1. Harangue BBC Trust 2. Copy & Paste

The BBC has confirmed it is closing BBC Radio 6(Music), something that I am justifiably unhappy about. There is a questionnaire going on, where the BBC Trust will survey the public, before accepting or rejecting the Director-General Mark Thompson's proposals. The following was my response, copied-and-pasted from the site while I was filling it in. It's a few pages long, but I wholly recommend you go fill in your own response to it.

The BBC's strategic principles

The Director-General has proposed five high level principles which would set the future direction of the BBC. These are:

• putting quality first, including five areas of editorial focus for all BBC services
• doing fewer things better – including stopping activities in some areas
• guaranteeing access for all licence fee payers to BBC services
• making the licence fee work harder – being efficient and offering better value for money
• setting new boundaries

The Trust agrees that the BBC should have a set of published principles and, when these are agreed, we will ensure that the BBC is held to account for acheiving them.

Some of the proposed principles are in response to challenges the Trust has set the BBC – such as focussing on high quality programmes and considering whether the current range of services is too large. We endorse these five principles, although we have not agreed to specific proposals in each area.

1. I think aiming for quality first is aspirational, but "quality first" is a VAST misnomer when the only music radio station I listen to is being closed in order to channel funding to more news coverage. I like the news. I liked it more when I didn't have it at all times of the day, repeated frequently for the idiots who hit the wrong button while they looked for Sky News. 6 Music is the only radio station interested in new music as new music, and it happens to play quality older music too. The commercial sector offers no competition for this because it is impossible for a corporate, commercial business to serve a customer instead of a shareholder. The BBC is proposing SACRIFICING quality to be politically expedient.

2. "Doing fewer things better" is an oxymoron. The BBC does some things much better than anyone else from around the world. If that's true, am I to expect that the BBC will go back to making saturday night shows that compete better and therefore draw more fire from commercial rivals for hurting them? 6Music is one of the things you were doing better than anyone else, and it was because everyone else is incapable of doing it, because they CAN'T, as they are commercial providers with completely different interests to the BBC, normally only stretching as far as a good share of the audience and something that will shut the shareholders up and stabilise the share price.

3. I wanted 6 Music to be a broadcast station from the moment it began broadcasting. But if you're saying that it should be dropped because not all BBC customers can access it, how long will those BBC customers access it anyway, bearing in mind the analogue signal will be turned off soon after 2015?

4. Really? Then why does Radio 3 still exist?

5. Great. "We're re-drawing the territorial border, and leaving you on the outside". These changes would make the BBC LESS useful to me. It would become something I would be LESS interested in paying attention to. I'm already full up on sport, and I'm tired of the news being such a constant presence in my life(I only really use the BBC for my news!), I have no interest in the children's programming, nor the "family" programming. The "fewer things better" mantra only works, if the stuff you weren't focusing on.....is what people WANT.

BBC 6 Music is the radio station that was created because both 1 & 2 forgot their places in the world. Radio One and Radio Two are EXACTLY like their commercial counterparts. WHICH IS WHY I LISTEN TO RADIO 6 MUSIC. If this is a pre-amble to either Radio 1 or 2 becoming more like they were meant to be - i.e. much more like Radio 6 Music, then you've proposed destroying a national treasure, one of the best radio stations from around the world(And I've experienced a lot of radio while travelling), in order to patch something that was broken in the interest of something that was foolhardy at the time.

"doing fewer things better".

Should the BBC have any other strategic principles?

Most of the complaints levvied at the BBC by conservatively-minded individuals and supposed business rivals - who are only rivals because they appear on the same chart as the BBC when it comes to ratings - are a sham. Anything that the BBC does, is always done in a way that only a publicly-owned entity can, and that is also a way that can NEVER be done by a commercial enterprise. There are NO overlaps between 6 Music and commercial stations. Do you know why? Because there are no commercial radio stations that run without commercials or adverts for sponsors, or ones that play a track "Because I heard it and I wanted to play it to you".

The BBC should never be in direct competition with commercial providers. But when commercial providers complain - often via their own media outlets - that they are suffering, it is because of their own inability to do well. It is not because the BBC has tied their shoe-laces together.

Proposed principle: Putting Quality First

We know that you have very high expectations of BBC programmes and services. We also know that most BBC programmes and services meet audience expectations, but that some do not. The Trust will always push the BBC to do better in this respect and we're keen to know what you think.

Which BBC output do you think could be higher quality?

