Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

On Wednesday morning I got up bright and early to ensure that I would beat all of the rush hour traffic because I needed to be at the BBC station in the Forum by 9am. Departing the UEA campus a little before 8am I made it to Norwich City Centre in record time, I was getting off the bus around 8:15 (shocker there wasn’t any traffic in Norwich on a typical workday morning..) So I sat in Starbucks reading and enjoying a chai tea latte before my “workday” started.

I arrived at BBC and waited for David Webster, the producer of the afternoon radio programme who I would be shadowing, to arrive. Eventually Stephen Bumfrey, the presenter of the programme came down and got me settled in at the desk and introduced me to some of the other BBC staff members. Dave arrived a few minutes later and brought me on another brief tour of the staion, this time to show me two of the most important rooms (the kitchen and the toilets).

After talking with Dave and Stephen about my research, my interest in radio, and what the program they work on entails, Dave decided that it would be valuable for me to sit in on some of Nick Conrad’s programme because it deals directly with community/station interaction. Nick presents a topic and the public calls in to discuss it. For the majority of the show I sat in with the producers of the show who take the calls and decided which callers will be allowed to talk on air with Nick. It was interesting to hear some of the calls, and to hear both on and off air reactions to them. One thing that I noticed was that even when Nick was disagreeing with a caller his responses were not that out of place. Speaking with the assistant producer he informed me that unlike in the US, UK disc jockeys never fall into the shock-jock category. The Brits uphold their typically mild-mannered behavior even when producing radio intended to get a rise out of people.

While I was sitting with the producers Nick invited me into the studio to show me how all the ‘button pushing’ worked. The topics of discussion while I was sitting in on the show were: jurors in the UK, overweight pets, and pension changes; a variety of topics, but all were clearly of interest to the general public because the phone was off the hook the entire time I was there. There were also two guests in the studio to discuss some of the topics with Nick from a more professional level rather than the opinion based level that the majority of the program was on.

As the programme was coming to an end, I met back up with Dave and Stephen to discuss what was on schedule for their afternoon programme, before heading to the daily 11am meeting. At the meeting Dave and Stephen filled everyone else in on the schedule of the show and then left to get back to finalizing song playlists, etc. They left me with the news editors who talked about the important issues of the day locally/regionally that should be included in the afternoon broadcasts as well as for the following morning’s Breakfast Show. When the meeting was over I sat with Rita, one of the News Editors and talked about all aspects of radio, both in the US and in the UK, comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences to commercial radio, and the advantages and disadvantages to the different formats. Rita was also immensely helpful in suggesting other people whom I may be intrerested in talking with/interviewing.

After a brief break for lunch I moved into the stdio with Dave for Stephen’s show. The first hour of the show revolved around a contest called War of the Workforce, followed by interviews and other topics of entertainment. I spent the three hours of the programme answering calls from listeners, talking on-air about Reader’s Digest (and blimps..), and speaking with the guest on Wednesday’s show, 14-year-old Josh Worley. Josh started his own radio station South Norfolk Youth Action (SYNA Radio) about a year and a half ago and just recently won a local youth achievement award.

Overall another productive and informative day at BBC Radio Norfolk. All of the staffers are so friendly and helpful and told me I was welcome back for a shadow-day anytime, or for anything else I may need for my research. I still need to connect with someone at Future Radio, and I’m hoping I will be as lucky with talking with them as I have been working with BBC Radio Norfolk.

Hours: 7 hours

Total: 8 hours

Today I had the opportunity to visit BBC Norfolk at the Forum in Norwich city center and spoke with BBC Norfolk Radio’s editor David Clayton. Mr. Clayton walked me around the BBC and showed me the broadcast booths, and introduced me to a few of the people planning the topics for upcoming programs. He also brought me into the television studio where Look East is filmed for the regional television station. After my tour Mr. Clayton and I sat down and discussed the radio station itself.

