Talk:Radio 4 News FM

Rename and logo

This article should probably be moved to BBC Radio 4 News FM as this sounds more like the proper name out of the selection, and as the service also covered other events apart from the Gulf War [1], this is probably a more accurate description. It is also mentioned as such in Jenny Abramsky's BBC biography. The logo is also of concern to me, as this appears to be a mock-up rather than official (since 'Scud FM' was a nickname) and we should be careful not to misrepresent the service. mattbr³⁰ 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns regarding the logo. There is no source information as of where the logo came from, to verify that the BBC used it at all. As Mattbr30 says, it does look like a mock up, and if a source cannot be verified to back-up its use by the BBC, it should be deleted, as I suspect, it will violate WP:FAIR and misrepresent the BBC. --tgheretford (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text from the bottom of the relevant Radio 4 logo as this version was never published. However the service was called "Scud FM" by the BBC employees and in the press and has always been known by that name. I've included plenty of references to this fact on the page. Briantist 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But no proof that this was the official name. I don't believe that the name was ever officially "Scud FM" although this may have been used unofficially or as a nickname. Stephenb (Talk) 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, quoting from your first link: "They agreed and Radio 4 Gulf FM, affectionately known to its team as SCUD FM, was born." - therefore, I believe the article is mis-titled, and should be "Radio 4 Gulf FM". Stephenb (Talk) 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'They agreed and Radio 4 Gulf FM, affectionately known to its team as SCUD FM, was born.' in http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/abramsky_oxford2.shtml, "From the following morning, 17 January, a continuous Gulf War news service was broadcast on Radio 4FM. "Scud FM", its emergency staff called it. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/spl/hi/history/noflash/html/1990s.stm It was also called this in the press too... Briantist 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

', known by insiders as ‘Scud FM’.' http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/newsdesk/bbc50.php Briantist 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'Scud FM - as Radio 4's News FM network was popularly known - was launched and broadcast 18 hours a day with the help of volunteers' http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030408/ai_n12692215

'That experiment, known as "Scud FM", formed the skeleton for Radio Five Live.' http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030325/ai_n12677339 Briantist 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the point - "known to insiders" and "its staff called it" but the OFFICIAL name, as given in the first quote even YOU give, was obviously "Radio 4 Gulf FM". "Scud FM" was obviously a nickname and never used to refer to the service to listeners Stephenb (Talk) 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have just demonstrated the BBC call the service Scud FM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3564395.stm Lots of these have BBC URL's.

"She wrote the first piece for Scud FM, the BBC's experimental rolling news service on the original Radio 5 during the first Gulf war in 1991. " and so on. The BBC call it Scud FM, it was called Scud FM in parliament.

That's rather "after the fact" - I'd prefer contemporary evidence that this was its official name, not a name it was "affectionally known as". Stephenb (Talk) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was called Scud FM from the day it started, in the press and in parliament. If you wish to contract me, it is up to you to provide evidence to counter mine. You are making an assertion that is incorrect and have no evidence. Another example: "After the audience success of continuous news coverage during the Gulf War of 1991 on Radio Four FM frequencies (often referred to as 'SCUD FM')" http://www.arar93.dsl.pipex.com/mds975/Content/ukradio3.html Briantist 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What more do you need than the person who created it to call it "Scud FM"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/abramsky_oxford2.shtml Briantist 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another quote "That was a post Scud-FM reaction (after the first Gulf War's blanket 24h coverage on R4)." http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?referrerid=109801&t=246544

The fact that the service was devised in 24 hours, rather than the usual period of three or four years and had no time to go to the marketing people meant that the service never had an OFFICIAL name, so everyone called it 'Scud FM' and I have provided lots of quotes to prove it. Briantist 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a contempoary reference for you from 1992. " 1992 Sheena McDonald Guardian (U.K.) (Aug. 17) “Scud-FM goes critical—BBC gears up for round-the-clock news service” p. 25: Sceptics recall the reality of Gulf coverage as wastes of half-informed speculation by retired military men, punctuated by theatrical press conferences stunted up by the US military, complete with video inserts and the wit and wisdom of Stormin’ Norman http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/stunt_up/ Briantist 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some references from various books now too. Briantist 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the wording you use ("The name journalists gave it") makes it much clearer and I am no longer concerned about the article implying that "Scud FM" was the official name for the service to listeners Stephenb (Talk) 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Briantist 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also "Radio 4 News FM" could quite easily descibe the Today program, The World at One, PM and so forth. Briantist 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it was nicknamed 'Scud FM', but I very much doubt that the BBC as an entity would have called it such. I don't know what it was called on air, but the official BBC biography of Jenny Abramsky states:

In 1991 she set up Radio 4's News FM network for the duration of the first Gulf War.

and Jenny Abramsky herself referred to the service as 'Radio 4 Gulf FM' as previously quoted. I don't think that news programs would be described as 'Radio 4 News FM', as these programs are not just on FM and would be referred to as 'Radio 4 news programs'. mattbr³⁰ 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also this quote from Gillian Reynolds of the Daily Telegraph:

Radio 4 News FM is proving something of a severe opportunity for the BBC...

