OT: Save The Sky At Night

[Wymsey]

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-bbc-please-do-not-axe-the-sky-at-night


--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

[CD]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Wymsey wrote:

> www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-bbc-please-do-not-axe-the-sky-at-night

Sadly, I think they'll do it, no common sense at the BBC. It gets over
1,000,000 viewers, must be cheap as chips to produce & takes up the tiniest
part of the schedule.

I've watched all post PM editions & the team do an OK job, but I have
cringed at some pieces. I've also noticed some of the team have had less
air time in recent months, notably Pete & Paul.

As much as I like Lucie Green's credentials, there's no need for her as a
co-presenter, this was Lintott's gig in waiting for many years.

[Stephen]

"CD" <n...@way.ok> wrote in message
news:1ljld0y5ako9k.1vddpqdq3ob32$.dlg@40tude.net...

If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't they
just carry on with it on BBC Four ? If the viewers of The Sky at Night are
as dedicated as they say they are it should still get 1,000,000 viewers,
because everyone who can get BBC One today can also get BBC Four since
Digital switchover. It should be one of the highest rating shows on BBC
Four.

And why not do a version of The Sky at Night on BBC Radio 4 ? The programme
would at least get treated with respect there.

Many radio programmes have visualisation on the associated website these
days, and even webcam feeds live from the radio studio, and the Sky at Night
website is already well established, so it could continue almost like the TV
programme even if was only on radio.

Alas, the programmes people at BBC One nowadays have no idea about science.
They see it only as a challenge to be made "not boring", and so we get the
Sky at Night Team Roadshow Challenge, focus on the "human interest" aspects
of the subject, and as little actual information about Astronomy as
possible. They have no concept that anything about science can be
interesting in it's own right. The people at Radio 4 on the other hand, do
understand that.

[Brian Gaff]

Yes we did this some time back. Unfortunately they seem to want to replace
it with a kind of dumbed down techy prog fronted by a 'real' broadcaster
asking inane questions.


No surprise there then.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Wymsey" <Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l4gld3$552$2...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

Maybe it would end up just as a webcast in the end then.

I just don't watch much tv any more of late, as even horizon which used to
be good seems to be the same old broad brush strokes almost tabloid level
stuff these days, not to mention the recent tendency to make programs about
older programs containing old archive footage that seem to do nothing uch
for the subject at all.

And as for that Obryan characters Science club, its like some kind of magic
show with science bits instead of illusions.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Stephen" <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7...

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7>, Stephen

<ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:


> If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't
> they just carry on with it on BBC Four ?

The snag with BBC4 may be having a DOG on the otherwise good looking
images of the sky.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[John Hall]

In article <53a1231...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes:
>In article <y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7>, Stephen
><ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't
>> they just carry on with it on BBC Four ?
>
>The snag with BBC4 may be having a DOG on the otherwise good looking
>images of the sky.

It can only be a matter of time before they introduce DOGs on BBC1 and
BBC2 as well. :(
--
John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat
The subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:
Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"

[Peter Duncanson]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:06:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7>, Stephen
><ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't
>> they just carry on with it on BBC Four ?
>
>The snag with BBC4 may be having a DOG on the otherwise good looking
>images of the sky.
>

That's not a dog. It's Sirius.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Johny B Good]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:06:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7>, Stephen
><ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't
>> they just carry on with it on BBC Four ?
>
>The snag with BBC4 may be having a DOG on the otherwise good looking
>images of the sky.
>

What I can't understand is why the BBC1/HD broadcasts are trimmed
back by 10 minutes (19 instead of the full 29). Unlike a lot of BBC3
and BBC4 repeats on BBC1 and BBC2 where you can enjoy a DOG free
version in full, you only get to see two thirds of a TSAN repeat.

If the BBC are so concerned about costs, why don't they make the most
cost effective cut of all and sack their "Branding Department" whose
sole purpose in life seems to be vandalism (DOGs, end credit squeezing
and screaming over end credits and cross fading into programmes).

Now that _all_ TV broadcasting is via DVB, the need for a "Station
Ident" DOG has become totally redundent (changing channels on a DVB TV
(or TV set fed via a DVB STB) generates a station ident pop up anyway
and there still remains the 'info' button option for those with short
memories.

I can't understand why the BBC have missed the "Blindingly Obvious"
use of a DOG in its "Binary Sense" to act as a visual 'single bit'
flag to indicate "set = commercial broadcaster" and "NOT set = The
official UK BBC broadcaster". IOW, the best DOG is a totally
transparent and invisible one.

The BBC just don't seem to realise their unique position in not
having any need whatsoever to inflict pointless DOGs (that's best left
to the commercial broadcasters who now have very little choice in the
matter).
--
Regards, J B Good

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:34:33 -0000, "Stephen"
<ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Alas, the programmes people at BBC One nowadays have no idea about science.
>They see it only as a challenge to be made "not boring", and so we get the
>Sky at Night Team Roadshow Challenge, focus on the "human interest" aspects
>of the subject, and as little actual information about Astronomy as
>possible. They have no concept that anything about science can be
>interesting in it's own right. The people at Radio 4 on the other hand, do
>understand that.