David Clayton has been the editor at BBC Norfolk for the past eleven years. As editor he manages everything surrounding the station from program topics, to what goes on the website, to finding out where BBC Norfolk falls in terms of listeners compared to other stations (in fact he was quite nervous because the results for the past three months are being delivered by RAJAR tomorrow). RAJAR is hired by BBC and other commercial radio station to take a poll over the course of three months by a cross-section of people living in the area and they are asked to note what radio they are listening to and for how long they are listening and then RAJAR tallies it all up and submits the data to the radio stations. Mr. Clayton told me that as a station they look at three major figures, the first is the reach, which figures out how many people are listening to BBC Norfolk for at least ten consecutive minutes, the second figure is to see how long cumulatively a person listens to BBC Norfolk over the course of three months, and the final is the share, which is what percentage of all people listening to all the radio stations are listening to BBC Norfolk, and typically BBC Norfolk falls in the 20-30% range, which is relatively high for this area.

BBC Norfolk is not considered a regional radio station as I thought it was, but rather it is a local radio station. Mr. Clayton has encouraged me to speak with commercial radio in the community as a comparison to see the role that they play on the local community. He suggested that I try and speak with someone at Future Radio and also UEA’s Livewire radio station. BBC Norfolk plays an extremely important role in providing information for Norwich’s 40-50 and older demographic, but perhaps Future Radio provides more for a different demographic and I hope that I am able to find someone as helpful as David Clayton at these other organizations and to hear their point of view on the importance of local/community radio.

Additionally Mr. Clayton has offered to allow me to spend a day at the station sitting in on the broadcasts and just taking it all in so that I can fully see what BBC Norfolk offers, and I am definitely planning on taking him up on that offer. At the end of our conversation regarding BBC David Clayton told me it was my turn to get questions asked and so we discussed my experience with radio in the United States, my career goals, what I’m studying..all the normal questions. However this conversation was different; for once it wasn’t my flatmates asking me what I call the trunk of a car (although we did briefly discuss the ‘language barrier’), or one of my professors asking me about my courses back at Dickinson, it was a conversation between two people both of whom have an interest in radio discussing just that. We compared US radio to UK radio, we talked about common trends in rankings, we discussed our personal opinions about the pros and cons of talk radio compared to all music stations…we talked about something we both cared about, and we were both able to provide our own insights both from an age perspective and from a national perspective. It was a surprisingly refreshing conversation, something I didn’t realize I had been missing until now, and a conversation I hope to continue as this process continues.

My conversation today has my wheels spinning about the role of radio in society as well as other media outlets in comparison. I went into my meeting with a general idea as to where I was hoping this project was going to lead me, but I now feel that I need to take some time to reconsider the direction I plan on going with this topic. Hopefully observing BBC Norfolk for a day as well as future conversations will concentrate my idea more solidly.

I already addressed the differences in national appreciation of art between the UK and US in my post last week about the theatre, but recently I’ve been thinking about it again. Although I didn’t get to catch all of what Sir Peter Maxwell Davies said in his preconcert interview Tuesday, I was struck by a topic he and the interviewer both seemed anxious to discuss: music education. More specifically, that it is not requisite and rather is sometimes absent from the UK curriculum. For those of you who didn’t go to the talk, Sir Peter holds the title of Master of the Queen’s Music, conducted the first two pieces last night, and was the composer of the violin concerto which had its premiere last night. He made the important point that British schools do a disservice to the youth of the country when they underestimate their ability to be intellectually challenged, particularly by the seemingly more abstract fields of art and music. He said that youth want to be challenged and, cynical though I am about a lot, I absolutely agree. I feel, as I imagine Davies would, that there needs to be some mechanism (through schooling or some other way) for forcing (for lack of a better word) art, music, science and discussion and debate of relevant issues on the public. This kind of thing may be scarce in Britain, but it seems absolutely extinct in America.

After all, on Tuesday night we saw a great Proms concert that (if it wasn’t live last night) will be rebroadcast on one of the lower number BBC Channels in the next few days. That would be like me going to a challenging but enjoyable Baltimore Symphony Orchestra concert and it being broadcast for the entire country on NBC the next night. I wouldn’t expect every Brit flipping through the channels to stop and be transfixed by contemporary classical music, but at least a conscious effort is being made to offer quality programming and I’m sure that has some effect (look at the crowd a Tuesday night concert with mostly unfamiliar pieces drew). I’m sure there’s much worse programming that would have appealed to a much greater audience that the BBC can show rather than the Proms, but the BBC is lucky enough to not be funded by advertisers and so it doesn’t have to cater to the lowest common denominator the way networks in the US often have to. Davies may be right that the British public in general and youth in particular are not being challenged, but at least the Proms broadcast is a small sign that those with the power to control programming in Britain have some inclination towards placing art and music front and centre.

