrelevant issues is incredible. So, a simple request to whoever happens to be commentating, please spend more time describing the action and less time with the "smashy & nicey" chitter chatter. Thank you. Oh yes please could you also tell us which way we are kicking, it's very important to many and will take about 3 seconds of your time!
I personally think the service is ok and doesn't need too much fixing. Yes, cut out the irrelevant chatter while there's action going on. Also, give background info like which way we're kicking. But, all in all, a good service and I don't think PeteF or KillersB deserve any flak. Certainly better than we've had before. Yes, the commentary could be better (the same is very true for the matchday video commentaries on Player) but would I spend too much time campaigning to make it better? Probably not, but then, that's just me.
I personally think the service is ok and doesn't need too much fixing. Yes, cut out the irrelevant chatter while there's action going on. Also, give background info like which way we're kicking. But, all in all, a good service and I don't think PeteF or KillersB deserve any flak. Certainly better than we've had before. Yes, the commentary could be better (the same is very true for the matchday video commentaries on Player) but would I spend too much time campaigning to make it better? Probably not, but then, that's just me.
Have to say that I agree with this comment totally.
I am not sure what Charlton Live has to do with any of this, its specifically the commentary on the games - hopefully the message on here from pretty much every poster & on every flippin' match thread of just sticking wherever possible to describing the match will get through via KillersB or PeteF - I won't be emailing George Entwhistle about it, I think he's got enough on his plate at the moment....
I personally think the service is ok and doesn't need too much fixing. Yes, cut out the irrelevant chatter while there's action going on. Also, give background info like which way we're kicking. But, all in all, a good service and I don't think PeteF or KillersB deserve any flak. Certainly better than we've had before. Yes, the commentary could be better (the same is very true for the matchday video commentaries on Player) but would I spend too much time campaigning to make it better? Probably not, but then, that's just me.
Me either. I am rarely ever bothered by the commentary myself, and even quite enjoy the "colourful" parts (techinical issues would be my main complaint).
But am happy to help those who consistently take issue with the commentators establish a means by which they can provide feedback on it...rather than just complain rather pointlessly on here.
Siv, as I mentioned above I have emailed Jamie Reed of the BBC last season, so that was a start.
Sorry Seth you're saying that ONCE you emailed a guy from the BBC? Wow I can see why you have replied mutliply times on here as your complaints have not been properly dealt with.
You ask questions such as "If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
The answer is quite obviously - We don't know, why don't you ring the BBC employee and ask them? You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. If you truely were concerned about this issue you would devote that time to contacting the BBC. And I don't mean devoting time to once contacting one person. I mean complaining to the indivudal, to their boss, to all who are connected and even the BBC Trust as dealing with compalints against the BBC is what they are there for.
I for one don't want to read another post from you on this issue until you can demonstrate that you actually care enough about this issue to do something constructive about it.
Siv, as I mentioned above I have emailed Jamie Reed of the BBC last season, so that was a start.
Sorry Seth you're saying that ONCE you emailed a guy from the BBC? Wow I can see why you have replied mutliply times on here as your complaints have not been properly dealt with.
You ask questions such as "If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
The answer is quite obviously - We don't know, why don't you ring the BBC employee and ask them? You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. If you truely were concerned about this issue you would devote that time to contacting the BBC. And I don't mean devoting time to once contacting one person. I mean complaining to the indivudal, to their boss, to all who are connected and even the BBC Trust as dealing with compalints against the BBC is what they are there for.
I for one don't want to read another post from you on this issue until you can demonstrate that you actually care enough about this issue to do something constructive about it.
Well DRF, I for one am grateful to Seth for raising this issue since it bugs me every Saturday , and I think if you have read this thread properly you'd see that it is by no means clear that complaining to the BBC is the right way to address the issue; and that even if it was, the BBC is a large organisation and its not clear to whom a targetted complaint should be sent. Perhaps you could help us in this respect?
Maybe the solution is rather than complaining on high - the people the complaints are addressed to consider whether they are valid and if they think they could be, they possibly change the way they commentate slightly. I hope my posts on the subject were more constructive than critical. I think Jaimie Reed describes the action well enough, just that there is sometimes a lack of awareness (not just from him and Pete - it is a wider issue) that we can't see what is happening. If we know play is going on, it is frustrating to hear chit chat. If we know play has ceased for whatever reason - chit chat is welcome.