I've no doubt that something will eventually emerge on Youtube as a de
facto replacement, if there isn't something there already. You have to
search for the good stuff, but it's worthwhile.

Rod.

[Geoff Pearson]

"Stephen" <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y4_au.166075$bw7.1...@fx31.fr7...

I had no idea it was on BBC1 - I watch on BBC4. I've not watched anything
on BBC1 (apart from the Scottish News) for ages.

[CD]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:28:20 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I've no doubt that something will eventually emerge on Youtube as a de
> facto replacement, if there isn't something there already. You have to
> search for the good stuff, but it's worthwhile.

I was also wondering if it were axed by the BBC, would another channel pick
it up? Channel 5 for instance? They did it with the old Top Gear, they'd be
glad of 1,000,000 viewers.

[Graham.]

In what way do they have little choice?

Actually your binary DOG concept fits commercial television to a tee.
DOG ON , it's a programme
DOG GONE, it's a commercial.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

I though Heather Couper would take over at one time. I think she would
have dumbed it down, but to be fair, I can't think of a presenter who
wouldn't have.



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:21:57 +0000, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>>
>>> If they want to clean up the schedule by taking it off BBC One, can't
>>> they just carry on with it on BBC Four ?
>>
>>The snag with BBC4 may be having a DOG on the otherwise good looking
>>images of the sky.
>>
>That's not a dog. It's Sirius.

I don't think you're being Sirius about this at all.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:46:46 +0000, CD <n...@way.ok> wrote:

>
>> I've no doubt that something will eventually emerge on Youtube as a de
>> facto replacement, if there isn't something there already. You have to
>> search for the good stuff, but it's worthwhile.
>
>I was also wondering if it were axed by the BBC, would another channel pick
>it up? Channel 5 for instance? They did it with the old Top Gear, they'd be
>glad of 1,000,000 viewers.

That's a possibility. It wouldn't be high def though, so maybe we
wouldn't be able to see all the stars...

There's always "Stellarium". Anyone with even a passing interest in
astronomy who doesn't already know about this should install it on all
their computers immediately. Windows and Linux, 32 and 64 bit, so
there's no excuse. Looks fantastic on a 46" TV.

Rod.

[Johny B Good]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:41:26 +0000, Graham. <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:26:35 +0000, Johny B Good
><johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>

====snip====

>>
>> I can't understand why the BBC have missed the "Blindingly Obvious"
>>use of a DOG in its "Binary Sense" to act as a visual 'single bit'
>>flag to indicate "set = commercial broadcaster" and "NOT set = The
>>official UK BBC broadcaster". IOW, the best DOG is a totally
>>transparent and invisible one.
>>
>> The BBC just don't seem to realise their unique position in not
>>having any need whatsoever to inflict pointless DOGs (that's best left
>>to the commercial broadcasters who now have very little choice in the
>>matter).
>
>
>In what way do they have little choice?
>
>Actually your binary DOG concept fits commercial television to a tee.
>DOG ON , it's a programme
>DOG GONE, it's a commercial.

You've just answered your own question.

In spite of the (often) greater production and entertainment values
of the comercials compared to the 'programmes' themselves on
commercial TV, it's not too difficult for the average viewer to
discern the difference between DOGless comercials and DOGless BBC
programmes.

At the moment, all a viewer can glean from a DOGless program is that
it's either a BBC1 or a BBC2 broadcast being watched (the only
commercial broadcaster that seems to me to be following the BBC's lead
in this regard is Channel 4).

The BBC have a marvelous opportunity to utilise the absence of a DOG
as a mark of superiority. If the rest of the commercial broadcasters
are forced to follow The BBC's (and Channel 4's) lead, they can at
least congratulate themselves on a "Job Well Done" in raising the
quality of TV broadcasting in the UK.

[John Hall]

In article <mcsw0adianqz$.70i5cux2...@40tude.net>,

Isn't it too upmarket for Channel 5? I can see C4 doing so, though.

[Mark Carver]

Johny B Good wrote:

> At the moment, all a viewer can glean from a DOGless program is that
> it's either a BBC1 or a BBC2 broadcast being watched (the only
> commercial broadcaster that seems to me to be following the BBC's lead
> in this regard is Channel 4).

Almost, regrettably C4's native HD broadcasts on C4-HD have a DOG.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Mark Carver]

John Hall wrote:
> In article <mcsw0adianqz$.70i5cux2...@40tude.net>,
> CD <n...@way.ok> writes:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:28:20 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> I've no doubt that something will eventually emerge on Youtube as a de
>>> facto replacement, if there isn't something there already. You have to
>>> search for the good stuff, but it's worthwhile.
>> I was also wondering if it were axed by the BBC, would another channel pick
>> it up? Channel 5 for instance? They did it with the old Top Gear, they'd be
>> glad of 1,000,000 viewers.
>
> Isn't it too upmarket for Channel 5? I can see C4 doing so, though.