My father told me that when he was in elementary school, once in a while everyone would be shepherded down to the auditorium to watch film of Leonard Bernstein’s Young People’s Concerts together. I imagine there were people in his class that had no interest in classical music then or today, but I imagine the films struck an interest in music in at least a few. If there were efforts to expose me to art and music when I was young it was always cursory (more cursory even than watching film of full concerts), underfunded or both. I support Sir Peter’s cause of really making an effort to expose kids to a wider range of great art and music at a young age, and think that the Proms is a good example of how an effort on an even larger scale can really pay off.

I briefly wanted to mention that I really enjoyed Tuesday night’s concert. I thought it was actually the perfect program for us in that it included a fine romantic overture, a challenging piece of contemporary British music (in its UK premiere) and an also interesting Sibelius symphony, with a finale that’s hard not to love (and which, strangely enough, was mentioned in one of the London poems we all read). While I’m still not sure I understand everything about the structure of the Proms, it does seem like a very unusual and impressive event, and I’m glad to say I had the chance to go. I’m starting to conclude that for all the amazing opportunities we’ve had in London, down the road I’ll most appreciate the chance to see so many great performances (both theatrical and musical) for free (well, free for me, anyway).

…simply because we allow our differences to overpower our commonalities. As both groups and individuals we spent a ridiculous amount of time investigating and calculating the differences between who/what we are and who/what we are not.

For example:

From the moment we are born, traditionally, we are dressed in colors that represent our assigned gender. Those wearing anything different must then be who/what we are not. From that moment on, we are being taught to differentiate people by the category of gender.

What happens when we grow up to realize that we are all, actually, just human? A definite challenge that will continue to trouble our society and many more societies to come. Religion, is a complex term that encompasses multiple definitions, it all depends on perspective. It can simply be a devotion or, as described by Kile Jones (a Ph.D student at the University of Glasgow (i found his quote while doing some research on the meaning of religion), “It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition.” Jones definition clearly being  a more complex one, suits my personal ideas of religion.

A “phenomenon of human kind” which only exists to further divide our global population into sectors that have indefinitely branched from one another, to define our purpose in life. I would like to state that if I had to choose a religious denomination I would categorize myself as an atheist, for I do believe that “God” (when defined as the Supreme being, creator and ruler of all) is a human-made construct. Thus, I am aware that religious ideas and believes are made up of layers after layers of tradition, philosophical, sociological and anthropological values, therefore, I attempt to understand them (from an analytical/academic perspective).

When reading the various world religions profiles on BBC news I realized that they are all not so different from each other. Lets take Christianity and Islam, the two with the most followers in the world, both are monotheistic religions that have existed for thousands of years, are based on a holy book and teachings of God’s prophets. Christian believes can also be found in Santeria, which borrows some religious sense from Christian practices. Like Santeria, Rastafarians worship in ways that are somewhat uncommon, for instance, Rastafairians smoke marijuana to enhance their spiritual connection with their God, meanwhile Santerians sacrifice animals for their God. Both marihuana and animal scarification are illegal in the United States. These are only a few of the multiple comparisons that can be drawn along multiple religious practices and believes. They are all so similar and yet so different.

[Sometimes I want to ask people: Since when do you believe in your “God”? When did you decide that this is the “God” that you wanted to believe in? If you’ve believed in that religion your entire life, then someone had to decide for you… right? So you’ve been taught to believe in something that you never decided to believe in. It has been taught to you why? I think it’s all about power and control, and so many are immersed in a religious world that will never allow them to answer the above questions for themselves, after all, I may just be tempting “evil” thoughts!]

