Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
"Shaking Ambridge To The Core"
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Wednesday, 9th January 2013
Hi Tayler
Can you please verify which TA exec was first publically quoted as using SATTC - and that its (for the want of a better word) impact "would have implications for a decade"? Although it was used by Vanessa Whitburn in media interviews (e.g. the Today programme) at the time I have a feeling it was originally mentioned by someone else.
Also ,does VW feel that the SATTC really did shake Ambridge to the core? Are there implications arising from Nigel's death that will have seismic effects between now and 2019?
Thanks in advance. -
Message 2
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Wednesday, 9th January 2013
Hi bg
I think the term was first used in a routine Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú press release (in the summer) detailing upcoming programming (not just for The Archers) - it was spotted by listeners and morphed into the well used acronym SATTC.
I can't comment on what will happen between now and 2019, of course, as that would be a spoiler!
Tayler -
Message 3
Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Wednesday, 9th January 2013
Here's the press release:
"On Radio 4, next January will see the The Archers turn 60, with a thrilling storyline under close wraps that will shake Ambridge to the core." -
Message 4
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Wednesday, 9th January 2013
Thanks Tayler.
(Rhetorical question; why hasn't David pondered why the recent rapprochement with Elizabeth (or his mother mentioned it as she must be overjoyed)? -
Message 5
Posted by Seveek (U13636812) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
‘I think the term was first used in a routine Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú press release (in the summer) detailing upcoming programming (not just for The Archers) - it was spotted by listeners and morphed into the well used acronym SATTC.’
That’s not quite historically accurate, Tayler, as I wrote to you in N&Q on 8th March, 2011 in response to the following quote by Ms Whitburn:
**
‘Who would have thought that SATTC - Shaking Ambridge to the Core - a line coined as part of an obscure Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú policy document in May - would capture the imagination of so many.’
‘And so it was after the SATTC line was picked up by an Archers fan. . .’
Miss Whitburn, 9th January, 2011.
**
Ms Whitburn continued in that vein for some time, implying that internet users are responsible for its publicity.
At the time, I asked you to either have Ms Whitburn withdraw this statement or confirm that she truly believes that this document is obscure as she will otherwise be believed by a number of listeners. The weighty document, which she claimed was obscure, happened to be issued in the spring of the previous year. It was introduced with a statement by the Director-General, Mr Mark Thompson, no less, and was the combined effort of all of top management (a misnomer) and approved by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust.
**
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Statements of Programme Policy
2010/2011
These Statements cover the year from April 2010 to March 2011
‘On 1 January 2011 The Archers turns 60. The story is under close wraps, but it will shake Ambridge to the core.’
And repeated specifically in a Press Release:
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Publishes Statements of Programme Policy for 2010/2011
Thursday, 27 May 2010 23:36
**
So Ms Whitburn refers to Mr Thompson’s major policy document for the year, ratified by the Trust (The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust reports on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s performance against the commitments contained in these Statements in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Annual Report and Accounts 2010/2011) and having taken many, many hours to produce, is really considered to be an obscure document within the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and, should that be true, why Mr Thompson would waste time and licence payers money on it and publish it in a Press Release?
Obscure, as Mrs Whitburn will know, means something is not known about or not well known or that it is not clearly expressed or easy to understand. The document was none of those descriptions; it is the second most important document produced by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú with taxpayers’ money.
Now, I am afraid, you have exacerbated the situation by calling a press release setting out future direction of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as routine:
**
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Statements of Programme Policy (SoPPs) for 2010/2011 are published today.
These statements outline the commitments and editorial priorities across Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú services for the year ahead and explain how each service will deliver the requirements of their Service Licence and Purpose Remit.
**
That is not routine by any stretch of the imagination.
You and Ms Whitburn might like to reconsider and withdraw your use of the words routine and obscure or reaffirm, in light of the above history and particularly the SOPP comment, that you both do not think the exercise was of any benefit. Mr Patten would be interested to know.
Thank you,
Ian -
Message 6
Posted by Alyson6 (U14274714) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
Dont hold your breath, Ian.
-
Message 7
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
Now, I am afraid, you have exacerbated the situation by calling a press release setting out future direction of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as routine:
**
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Statements of Programme Policy (SoPPs) for 2010/2011 are published today.
These statements outline the commitments and editorial priorities across Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú services for the year ahead and explain how each service will deliver the requirements of their Service Licence and Purpose Remit.