Complaints about breaking off to other games - well that is unavoidable if the commentary is also going out on radio so we also have to be realistc. Maybe, there is a middle ground - which is usually the case in matters like this.
Yes Muttley that is a fair summary. And the fact is other commenting duos we get, are better, in the way you describe. Surely it is not unreasonable to want to give whoever is in control of the commentators, this feedback.
Siv, as I mentioned above I have emailed Jamie Reed of the BBC last season, so that was a start.
Sorry Seth you're saying that ONCE you emailed a guy from the BBC? Wow I can see why you have replied mutliply times on here as your complaints have not been properly dealt with.
You ask questions such as "If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
The answer is quite obviously - We don't know, why don't you ring the BBC employee and ask them? You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. If you truely were concerned about this issue you would devote that time to contacting the BBC. And I don't mean devoting time to once contacting one person. I mean complaining to the indivudal, to their boss, to all who are connected and even the BBC Trust as dealing with compalints against the BBC is what they are there for.
I for one don't want to read another post from you on this issue until you can demonstrate that you actually care enough about this issue to do something constructive about it.
DRF you'd better not read this.
Chronologically:
I used to rely on the Charlton commentary from player but got frustrated not hearing the action. Like remember Emma?
I then mainly listened to the other teams commentary, but sometimes it either wasn't available, or just as bad as ours for not describing the action.
As a result I also heard Jamie Reed and others.
Jamie Reed was a guest on Charlton Live, I emailed (in my book that was doing something constructive, in your book not constructive enough because I didn't do it often enough, or spread it to a wider group of BBC people!), and there followed an email exchange between us.
Jamie Reed indicated to me that there was no need to change the approach, it would continue with 'colour' and 'character'.
In the light of that I gave up and stayed with the away commentary.
I use my best efforts with that service to contribute to the match threads when I am not at games.
Whilst doing said updates I frequently read others frustration about the service, hence my contribution to this thread which you call moaning and complaining.
If you read the current thread I have consistently argued for description of the action, but have always been mindful whilst putting that side of things that Charlton Live favourite Jamie Reed has already (last season) told me that his approach is what he will continue with.
You quote my paragraph that ends with a question:
'If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
And your answer is that you (actually you invoke the magic 'we') 'don't know'.
Many posters on this thread have decided that they do know, and that they want the action described. In the light of my previous exchanges I feel no inclination to search out and ring the BBC employee.
You also say: 'You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. ' I am sorry but you are mistaken in guessing my motivation, all the evidence here points to my desire to 'moan and complain' (as you put it) as not to glory in the space afforded here, but to try to support the case expressed by others for a better service.
What is evident here is that those linked to Charlton Live (are you one DRF?), and by association linked to the commentary, feel unjustly attacked in some way, and are interpreting this thread as such.
I said earlier I suspect the Charlton Live people would circle the wagons, and I reckon they have.
I have followed this thread because I know both Pete, Terry and other people who are involved with Charlton Live. They can put their case without any help from me, but I genuinely don't see that they are "circling the wagons" here. From what I know of them they will take on board what has been said on this thread, but also within the context that this thread may only be a snapshot of opinion, not all of which has been unhappy with the commentary. They have come on the thread to explain their position and the difficulties quite openly and fully. I don't think this should be turned into a them and us, they are supporters like us but also doing their bit to provide a service for our benefit too. I shall now disappear beneath the waves again with barely a ripple.....;-)
Comments
As for Emma, we hardly got rid of her, she got promoted and we got relegated!
That's just not good enough. I don't want to criticise the Charlton Live team, I've been a listener going right back to the Clive R days and then Suthers, I just want to know whats happening in the game, that's all.
Once the match has started we need to be told quite clearly who's on the attack, what player has possession, how the ball is moved about and so on. Give us formations, give us descriptions, give us a continual sense that what is happening on the pitch is as important to the commentator as it is to the listener. If, and only if, play has stopped is it acceptable to talk about anything other than the match and its immediate surroundings.
The subject of commentaries was a big issue not just on this forum a few seasons ago, even before the issue of Emma Jones. One of the many criticisms was the lack of CAFC bias, therefore the fact that there is now a Charlton supporter as part of the commentary team, addresses that issue. That is not just an opinion, it is fact and surely therefore is an improvement isn't it?