The primetime and late-night television output of the BBC is desolate. Not because there's not enough money being poured into it, but because the content there was made with the aim in mind of "what will beat what ITV have tonight?". I don't CARE what ITV are doing. In all honesty, I have not watched ITV for almost a decade, and have no interest in going back. Over that same period, I've noticed more and more of the BBC late-night output become sanitised, insipid and terrified for it's life, in response to the complaints of irresponsible parents and news organisations that make their living from making you scared that someone is hurting you while you're looking in the other direction.

Long story short, beyond Mad Men, Charlie Brooker and several panel shows, how many night-time shows on any BBC channels do you think I watch?

Offering you something special

The Trust believes that the BBC needs to do more than offer high quality programmes and services.

We know that your expectations of the BBC are that it offers something special to you – something distinctive and better than other broadcasters. For example, the BBC should offer you thoroughly independent and impartial news, it should introduce you to new talent in drama and comedy, and its radio stations should play pop music that other radio stations don’t.

The Trust knows that you think the BBC could do more to be original and different in some areas.

Which areas should the BBC make more distinctive from other broadcasters and media?

The BBC IS distinctive from "other broadcasters and media". When it comes to the output I'm interested enough in for me to watch or listen, the BBC produces more shows on television, more radio shows and more content online than anyone else. BECAUSE it is ALREADY distinctive. The lack of a craven, desperate need to hunt money like some kind of genetically manipulated hound. Instead it is free to get things done by exploring the ideas and themes it needs to, to educate and entertain me.

The Five Editorial Priorities

The Director-General has proposed that all BBC services should be focussed on some or all of five editorial priorities.

The Director-General's proposed editorial priorities are:

• The best journalism in the world
• Inspiring knowledge, music and culture
• Ambitious UK drama and comedy
• Outstanding children’s content
• Events that bring communities and the nation together

The Trust thinks that the proposed editorial priorities fit well with those things you have told us are important to you in our previous research, but we want to consider how these priorities should be delivered to you in the future.

Do these priorities fit with your expectations of BBC TV, radio and online services?

They do. They also do not fit with the image of a BBC that cancels Radio 6 Music as a cost-cutting exercise.

"Inspiring knowledge, music and culture. But only if it gets more than a million listeners"

Proposed principle: Doing fewer things and doing them better

The Trust believes that BBC must offer the highest quality programming. We have previously told the Director-General that we think that the pursuit of higher quality may mean doing less overall.

The Director-General has proposed a number of areas where the BBC could reduce or stop activities altogether. The suggestions are to:

• Close Radio 6 Music and focusing the BBC’s pop music output on Radio 1 and Radio 2
• Close Asian Network as a national service and aiming to serve Asian audiences better in other ways on other BBC services
• Change BBC local radio stations, by investing more in breakfast, morning and drivetime shows, but share content across local stations at other times of the day
• Close the BBC’s teen zone, BBC Switch
• Close the teenage learning offer Blast!
• Make the BBC’s website smaller, with fewer sections. (We do not yet have the details of what will be cut)

We can assure you that decisions have not yet been taken on any of these areas and that we will consider each area very carefully before doing so.

We welcome your views on these areas.

The idea of closing one good radio station in order to patch two other stations, which I not only don't listen to, but recoil whenever I have to listen to them, is utterly foolhardy.

Radio 1 and Radio 2 as they stand will be poor replacements for 6 music because 1 and 2 are insipid. They follow ratings and the approval of their chosen demographic as though they a leash round their neck. The ridiculous events of the Radio 1 breakfast show over the last twenty years have been evidence of that.

The BBC website, I have little use of, beyond the iPlayer, tv or radio listings and the vast use I have for the News site. Everything else on your list of things to not do I am unfamiliar with.

Proposed principle: Guaranteeing access to BBC services

The growth of digital technologies and platforms has led to greater choice and convenience for many people in terms of how they receive and consume TV and radio programmes.

Many of the BBC’s TV, radio and online services are now delivered to you in several ways. For example, many BBC radio services are available on AM, FM and DAB radio, digital television and online devices. However, the Trust recognises that some BBC services are still unavailable on the main platforms, such as FM or DAB, in parts of the UK.

The Trust believes that there is a fine balance to be struck here – between giving you the chance to receive BBC services in all the ways and devices you may have and making sure that the BBC doesn’t spend too much on delivering BBC content to you, rather than on the content itself.

If you have particular views on how you expect BBC services to be available to you, please let us know.

