Living Live Online
It's an exciting time at Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio 5 live as we gear up for our first new website launch since 1974. Well it seems that long since we last had a new website, although it's probably about 6 years in reality.
The new site will launch in September and my colleagues Jags Parbha and Rob Banathy and I have been working alongside the very fine boys and girls at Good Technology to produce what we hope will be a truly innovative experience.
GT came up with the tagline very early on in development of Living Live Online, reflecting exactly what we wanted to achieve. It's a principle we have tried to stick to as we have progressed the new site. Our mission has been to bring the online offering much closer to the radio station, reflecting the live nature of the network.
The new site will bring two significant developments. The first is 5 live Now, a unique offering that will reflect online the live debate between 5 live and its audience. This will surface most of our listeners' texts, emails, online messages and social media contributions. It also means we can use far more content from the audience than we would have time for on the radio.
The discussions will be archived along with the audio of the radio programme, which brings us to our second innovation. The new site will be the first in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to feature chapterisation. While our podcasts have performed very well, 5 live audio on demand does not. Listeners don't want to hear three hours of the breakfast show on iPlayer and its difficult to find the parts you do want to hear. Chapterisation will break the programme down into clearly labelled items and means that the 5 live schedule will become far more navigable for the user than ever before.
We'll blog more about the new site as we build up to launch and of course value your feedback.
Brett Spencer is the interactive editor for 5 Live.
Comment number 1.
At 20th Aug 2009, Professor Techno wrote:Blogs-Users-comments can be easily controlled and censored by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú
messageboards-more freedom for users
Guess which one 5 live has chosen!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 20th Aug 2009, The Great Gildersleeve wrote:and can we discuss station format, programmes and policy on this new super douper website? Or just content?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th Aug 2009, fancymarymaloney wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Aug 2009, cping500 wrote:yes but chapterisation would best suit Radio 3 so listeners could actually find in a three hour concert what they wanted to hear and it could be linked to the schedule. So you click yesterdays schedule to find the piece you really want. Of course other music stations might like it too!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Aug 2009, logomats wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 2nd Sep 2009, wwdlu101 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 6th Sep 2009, sillbbilly64 wrote:I find it a real backward step that you have removed all photos and bios about presenters from the site. Some of the old questins were pretty banal but a couple of photos and a brief bio is surely something you should have up there - Why do 5Live think their presenters want anonymity? Surely they are in the wrong profession if they do?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 22nd Sep 2009, i.moore wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 22nd Sep 2009, TV Licence fee payer against Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú censorship wrote:#7. At 09:56am on 06 Sep 2009, sillbbilly64 wrote:
"Why do 5Live think their presenters want anonymity? Surely they are in the wrong profession if they do?"
On the other hand, why do people want to know about presenters bios, surely all you need to know is how well or badly they do their job, and you gain that by listening to them and not reading (in the case of a radio presenter). Does it matter if they are married to someone, have three kids, two cats and one car or what ever, does it affect how they present their radio programme - I would suggest that in 99% of cases it makes not one jot of difference and in some cases could cause other issues, for example knowing the personal politics of a political reporter tends to alter how one personally interprets the content of their reports.
I find it almost voyeuristic how some people seem to think that they have a right to, what is after all still, personal information. Also, some people become radio presenters because it is an anonymous profession, because they are not known on the street, a bit like many would not know a clown if they tripped over one that was out of costume - not that I'm suggesting radio presenters are clowns!...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 22nd Sep 2009, i.moore wrote:I have just had a look at your house rules, and no my post didn't break house rules, what it did was to challenge your brave new world where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gets to set the agenda, and closes down the only means us plebs had to prod the PC Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's conscience.
But I am happy to be proven wrong, please post on this blog where I have contravened your rules!
PS Its going to be difficult for as a new poster you demand that posts have to be cleared, it was, then it got censored, so how come that happened? Could it be that it didn't contravene any rules, could it be that it was a much more serious offence if fell foul of , of up setting some pompous oik in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that didn't like a few home truths being told, and us plebs, rather than being all happy clappy at having our messageboard removed and all waiting on Brett Spencer to be allowed to engage in debate on some crumby shallow Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú approved topic or other, I instead showed some dissent, and that isn't to be permitted!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:i.moore - I'm afraid your previous comment was off topic. As indeed is your comment number 10. Please stay on topic.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 23rd Sep 2009, i.moore wrote:"I'm afraid your previous comment was off topic."
No it wasn't, this 'blog' is about Brett Spencer singing the prises of his brave new Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world, where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gets to set the agenda of what is debated. As we see from my troubles of getting a post left posted, and not censored, its a very narrow world of what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú will permit.
In the post that you censored my first paragraph dealt with the reality of what is taking place in that we will be corralled into debating Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú approved topics.
My second paragraph pointed out that the message boards were the only forum where us owners of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could set the agenda.
My third paragraph pointed out that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú was far from all knowing and in the recent past had left subjects go without a hearing because they were and are too difficult for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's PC values. The failure of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to give these views a hearing has now be proven wrong, yet arrogantly the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is going to close down the only area where us plebs could set the agenda.
My fourth paragraph gave an example of the discussions I was putting up, here signaling concerns about the economy years before the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú woke up to the developing problems..
Finnally I summed up.
So where was that off topic?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 23rd Sep 2009, TV Licence fee payer against Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú censorship wrote:12. At 08:25am on 23 Sep 2009, i.moore wrote:
"No it wasn't [off-topic]..."
So i.moore, you were discussing the new Radio 5Live website or were you complaining that certain message-boards are closing, if the former you were on-topic, if the latter then you were off-topic as there are other blogs were message boards are being or could be discussed (such as here), never mind on the message boards themselves...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 23rd Sep 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:i.moore - most of your comment which was removed was a critical survey of Gordon Brown's record as Prime Minister and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's coverage of it. While you are entitled to your opinions, both of these are off-topic for this post. Please stay on topic. You can also comment on the closure of the Five Live message boards on the Five Live blog.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 23rd Sep 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:Brett (Nick)
The new site will launch in September
When is the "date" of week for the launch; And, my best wishes for it debut.
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 25th Sep 2009, flamingreen wrote:"It also means we can use far more content from the audience than we would have time for on the radio."
Don't you mean 'selected' content?
Do you really think anyone trusts the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to give a balanced unbiased presentation of audiences? Still it provides an excuse to devote less airtime to people ringing in making unPC comments, I guess, as well as an excuse to close the popular and vigorous message board.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 17th Nov 2009, talat wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 30th Mar 2010, U14402580 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)