They might have done 30 years ago, they took Granada's partly networked, and
shoved on at 00:30hrs before closedown, 'What The Papers Say' in 1982 for
instance, and screened it mid evening.

Actually TSAN is *EXACTLY* the sort of programme BBC 4 should be showing, the
channel and programme are surely made for each other ! Madness !

[Graham.]

But won't be the same without the spinning globe dissolving into the
opening credits, will it?


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Mark Carver]

Graham. wrote:

>> Actually TSAN is *EXACTLY* the sort of programme BBC 4 should be showing, the
>> channel and programme are surely made for each other ! Madness !
>
>
> But won't be the same without the spinning globe dissolving into the
> opening credits, will it?

No, though the spinning globe died 17 years ago anyway

[Bill Wright]

That's aquarius thing to say.

Bill

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:34:33 -0000, Stephen <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> If they want to clean up the schedule

What exactly does that mean? Why would the schedule need cleaning and in
what way?

> Alas, the programmes people at BBC One nowadays have no idea about science.
> They see it only as a challenge to be made "not boring", and so we get the
> Sky at Night Team Roadshow Challenge, focus on the "human interest" aspects
> of the subject, and as little actual information about Astronomy as
> possible. They have no concept that anything about science can be
> interesting in it's own right. The people at Radio 4 on the other hand, do
> understand that.

I would tend to agree with that.

[CD]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:50:25 +0000, Graham. wrote:

> I though Heather Couper would take over at one time. I think she would
> have dumbed it down, but to be fair, I can't think of a presenter who
> wouldn't have.

Did you see her on the PM tributes when he died. She hasn't aged well.
Although I'm not in favour of Lucie Green presenting, she's far easier on
the eye.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:25:44 +0000, CD <n...@way.ok> wrote:

>
>> I though Heather Couper would take over at one time. I think she would
>> have dumbed it down, but to be fair, I can't think of a presenter who
>> wouldn't have.
>
>Did you see her on the PM tributes when he died. She hasn't aged well.
>Although I'm not in favour of Lucie Green presenting, she's far easier on
>the eye.

That shouldn't have anything to do with it. PM himself wasn't
particularly easy on the eye, but he was an enthusiastic expert on the
subject he was talking about, and widely known and greatly respected
by everybody working in any related field.

But then, we're talking about telly...

Rod.

[Graham.]

If the model for informative not-dummed-down science TV is 1970s OU
broadcasts, those presenters weren't exactly perfect physical
specimens.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Java Jive]

Perhaps we ought to pass a law that anyone introducing a science
programme, male or female, should have to wear a tank top. That
should effectively weed out the meedja luvvies and ensure that only
those genuinely interested in science would apply ...

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:26:28 +0000, Graham. <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> If the model for informative not-dummed-down science TV is 1970s OU
> broadcasts, those presenters weren't exactly perfect physical
> specimens.
--

=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[John Hall]

In article <usf079lsdvjoup04i...@4ax.com>,

Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes:
>Perhaps we ought to pass a law that anyone introducing a science
>programme, male or female, should have to wear a tank top. That
>should effectively weed out the meedja luvvies and ensure that
>only those genuinely interested in science would apply ...

Wouldn't it also have weeded out Patrick Moore? I can't see him agreeing
to wear one.

[Geoff Pearson]

"Wymsey" <Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l4gld3$552$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-bbc-please-do-not-axe-the-sky-at-night
>
>
> --
> M0WYM
> Sales @ radiowymsey
> http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
> http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

The Times today says it is saved and will continue on BBC4 - where I thought
it was anyway.

[Phil Cook]

On 30/10/2013 10:26, John Hall wrote:
> In article <usf079lsdvjoup04i...@4ax.com>,
> Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes:
>> Perhaps we ought to pass a law that anyone introducing a science
>> programme, male or female, should have to wear a tank top. That
>> should effectively weed out the meedja luvvies and ensure that
>> only those genuinely interested in science would apply ...
>
> Wouldn't it also have weeded out Patrick Moore? I can't see him agreeing
> to wear one.

Hawaiian shirt or kaftan as suitable alternatives?

--
Phil Cook

[Johny B Good]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:05:47 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>You are not alone. I bet the BBC 2 version was dumbed down.

Never shown on BBC2, only BBC1. It's not dumbed down, just cut down
by 10 minutes (a 19 minute program instead of the full 29 minutes when
shown on BBC4).

It seems a terrible slight for BBC1 to insist on such brevity for
such a flagship production as this. I can only surmise that they
believe that the "ITV Audience" they've captured just won't tolerate
much more than 19 minutes' worth of 'wholesome education' at a time.