I have been a fan of BBC 3 & 4 since they launched, aswell as Radio 5 Live and 6 Music. As far as I am concerned they should all be available as freely as possible, meaning the radio stations should be on FM. The AM signal for 5Live is pathetic, the DAB-only status of a wonderful music station is a massive hindrance. BBC 3 and 4....well, the analogue tv signal will be turned off soon, so other than that, there seems to be no way to affect how many people see it.

Quite frankly, the future should be wireless access to a digital BBC archive, where files can be retrieved from the archive and transmitted to a hand-held device. Which makes my other points a bit moot.

The BBC archive

The BBC is always considering ways in which it can make its programmes available to you at no cost. For example, recent TV and radio programmes are already available to you soon after broadcast on the BBC iPlayer.

The Trust is not considering specific proposals from the Director-General in this area at this point, but welcome any views you may have on having access to recently broadcast and to older BBC programming.

Please tell us if you have views on this area.

Access to the entire BBC archive, in a digital format, should be available to all licence-payers. It was all made on the back of money we have all paid. If it still remains in the archive, there's a reason for that - you can't figure out a way to make money from it.

Proposed principle: Making the licence fee work harder

One of the Trust’s priorities is to ensure that the BBC offers excellent value for money, by being efficient and by making effective use of its income. We think that it is right that you expect this of the BBC.

The Trust welcomes the Director-General’s proposals to ensure that the BBC offers value for money and, specifically, we support the aim to maximise the proportion of the licence fee that is spent on programming. However, we know that there will be more do to, in order to achieve this.

If you are concerned about the BBC’s value for money, please tell us why.

I don't see "Larkrise for Candleford" as anything but a massive, massive hole to pour money into, while old women dressed in period costume applaud.

Proposed principle: Setting new boundaries for the BBC

The Trust has asked the Director-General to consider where the BBC could be clearer about the limits to its activities as we know there is considerable demand for this from other broadcasters and media companies and the BBC has a responsibility to consider its competitive impact on others.

The Director-General has set out a list of proposed limits to BBC activity. These are:

• Reducing the BBC offer in pop music radio by closing 6 Music
• Closing niche services for teenagers: BBC Switch and Blast!
• Reducing BBC expenditure on programmes bought from abroad - for example, American films and dramas
• Limiting BBC expenditure on sports rights
• Not offering any more localised services than the BBC already does – for example, new services for individual towns or cities
• Making the BBC website more focussed on particular areas.

The Trust has carried out work in some of these areas already and we support some aspects to these limits: making the BBC’s website focussed and distinctive and setting limits to the BBC's local media offer.

In many other areas, we recognise there are trade-offs. For example, buying a US drama can mean that viewers are offered a high quality programme at lower cost than would be possible with a new British programme.

The Trust has not taken decisions in any of these areas and we will consider each one very carefully before doing so.

Do you think that the BBC should limit its activities in these areas?

1. No, because this kind of station has no impact on commercial rivals, because commercial companies are completely incapable of producing this kind of station. And if commercial rivals cannot do something, that is no reason for the BBC to be hobbled in the same way.

2. I have no opinion. Never used them.

3. In specific examples, I applaud importing films and dramas. I loved 24 for as long as the BBC had it(I'm not kidding, I've not watched it since), I love watching Mad Men, and there are many other examples of more of the same. But it is important to buy something when it is the best, or better than what the BBC can make. If the BBC can make something better, then don't buy the American product as a filler. And I've known ALL broadcasters to resort to that over my time.

4. I don't think I have a problem with things as they are. If nothing else, the BBC is spending less on sports coverage anyway, after losing several packages of football lately, and if I remember correctly, the BBC has no Olympics to show from London.

5. Britain is a small country. If people want more focus on their town or city, they can read the local paper, or talk to the locals.

6. I don't know what that means. I like the BBC website, but I'm unaware of what might be stripped out of it, as per your question.

Should any other areas be on this list?

The BBC should be listening LESS to the Daily Mail, an old-world newspaper with dwindling numbers and a readership who will only be happy when the world stops scaring them.

iPad....FIGHT!!!

So the twitterverse and the multiblog has been set alight this week, over one of the most dull stories that people could get excited about, a conversation of such importance, that when the history books are written about the early part of the 21st Century, it will be perhaps only second in how fundamental it seemed to our lives in terms of worldwide discourse. After Lady Gaga - Him or Her?

The iPad.