from Abramsky's lecture. mattbr³⁰ 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay! How about "BBC Radio 4 FM frequencies at the Gulf War"?--JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some EVIDENCE to support your position, rather than just contradict the eight references in the text. ••Briantist•• talk 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You would have an argument if the station was listed in the Radio Times as SCUD FM. Was it? Fred FuManchu 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a regular listener to Radio 4 of many years standing, I can answer that: no! So far as I am aware, the name was never used externally (there would have been an uproar in the media, for a start). Hence my continual objections to Briantist trying to edit the article to imply otherwise. The references he cites are not contemporary, BTW. Stephenb (Talk) 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So there we have it. If the SCUD FM name was only used as an internal nickname, then surely the name of this article must be changed due to it's relative obscurity. Further to my previous comment, and as further evidence, I can never recall hearing any "SCUD FM" type-jingles played either! --Fred FuManchu 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, it appears that you are viewing this article as your own. You must take a step back in order to achieve a little objectivity - This article is incorrectly titled because the name SCUD FM was not used by the world at large, only a handful of BBC employees. And that is the benchmark for the naming of articles. Don't take it personally, but from the comments above, you appear to have been out-voted in your suggestion. I move to rename this article accordingly - SCUD FM is purely a nickname and a little used one at that. --Fred FuManchu 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article explains that the article title is correct READ THE SUPPORTING REFs please.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But, Briantist, your "evidence" just doesn't connect. Because the person who created it has called it by this name, this does not support your claim. The article should be merged with Radio 4. As the channel was not officially known as SCUD FM (by your own admission) this article should not have SCUD FM as its title. Are we now to title articles with names that only the employees of an organisation use? When you can present evidence that SCUD FM appeared in the radio listings of the time, then you might - might have a valid argument. Until then, I move that this article be merged. A rethink is definitely in order. Fred FuManchu 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article has been reviewed against the good article criteria and has been placed on a seven day hold. This means that some minor niggles exist which prevent elevation to GA status, but which you have between two and seven days to iron out before I re-evaluate the article. The review is below.

Well Written: FAIL

• The lead section needs a re-write. It should be made clear that Radio 4 gave over its entire network to rolling news, that this had no precedent, and that it was broadcast in the UK only - this removes the ambiguity about whether this station was an in-theatre station or a home broadcast channel.

Radio 4 did not give over it's entire network, only the FM frequency, as describe. ••Briantist•• talk 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Organise the article better. Putting all the information in one section is not a good article. Appropriate headings/divisions would be "Creation", "Press/General Reaction" and "Consequences".

Factually Accurate and Verifiable: PASS

• Statements referenced to a good degree. I would prefer it if standard procedure were followed and references placed after punctuation marks, but this is not strictly necessary for GA.

Broad: PASS

• The article is broad enough, given its limited subject matter.

NPOV: PASS

• In keeping with the BBC ethic, this article is neutral!

Stable: PASS

• The article is not a victim of ongoing edit wars

Pictures: FAIL

• The article has no pictures, but this criterion is not a requirement of a GA candidate, just a suggestion

Chrisfow 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are two massive quotations. Perhaps parts could be paraphrased (retaining the references, obviously). Is it possible that the 'further reading' could be integrated into the main article and be cited as references for consistency? I've reworked the lead. The JPS^{talk to me} 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Have these concerns been addressed? If so note it here. The on hold has expired but if they have been addressed it can be passed. I'll wait one day for a response otherwise I have to fail it.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems this article's time is up, looks like the re-write never happened.... Homestarmy 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Scud Radio on BBC World Service

I know this was on BBC World Service because I listened to parts of it at the time and wondered how long it would be before normal service was resumed. Kathleen.wright5 Australia 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I've been WP:BOLD and moved the page to the formal title by which it was actually known on air, rather than the informal title used internally. Sam Blacketer 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ScudFMlogo.png

Image:ScudFMlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Scud FM → Radio 4 News FM — This article should be at the actual name of the station, not the nickname. The nickname was far from universal, was never popularly encouraged, and was in any case only applied later in the war (the Scud missiles were at first not familiar and had to be explained). The policy on naming conventions does not give any support to using a nickname where an official and simple name is available, and positively discourages pejorative names. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Tevildo (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Radio 5

And yet it proved such a disappointment, often elbowing-out rolling news with dire phoneins and dreary, old-style sports-commentary. There's still a niche for rolling news radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recordings

Are there any recordings of the station's output available to listen to online? Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

the popularity of the station was taken as evidence that a rolling news service was required. In response, BBC Radio 5 Live was launched on 28 March 1994

This is a non-sequitur! Radio 5 isn't a rolling news service but another talk-station like Radio 4, but with less art to it. So very frequently, it strays from news (reality) into sport (fantasy/entertainment) which it reports as though it were news. The closest you might get to rolling news radio would be the BBC News TV channel without pictures. World Service is little better. It would be great if the BBC actually did 24-hour rolling news radio; it could conquer the world, especially in the age of internet-distribution through in-car web-connection and domestic smart speakers. There may be an interest at the BBC which fears such a service would scoop its other channels, audio and video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfedanon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)