In effect we did more than just moan about the situation on a forum, we actively tried with our limited powers to bring about a change and we did. Of course I guess it is the nature of things that this change has in itself brought about moans on a forum!!
At the moment it is impossible for us to do more than this. The BBC have a contract and as such provide their employees to supply the commentary. The fact that we have, with the clubs assistance been able to have a co-comentator is I believe an achievement. If we were to stand aside then the BBC would simply replace us with A N Other, either from their own staff, or from either of the clubs on show. If there has been an occasion of only one commentator, it is probably because of a last minute withdrawal of whoever should have been there.
Regarding confusion of the autonomy of Charlton Live, I personally feel that there is enough statements by the club that the service is independent, but I take your point in that we do utilise club facilities in order to broadcast. We are none of us revolutionaries or investigative journalists, simply fans trying to provide our fellow fans a service. Would we bite the hand that feeds, possibly if we all felt strongly enough about an issue.
Yes I do feel privileged, because I know that many fans would love to be in the position I'm in and I can confirm that the club do really appreciate what we do, hence the open way we are allowed behind the scenes and to interview the players and management.
Finally as I said at the outset I don't believe that our voluntary position is an issue, we should do what we do as professionally as possible and continuously learn. Regrettably most of what is complained about is out of our control and with respect should be directed elsewhere. I think the feeling of being attacked has come from various attempts to explain the position and efforts of those at Charlton Live, without the feeling of it ever being understood.
Re the TV highlights, the ones you mention are filmed and commentary provided by FLI, so not down to me at all I'm afraid. Complaints would need to be directed via the club on this issue.
We are in the hands of the BBC on this.
They will commentate how they like.
We are now, in the shape of Peter Finch trying to have a Charlton perspective on things. This is a positive thing compared with a neutral co-commentator.
There are etiquette issues regarding interrupting the BBC commentators.
Peter Finch and the Charlton Live team are dyed in the wool Addicks, voluntarily trying to provide something special for the fans.
Maybe the above list isn't exhaustive, but I hope it indicates that I get the point somewhat. On the point of understanding each other, well when I wrote to Jamie Reed last year his reaction wasn't really one of 'understanding' listeners frustration but a feeling of 'disappointment' that the commentaries weren't universally liked.
The Charlton Live team are close to the action when it comes to the commentaries, and, yes, I know that your advice is to take it to the suitable authority, but interacting with the BBC commentators regularly, couldn't the Charlton Live team influence the BBC commentators to try to improve?
Or perhaps no improvement is necessary?
What the general listener is asking for, judging by this thread, seems so obvious and simple that we shouldn't be having this conversation at all.
I will run with the notion that it isn't meant as such and just ask you a question, aside from the fact that we do actually all want the same thing.
If you ran a radio operation and of the thousands of listeners to a broadcast you received one negative feedback or even fifty, would this be sufficient to make you believe that a change of approach was needed?
If you were a professional in any field with years of experience having been through the appropriate training and who knows with degree level qualifications behind you. Would you take advice from anyone who only did the same profession as a part time volunteer?
When you answer those questions honestly, you might begin to understand our position.
Do we all want the same thing? Well I will try to look at it through the opposite perspective:
The match commentaries are fine and we should leave things be. That is not the feedback from posters on here, but as you say there may be thousands out there who listen to the player commentary, who don't contribute to Charlton Life, and who are perfectly content with what is provided. The few less happy listeners have all kind of pitched up here, in a small and unrepresentative group, but don't justify a change of approach. We should now draw a line under this, keep calm and carry on.
Hmmmn.
Back to my perspective, I shall probably continue to listen to player from the oppo commentary, and thereby not get the Charlton perspective, but in the hope of getting the action.
As for the professional pulling rank on the volunteer, well the dynamic is more complex, but the volunteer can still be assertive if they have been asked or invited to help the professional out.
If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing?
Assertive volunteers, professionals bowing down to the will of the amateur, its a lovely utopian idea. My turn for a Hmmmn.
The tone of you post makes it clear to me now why we are having this discusion, in that you believe that we or maybe just I are simply subservient apologists with no interest in improving the service offered to Charlton fans. This despite evidence to the contrary.
That is a shame, a little sad and maybe a good reason for me to make no further comment on this subject.