Almost a week ago, a man in a sweater and glasses sat down to show us his company's latest invention. That he sat down at all was noteworthy - several blogs who were covering the story live made a MASSIVE deal over the fact that this announcement was being made with a CHAIR on stage - such is the way we have absorbed the symbols and meanings of press announcements, but it was in fact the product which generated more heat than any of his company's earlier products. Seriously, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and I can feel the considerable heat on my lap even through the Belkin cooling mat I have.

I suppose the oddest thing is the level of interest this thing has generated. I guess if nothing else, it's a sign of the times that a corporate press conference has been one of the most talked-about stories of the year so far. While Twitter may not be the greatest count of things that are popular or unpopular, it serves as a vague gauge, and right now, around five days after the man in the sweater stood up(Then sat down again) in the Yerba Buena Center For The Arts, the iPad registers as the fifth most-mentioned topic on Twitter. It would have been the top, but it's Grammys night in America, so Beyonce, Elton John, the aforementioned Lad/Lady Gaga and the awards they are at feature above the new device. By comparison, the suffering, devastation and chaos in Haiti is ninth in the top ten. Having said that, this is the "Worldwide" category; In the UK the iPad doesn't place, except for in the "London" category, where it places sixth. I guess the oddest thing is that the UK and London lists currently have WWE and the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in them.

I'm not having a go at people for caring more about a big iPod than other people dying or being in pain, there are many reasons why that happens. Such as feeling sympathy can hurt.

But either way, I guess it's an indication of people's priorities today - that a business announcement of a new product is such big news, in the same way that "bank bonuses", "Wall Street" and "Goldman Sachs" have been previous trending topics. They probably would be again, if it weren't for the American version of the Brit awards and Apple's new thing being in the news.

Apple itself is a funny old beast, in terms of perception. I read several technology-related blogs every day, such as Gizmodo, its Gawker network sibling Kotaku, Engadget, Ars Technica and the tech sections of places like BBC News and the Huffington Post. With the exception of the BBC website, all stories on the other sites have allowed all to come and comment, and comment they have, just like on Twitter. The majority of comments could best be described as acerbic. They lean either one way or the other - love or hate. The ones who express love, are fanboys and apologists in the eyes of the rest, and the ones who express hate are trolls and Windows fanboys in the eyes of the rest. One insulted at their time being taken up by a product they hate for not being so awesome as to be undeniably great, and hot under the collar at the lofty terms used by Steve Jobs to announce it. Which is a little weird bearing in mind the way Steve Jobs and any other CEO sells their product is that he does it in person. It's not really like any other product doesn't have delightful, glowing terms used at the point of announcement to convince the masses that this product will make their lives better, or that nobody else bends the truth to tell the public about how awesome their product is.

Those seen as Apple fanboys and apologists for Apple, are really just as myopic. Just like anything else, there are those that will find a use for the iPad, and those that won't. I have no idea whether it'll replace the iPhone or iPod Touch(Which are the same thing, just with or without a cellular phone put inside it), but it probably won't. I have no idea whether it will subvert the netbook market, and replace the 10-inch variety of laptop as the most popular form of computing in a courier bag. It probably won't, but there are things that the iPad does that most netbooks don't, or at least don't do quite so seamlessly.

The biggest analogy for the manner of publicity the iPad, and all modern Apple product announcements, is that in terms of the view of each other, Apple Fanboys are to Apple Haters(Or Microsoft Fanbots, etc - the term is less important), as in America, Democrats are to Republicans. I'm not trying to suggest that one is better than the other, but such is the level of attention paid, and the amount of press focused on every detail and rumour, that often the case is that many people will oppose certain legislation, regardless of it's benefit - either societal or individual - that many seem prepared to stand up ready to hate it, or love it, based on the name on it.

And the same goes for Apple.

I admit, I use an Apple computer, and I've used iPods since the first model. I've never really had a problem except for a couple of logic board burnouts, and the fact that I once threw this computer clear across a room. But I used Windows before, and the iPod was by no means my first MP3 - I came from DOS, 3.11 for Workgroups, a Rio MP3 player the size and weight just under a pack of cards, and the Creative NOMAD, a behemoth of an MP3 player that used an internal hard drive and lacked a battery life. It's never been that I think Apple are flawless, and depending on what someone needs their computer to do, I've recommended a Mac and a Windows machine. Similarly, if you want to use iTunes, you need an iPod/iPhone and vice versa, but beyond that there's no reason why another media player wouldn't work fine. I've done my bit to help people with their computers when asked - regardless of whose brand is on it - and I've built several Windows PC's from scratch.