**
That is not routine by any stretch of the imagination.Â
It is, if you consider 'routine' to mean 'regular' or 'usual'. I expect the Beeb issue such a policy at regular intervals. The word 'routine' doesn't imply the importance or likely benefit of the information in the statement.
And as for SATTC, MLers were as guilty as anyone in publicising and exagerrating the importance of the phrase. -
Message 8
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
Seveek and ye shall find.
and in this case
Mene mene tekel upharsin. -
Message 9
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
Thanks Ian.
> And as for SATTC, MLers were as guilty as anyone in publicising and exagerrating the importance of the phrase. <
Erimintrude; I don't think any MLer should feel 'guilty' for ever using this phrase. It was a ludicrous piece of hubris then and now and the majority of referenceds to it were to draw attention to the hyperbole which it never earned (and never will). -
Message 10
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
Aw come on, have a look back at the DTA mayo for Nov/Dec 2010, and the number of threads speculating about SATTC. We had a whale of a time.
And yes it was a big let down; but then nobody needs to feel guilty about it, MLer or Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú publicist. It's a radio show, not a pension mis-selling scandal or a bird flu pandemic or an illegal war. Nobody died. -
Message 11
Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Thursday, 10th January 2013
<< Nobody died. >>
Whaddaya mean, nobody died? Nigel died! Oh ... you mean real people. -
Message 12
Posted by Seveek (U13636812) on Friday, 11th January 2013
‘It's a radio show, not a pension mis-selling scandal or a bird flu pandemic or an illegal war. Nobody died.’
I have to believe that you are being deliberately provocative Ermintrude but will respond anyway.
The issue is about far more than just a radio show. The point is that Ms W dismissed a report by the Director-General of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as obscure. The 103 page report covers:
‘This year’s Statements of Programme Policy (SoPPs) are the first steps on the road to delivering this new strategic ambition, which will lead to an additional £600million a year towards higher quality content by 2013/2014. These SoPPs set out the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s editorial priorities for each of our services and also include the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s commitments and conditions set out in service licences and by Ofcom.’
That is a major statement and the second most important document produced by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
If a manager in a commercial enterprise publicly belittled the long term plan of their Board of Directors their career prospects would be severely limited.
Similarly, whatever your definition of routine, that Press Release was definitely not one of them. Routine would be something about a schedule or management changes not the definitive, strategic plan for the whole organisation. -
Message 13
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Friday, 11th January 2013
No I'm not being provocative. I'm amazed that people are still so *angry*, for want of a better word, about a short phrase about the plotline of a radio drama, in an annual 100+ page document that sets out the Beeb's strategic ambitions and editorial priorities.
And to be asking Tayler and VW to 'withdraw' their use of 'routine' and 'obscure' is ludicrous. Yes it was a routine document, it obviously happens every year. And yes it was obscure in that I doubt more than a handful of TA listeners ever know of its existence or bother to read it.
I reckon it was an accidental phrase that took on a life of its own and caused a lot of fun at the time, not least in ML. The reality of the plotline was far more boring and unexciting - right for an anniversary epi perhaps, but could never really live up to all the absurd expectation that had been created mainly by the media and ML. At any rate, life goes on and TA goes on, and still to be demanding answers and apologies two years later is pretty - daft is probably the kindest phrase. -
Message 14
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Friday, 11th January 2013
Well said, Erms.
I would quite agree with VW (Mustafa retreats to couch, fainting) in referring to that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú SOPP of May 2010 as an obscure document. How many members of the public know that such a document is published, let alone where to find it, regardless of whether it is introduced by the DG or approved by the Trust?
Besides which, the SOPP is surely going to be informed by the briefing notes submitted by the various channels/programmes/departments (where the SATTC phrase is more likely to have originated), before itself becoming the textual source for the subsequent press release. I hardly think that the DG or report writer would have coined the phrase 'SATTC'!
This is a blooming messageboard, not the "debating" floor of the House of Commons where some red-faced member petulantly stamps his feet and huffily demands that words & statements be withdrawn. As for "Mr Patten would be interested to know", I cannot think why should Mr Patten give a proverbial monkey's about the fuss and hype given to the anniversary of a programme broadcast more than 2 years ago, let alone as to whether a producer or messageboard host refers to a SOPP as being obscure and/or routine.