Sometimes, I wish we could break through religious barriers, bring down the walls of churches and temples and unite everyone under one roof of religious acceptance (not fake tolerance). Maybe if we start by deconstructing gender norms and stop dressing our children in either blue or pink when they are born, then that could be the first step towards deconstructing a religiously segregated world. After all, various religions still evoke a gender hierarchy in their practices, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam are four religions which are obviously male-oriented. For example: In Christianity women are not allowed to become priests (a position of respect and religious power within the church), in Hinduism women are not allowed to become either monks nor Guru’s (leaders of the spiritual community) and in Rastafari women have an entirely different code of religion. For now, gender will continue to be a category that further separates us, physically, socially and within religions.

…we can’t all just get along. Globally, we have divided ourselves, and we are all too deep in it. BBC features nineteen different religions on their “Religion and Ethics” site, which one defines you? Which one have you chosen to be the one that separates you from everyone else, from all of the others? Why can’t we all just get along? We’re all just humans.

Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

So, since we’ve all been given the post topic, I feel as though I don’t need to go into the simplistic description of our travels. We saw Sikh and Hindu places of prayer. They were both gorgeous. What is their differences and how are they reflective of the two cultures attempts to integrate into British culture? Looking at the Sikhs, I would say they were looking for acceptance, where as the Hindu guide was trying much more to impress. Both are devices used to gain positioning within a society.  I distinctly remember our Sikh guide saying something along these lines: I hope one day people will not stop us at the air port, rather they will say ‘oh hey, he’s a Sikh, he’s ok.’  Sikhism in general is a younger religion than Judeo-Christian faiths and Hinduism. With this, it is often forced out of public eye and understanding. For this reason, they are often left to get whatever cultural capital charity they are able to get.  the Naara Mandir was also looking for a piece of the British-cultural pie, but they have gone about attaining it in a very different way, despite the fact that they came to England initially around the same time.  Almost like the girl who punches you when she likes you, the temple seemed to me to be attempting to out do British structures in order to gain their respect. If I heard another comment about Italian marble or how amazing the whole thing was, I may have just laughed. Further, I thought the way that the temple was presenting Hinduism was simply a way to cater towards Judeo-Christian understanding. Hinduism comes from Vedic traditions, and by nature is not a singular religion. While they are all relatively accepting of each other, there are many distinct traditions far beyond what the Mandir was expressing. 

Possibly too bold: the Sikh’s looked to intergrate through submission (BBC mentions cutting their hair, putting down their sabers) while the Hindus looked to intergrate without compromise. Strangely enough, it has worked for the Hindus. Overall they have gained respect much more far reaching than that of the Sikh.   

The few other Hindu temples I have been to have been quite a bit less opulent. This may simply be because of the focal-point nature of the Mandir. Ali and I both went to a small Hindu farm where monks lived and worked together to live and pray. At the farm, the only sign of riches at all was a small pillar filled with donated trinkets. And even then the trinkets were out of sight.

The one thing I noticed about both religious groups, Sikh and Hinduism, is that have both been greatly affected by globalization (not necessarily from an English influence). Comparing the Mandir to an Indian village, where there may only be one TV for the whole community, is quite startling. Also, the concept of a global leader is also a fair new concept– relative to the existence of Hinduism that is. But I think the world requires that of religions these days; the Other needs a Dahlia Lama or Pope. The Other needs a hierarchy to categorize and compartmentalize. Even the name Hinduism, is silly. Hinduism was the name given to the people of the river valley, an umbrella term that described hundreds of tribalistic beliefs.

Onto the articles… Sikh’s using the Internet to find mates makes perfect sense. What better way to cut away the physical attraction than through having emailing dates.  You get all the perks of talking to someone and learning about them, without the issues of false attraction and dating. The concept of sexual abuse in a religion preaching sexual suppression is not unimaginable.  Look at Rumspringa in the Amish community. When you push and ignore any aspect of a person’s psyche, it just enforces a person’s need to let it out. Why do Amish kids go out and drag race, do coke and who know what else? I would wager it is because they know they can’t otherwise. In many conservative religions, people are more likely to go to extreme sexual lengths when they do actually go about having sexual experiences.

Anyway, cheers