It's an odd sort of thing though. When I've expressed my preference for Apple to friends, peers and sometimes family, all of a sudden I'm someone else to them. I become a religious zealot of sorts, a man who fell on hard times and fell in with a dodgy crowd and now preaches the word of some bonkers faith(Apple-Krishna?) to non-believers before reading sacred texts(MacRumors.com) in a tabernacle(Living room) in between proselytizing. I guess at some point, it became trendy in a sort of counter-culture way to scoff at people who like Apple products, mainly because the prevailing voice of the media is that "Apple is good", which raises the hairs on the back of some necks, just like religious zealotry does to me.

Apart from needing repairs relating to a circa 2008 crash landing, I don't know if I have a problem with my Mac, other than it being a little old and under-spec for some stuff. Similarly though, I don't really have a problem with my netbook, a recent acquisition that runs Windows 7 on a small screen. Both work fine, and I'm happy with that - one works faster and handles more stuff, the other runs cooler and I can carry without being able to spot which shoulder my bag was hanging from purely by glancing at my naked shoulder. I just want something that works, and that was why I bought a Mac, and continue to. My needs are fairly narrow I guess, and whatever doesn't work on my Mac I can find a replacement for, or in the case of games, I can use something else - a games console for example. My one real gripe about the Windows 7 OS I now use alongside Mac OS X(Apart from the LUDICROUS Win7 Starter version I got), is drivers. Because only one manufacturer makes Macs, I can use the "Software Update" tool to deliver pretty much all the drivers I need for both the operating system and the computer itself, while with my Netbook, I needed to first install the drivers from a CD, then run Windows 7's updates program before moving on to find the latest drivers online for specific parts of the netbook, and all of this was before dealing with individual software. It's a bit of a mess, but I admit not a major one. So far, I'm reasonably content with it.

My own take on the iPad, which is as meaningless as anyone elses, for as long as we all remain without an iPad in our hands to try it, is that I agree with several people I've read, who have suggested this may be a popular purchase for older users. Yeah, it's a big iPod Touch(Not a big iPhone, because it has no capacity for vocie calls or text messages on a cellular network), but it's a big iPod Touch that was announced as something to rest on your lap, and to use for watching tv shows or movies, reading books, composing spreadsheets and office documents and using the internet. Add all of that together and you've got a wireless internet tablet with both WiFi and 3G access, a screen big enough for anyone to read and manipulate even with chubby or inflexible fingers, and a software list that features office work and reading books. Not that it won't also run the "Pull My Finger" app, or the competing "iFart" app, or anything else that reeks of simple-mindedness, it will, and people can use that. But I think it will appeal to people who like the iPhone but need a bigger screen, and people who like the idea of the Amazon Kindle, but think it lacks versatility or a backlit screen.

I've considered it myself, and I don't think I'm that interested in it. I certainly don't hate it, but it doesn't suit my needs just now. Having said that, my two-laptop situation could easily change to a compact desktop computer for donkey work and things that need processing power(But one that also doesn't cost the earth) such as a specced-out Mac Mini(So I can save space when I'm not using it, but run either OS X or Windows should I feel like it), my current netbook for portability, and yes an iPad. I'm going to need convincing proof of certain applications for it first though. If you've ever seen my Twitter feed or my Twitpic page, you might have seen the drawings I've sketched out over the last few months. Most of the recent ones were done on an older model iPod Touch that came back into my possession recently, and if the apps I use on the iPod end up performing just as well if not better on the iPad, then the larger canvas on the iPad would be something that would put an end to one of the banes of my life - an ever growing stock of used paper sketchbooks.

Having said all that, if someone other than Apple can get me something similar that runs a simple but sophisticated drawing app like Autodesk Sketchbook on the iPod Touch/iPhone, or Scribbles on the Mac, then I'm there. I just want something that works.

Which is oddly enough the same term that a long-term fan of Apple-bashing used when he announced earlier today, that he was relenting, and getting himself a Mac.

Welcome Charlie Brooker, you are home. Press any key to continue.

By the way, the Grammys are still going. The iPad is now 4th in Twitter's "Trending Topics". A few rungs down is the name of comedy tv presenter Stephen Colbert. Because he was begging Apple for an iPad on his show all last week, and he is now showing it off while onstage at the Grammys.