If /anything/ is important at present, it's that Vicky has a (mutually unsurvivable) major car accident with Paul, their burning car wrecks catapulting into and igniting the Bridge Farm diesel store just as Pat, Tony, Helen and Tom are standing by it, chatting about a certain forthcoming holiday! -
Message 15
Posted by smee (U2226513) on Friday, 11th January 2013
I'd take issue with 'boring and unexciting' to describe dear Nigel's demise but otherwise with you, erms. It's only a radio drama, people.
-
Message 16
Posted by San Fairy Anne (U14257911) on Friday, 11th January 2013
I'm amazed that people are still so *angry*,Â
Well I am still angry as I haven't listened to TA since. TA was a big part of my life as I had heard the 1st epi and listened ( with a few abroad gaps) for the whole time so it was an important anniversary for me
The reality of the plotline was far more boring and unexciting - right for an anniversary epi perhaps, but could never really live up to all the absurd expectation that had been created mainly by the media and ML.Â
Much of it was out of character and unbelievable and it followed some story lines which were extremely believable and well done ( Jack and Alzheimers for instance).
What rankled, and still does is that VW had no regard for we the listeners. She patronised us and denied she had committed a gaff by letting slip what had happened and tried to recover by claiming the origin of the phrase SATTC was from some obscure document. She refused to discuss with anyone and most crassly of all tried to placate us by inviting "2 of us" ( Who were they by the way??? no one has ever claimed to have had the honour AFAIK) to look at the studio doing the sound effects. I mean who does she think we are?)
The farce continues as since then most of us have found really bad examples of inaccuracies. There are people who posted on these boards who were/are /experts/ /in/ /their/ /fields/ who pointed out errors and were pooh pooed.
At one time part of the appeal of TA was it was in real time and the facts / terminology were impeccably accurate.
I /know/ it is fiction, but it was part of the charm that it appeared to be almost not so. Now it is as boring as Corrie. SFAnneâ„¢
. -
Message 17
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Friday, 11th January 2013
SFA, I'm not talking about being angry with the anniversary episode for being such rubbbish, or angry with the resulting storylines, or angry with the state of TA or its innaccuracies. I'm talking about still being angry about five words, used to promote an episode two years ago, that turned out to be not such a big deal as promised.
The Policy document, iirc, also had some classic hype about the World Cup that year, something about the agony and tension in houses across the land, or some such promo waffle. Should I call on the Head of Sport to resign because the 2010 World Cup turned out to be one of the most tedious in memory? -
Message 18
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Friday, 11th January 2013
< Should I call on the Head of Sport to resign because the 2010 World Cup turned out to be one of the most tedious in memory? >
Ermintrude; the head of sport had no control or input into the tournament once it kicked-off (and it wasn't that tedious if you enjoyed the way Spain played football.
Conversely VW was in complete control of SATTC and yet it was the dampest squib ever. Putting it in context, the death of Grace Archer DID shake Ambridge to core to the point it became legendary and is still spoke about nearly half a century later. The same impact (pardon the pun) was promised in SATCC yet despite widespread pre-broadcast coverage - and VW makjng a twit of herself on the Today programme - it was disappointing to say the least.
Tayler - would it be possible to ask VW herself is she thinks Ambridge was shaken to core? Does she feel that it lived up to its much vaunted pre-publicity? -
Message 19
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Friday, 11th January 2013
the head of sport had no control or input into the tournament once it kicked-offÂ
Well yes I realise that; so the Head of Sport shouldn't make promises he couldn't keep, should he. How DARE he mislead us poor impressionable viewers in such a vital and important document. -
Message 20
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Friday, 11th January 2013
the head of sport had no control or input into the tournament once it kicked-offÂ
Well yes I realise that; so the Head of Sport shouldn't make promises he couldn't keep, should he. How DARE he mislead us poor impressionable viewers in such a vital and important document. 99.9% of viewers had no idea what the H o S said about the tournament so their expectations weren't affected , A significant number of TA listeners did expect that A was going to be STTC but were short-changed.
In my opinion - and others - Ms Whitburn over-promised and under-delivered. When a book is wriiten about TA since the millennium I have no doubt that the massive anti-climax that this damp squib was will be a major feature. -
Message 21
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 12th January 2013
99.9% of viewers had no idea what the H o S said about the tournament so their expectations weren't affected , A significant number of TA listeners did expect that A was going to be STTC but were short-changed.Â
Absolutely. We did, and we were, and that was due to the unwarranted importance given to the phrase by listeners (in particular ML) and the media alike. We were complicit in our own disappointment.
