(GUEST(s) - if you could add a consistent little handle to your posts, then we'd be able to distinguish comments from GUEST from comments from GUEST.) :-)

There seem to be several distinct but interlinked themes about the topic:

1. Whether the show should change or not after 15 years.
2. Whether Mike Harding should or should not go.
3. Whether Mark Radcliffe should or not should be chosen as presenter.
4. Whether Mark Radcliffe or anyone else should have accepted the role of presenter.
5. Whether any presenter would be anything other than a front for a pre-selected playlist.
6. Whether "folk" should or should not be brought into the mainstream.

There may be others - like: should anything, anywhere ever change! The only one that has any passing interest for me is no. 6 on my list.

For the life of me I can't see whether it matters that the music that we like (whatever that music is, not just folk) should be "in the mainstream" or not, or "brought to a wider audience" or "given more exposure in the media". Are we in thrall to radio and TV? Is the only measure of the greatness of music the number of people who listen to it, or the number of times it's played on the radio? I have dozens of different musical interests - 18,000 tracks on my iPod at the current count - and many of my favourites will never be heard on the airwaves from one decade to the next. Rina Ketty singing "Berceuse du Reve Bleu" - the Holy Modal Rounders blasting through "The Year of Jubilo" - Jean Sablon singing "Le Fiacre". Why should I care about that "lack of exposure" - and how on earth could it possibly detract from the music itself?

I will say this: an unrelieved diet of folk music, or any other music for that matter, on radio and TV would be boring. Variety is the spice, etc... but there's also the "Off" switch.