In the meantime, we will try to continue to improve the service delivered to fans in our own small way while we will let those on here direct complaints to forums or even where they are supposed to go. I wonder who will have the most success?
You are right! Completely different issue< What a good idea! It could even be done on a regular sustained manner
Given that most overseas addicks rely on the service, option 1 sounds a much better choice
Sooooooooo
Anyone wanna talk about how we are gonna do that?
Or we gonna continue sidetracking and achieve nothing?
buuuuuut...
a) Jamie Reed does not do all of the commentaries
b) people are still complaining about his commentary (poor guy)
c) it sounds liek we coudl use a more systematic form of feedback about commentaries than a single email sent by a single subscriber to a single commentator
So, a simple request to whoever happens to be commentating, please spend more time describing the action and less time with the "smashy & nicey" chitter chatter.
Thank you.
Oh yes please could you also tell us which way we are kicking, it's very important to many and will take about 3 seconds of your time!
But am happy to help those who consistently take issue with the commentators establish a means by which they can provide feedback on it...rather than just complain rather pointlessly on here.
You ask questions such as "If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
The answer is quite obviously - We don't know, why don't you ring the BBC employee and ask them?
You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. If you truely were concerned about this issue you would devote that time to contacting the BBC. And I don't mean devoting time to once contacting one person. I mean complaining to the indivudal, to their boss, to all who are connected and even the BBC Trust as dealing with compalints against the BBC is what they are there for.
I for one don't want to read another post from you on this issue until you can demonstrate that you actually care enough about this issue to do something constructive about it.
Complaints about breaking off to other games - well that is unavoidable if the commentary is also going out on radio so we also have to be realistc. Maybe, there is a middle ground - which is usually the case in matters like this.
And the fact is other commenting duos we get, are better, in the way you describe. Surely it is not unreasonable to want to give whoever is in control of the commentators, this feedback.
Chronologically:
I used to rely on the Charlton commentary from player but got frustrated not hearing the action. Like remember Emma?
I then mainly listened to the other teams commentary, but sometimes it either wasn't available, or just as bad as ours for not describing the action.
As a result I also heard Jamie Reed and others.
Jamie Reed was a guest on Charlton Live, I emailed (in my book that was doing something constructive, in your book not constructive enough because I didn't do it often enough, or spread it to a wider group of BBC people!), and there followed an email exchange between us.
Jamie Reed indicated to me that there was no need to change the approach, it would continue with 'colour' and 'character'.
In the light of that I gave up and stayed with the away commentary.
I use my best efforts with that service to contribute to the match threads when I am not at games.
Whilst doing said updates I frequently read others frustration about the service, hence my contribution to this thread which you call moaning and complaining.
If you read the current thread I have consistently argued for description of the action, but have always been mindful whilst putting that side of things that Charlton Live favourite Jamie Reed has already (last season) told me that his approach is what he will continue with.
You quote my paragraph that ends with a question:
'If the professional, with all the qualifications and experience they have, working for the BBC, is convinced that they don't need to describe the action to the listener, and nobody should gainsay them because they know best, then the listener misses out on following the action. Is that a good thing? "
And your answer is that you (actually you invoke the magic 'we') 'don't know'.
Many posters on this thread have decided that they do know, and that they want the action described.
In the light of my previous exchanges I feel no inclination to search out and ring the BBC employee.
You also say: 'You want to moan and complain on here because your complaints are given space. ' I am sorry but you are mistaken in guessing my motivation, all the evidence here points to my desire to 'moan and complain' (as you put it) as not to glory in the space afforded here, but to try to support the case expressed by others for a better service.
What is evident here is that those linked to Charlton Live (are you one DRF?), and by association linked to the commentary, feel unjustly attacked in some way, and are interpreting this thread as such.
I said earlier I suspect the Charlton Live people would circle the wagons, and I reckon they have.
Commentary on the match.
They can put their case without any help from me, but I genuinely don't see that they are "circling the wagons" here.
From what I know of them they will take on board what has been said on this thread, but also within the context that this thread may only be a snapshot of opinion, not all of which has been unhappy with the commentary.
They have come on the thread to explain their position and the difficulties quite openly and fully. I don't think this should be turned into a them and us, they are supporters like us but also doing their bit to provide a service for our benefit too.
I shall now disappear beneath the waves again with barely a ripple.....;-)