If every TV and radio programme, or film, that failed to live up to its pre-publicity hype caused two years of recriminations and demands for apologies and explanations, the world would indeed have gone mad. -
Message 22
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 12th January 2013
>If every TV and radio programme, or film, that failed to live up to its pre-publicity hype caused two years of recriminations and demands for apologies and explanations, the world would indeed have gone mad.<
I agree (and with the rest of your post).
The article referred to in the OP made me laugh as I recognised a lot that goes on in these here parts:
-
Message 23
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Sunday, 13th January 2013
The only poster here - oc - that's 'angry' is you.
-
Message 24
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 13th January 2013
Really? As you know so much about me can you tell me what I'm angry about? I don't give a hoot about SATTC I don't give a hoot about whether all or any of the prodteam continue with their jobs, I'm enjoying TA, I'm enjoying Amex, watching the lather on here makes me laugh (including your post) so what, exactly, am I angry about?
-
Message 25
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 13th January 2013
The only poster here - oc - that's 'angry' is you.Â
The only person I can see that's said they're angry is SFA. People of course have every right to their own opinions and feelings. But I think to say, as she does, "At one time part of the appeal of TA was it was in real time and the facts / terminology were impeccably accurate," is a bit of an overstatement.
Impeccably accurate? When was that Golden Age? Not presumably the excruciating epiodes involving Nigel as Mr Snowy or with TIm Beauchamp or getting into Phil and Jill's bed etc etc which used to make me turn off. -
Message 26
Posted by San Fairy Anne (U14257911) on Sunday, 13th January 2013
Impeccably accurate? When was that Golden Age? Not presumably the excruciating epiodes involving Nigel as Mr Snowy or with TIm Beauchamp or getting into Phil and Jill's bed etc etc which used to make me turn off.Â
Well. I thought it accurate. Starting from when it was giving agricultural advice, which was how it started. I did not say that it was always believable ( although we were staying in a Gite in France when our not quite son in law, when drunk did attempt to access his bedroom via the wardrobe in our bedroom, so these things do happen).
For me it was just that SATTC coincided with some inconsistencies which happened to be in my field or closely connected. The ease of Helen's treatment for Anorexia and her rapid , for that condition, recovery. The extremely unlikely, given her history, and unbelievably rapid A.I.by D. The obsessive pregnant woman who had not researched Pre-eclampsia, and so on had made me already annoyed and were clearly a set up.
Perhaps I was wrong when I said "angry" and should have said "profoundly disappointed" both by the events which were an opportunity missed IMHO, and badly handled by VW. And after they had done the Alzheimers and Jack story so well.
I listened whenever I could for 60 years and then it was suddenly ruined for me. SFAnneâ„¢ -
Message 27
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 14th January 2013
Yes I remember that "obscure" document .. a few of us managed to get hold of it - without too much difficulty I add.
As I remember it the document was divided into sections - indicating policy on different parts of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú e.g. the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú TV channels, the radio channels etc. AFAICR many of the sections had authors names attached to them .. The R4 section did not .. it was impossible to determine any author at all..
The press release did use some of the document .. but did add some detail. I remember commenting on it at the time!
JPBS -
Message 28
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 14th January 2013
I think the fact that the story was "hyped up" so much annoyed me immensely .. there were articles in most of the newspapers ..
If they'd just shut up and let it happen the annoyance about "celebrating" an anniversary by someone's death would have disappeared much earlier ..
As it was - when Elizabeth "forgave" Dave I heaved a sigh of relief .. thank god thats over we can forget all about it
JPBS -
Message 29
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Monday, 14th January 2013
< As it was - when Elizabeth "forgave" Dave I heaved a sigh of relief .. thank god thats over we can forget all about it >
Dopey Dave has never questioned Elizabeth’s recent volte-face; not long ago he was ‘dead to her’ and now it’s as if there was never any estrangement between them. Any normal person would wonder what prompted the rapprochement and not take it for granted. Who is to say that the Lizard might get out the wrong side of bed and go radio rental at him again. -
Message 30
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 14th January 2013
Why would he question her? Just be glad the vendetta is finished ..
Maybe he guessed - having heard the story about Freddie's accident ..?
JPBS -
Message 31
Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Monday, 14th January 2013
Why would he question her? Just be glad the vendetta is finished ..
Maybe he guessed - having heard the story about Freddie's accident ..?
´³±Êµþ³§Ìý David couldn't guess correctly what day it is in seven days time he's so ruddy dopey.
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.