well, thats the case in pointto try and make 'science' less threatening, we have sidelined convention, and actively recruited the youngest, most screen pleasing academics - it ultimately another way of dumbing down - or at least sneering at the audience...
"look, if we put a pop star with letters after his name, and have him drive a car on some sand dunes, you might absorb some knowledge, you rotten proles"
("look, if we put a pop star with letters after his name, and have him drive a car on some sand dunes, you might absorb some knowledge, you rotten proles"
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:11,
archived)
I kind of know where you're coming fromWhen i worked in the horticultural/landscape industry, it pissed a lot of people off that the presenters of gardening programmes were young and trendy, yet knew fuck all about the subject. Case in point: Kim bleedin Wilde who had done one course in garden design at Capel Manor College and ended up fronting a really shit garden makeover programme.
However, say anything bad again about the ginger one off of coast and I will hunt you down and kill you.
(However, say anything bad again about the ginger one off of coast and I will hunt you down and kill you.
spesh.,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:16,
archived)
it's nothing personal in alicebut i remember that when she first emerged on coast, she was there as a archeologist, then a few months later, she was doing a programme about medicine! she might know about both, but she is presented as a sage each time - the whole thing is very disengenuous. they want the titles and the letters to give the show gravitas, but to be hoenst, they could have bought their degrees off the internet so long as they look good after make up, and do a mean piece to camera*.
so they arent the best screen talent, and they arent the best academics. so why are they there? just to lend weight. bah humbug.
*tv in sowmanship coming first shocker.
(so they arent the best screen talent, and they arent the best academics. so why are they there? just to lend weight. bah humbug.
*tv in sowmanship coming first shocker.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:23,
archived)
sowmanship would be useful for a gardening programme...
(
4Q just lurking,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:25,
archived)
I think she's an anthropologistso she could sort of know about medicine and archaeology. Sort of.
( spesh.,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:27,
archived)
"they arent the best screen talent, and they arent the best academics. so why are they there?"
So would you prefer a better presenter who knows nothing, or someone more knowledgeable who can't convey their knowledge? Choose. Choose now!
(So would you prefer a better presenter who knows nothing, or someone more knowledgeable who can't convey their knowledge? Choose. Choose now!
4Q just lurking,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:29,
archived)
Popular Science shows aren't made for Scientists,because there aren't many of us around. They're aimed at people who are interested but not experts, so they're made friendly and entertaining to get the biggest audience.
If you're an expert already, you don't go to TV shows for information.
(If you're an expert already, you don't go to TV shows for information.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:17,
archived)
Well, I don't know. I watched a program about chemistry the other day that had some interesting stuffLike the Scottish guy who first drew bonds as lines on a page (Archibald Scott Couper) but didn't publish fast enough and went mad.
Also, the dispute about whether two compounds with the same elemental composition (C, O, Ag) were the 'same' or not. Since one was explosive (Silver Ethanoate or something) and the other wasn't (Silver cyanante? no, that has nitrogen) it's not surprising to us. But the idea of a structural formula was new.
(Also, the dispute about whether two compounds with the same elemental composition (C, O, Ag) were the 'same' or not. Since one was explosive (Silver Ethanoate or something) and the other wasn't (Silver cyanante? no, that has nitrogen) it's not surprising to us. But the idea of a structural formula was new.
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:32,
archived)
I guess, though, this is history of science, not science as such. The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:33,
archived)
I saw that too, it was good.But it was on BBC4 (when I saw it, anyway), which tends to have more limited appeal stuff.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:36,
archived)
and thats a whole different argument....those shows shouldn't be hidden in the digital hinterland, they should be far more accessible.
really informative programs get hidden away, with the ugly boffins on bbc4, while we get prime time gloss with big teeth dr's on bbc1.
we are moving from broadcasting to narrowcasting, and marginalisation of huge sections of the audience, in favour of freeing up space for lowest common denominator mind piss programming. it sucks.
but stick a doctor on the glossy show on a sunday, and mark kermode on the cultcha show, and you fulfill the mandate. cunts cunts cunts.
(really informative programs get hidden away, with the ugly boffins on bbc4, while we get prime time gloss with big teeth dr's on bbc1.
we are moving from broadcasting to narrowcasting, and marginalisation of huge sections of the audience, in favour of freeing up space for lowest common denominator mind piss programming. it sucks.
but stick a doctor on the glossy show on a sunday, and mark kermode on the cultcha show, and you fulfill the mandate. cunts cunts cunts.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:55,
archived)
Er, I meant Silver Fulminate and Silver Cyanate.One is Ag-O-N#C, the other is Ag-O-C#N.
( The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:38,
archived)
That goes without saying**I believe you but wouldn't know any better and will instantly forget as soon as I scroll away.
I am definitely a not-scientist, the kind of 'prole' that these programmes are probably aimed at.
(I am definitely a not-scientist, the kind of 'prole' that these programmes are probably aimed at.
4Q just lurking,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:40,
archived)
well of course they are made for the people, and not the experts!and i'm not saying anything to the contrary.
what i am pointing towards is a shift in the relationship between presenter and viewer.
it used to be that we would take the program at its word - we know that presenters are reading a script, but we trust that the bbc's vast teams of researchers and experts will have done the hard work, and that we will learn something and be entertained.
now, post blue peter vote scandle, it seems that we have to have the illusion of expertise to trust a science program. next will we have soldiers presenting the segments from afghanistan on the news? is that what you want? eh?
(what i am pointing towards is a shift in the relationship between presenter and viewer.
it used to be that we would take the program at its word - we know that presenters are reading a script, but we trust that the bbc's vast teams of researchers and experts will have done the hard work, and that we will learn something and be entertained.
now, post blue peter vote scandle, it seems that we have to have the illusion of expertise to trust a science program. next will we have soldiers presenting the segments from afghanistan on the news? is that what you want? eh?
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:49,
archived)
Sounds like a great idea - they'd probably have a better knowledge of the facts and be relatively free of spin.
(
4Q just lurking,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:00,
archived)
Presumably the argument is experts will speak more coherently and involvingly than a lay-man reading a script.Which seems reasonable to me.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:07,
archived)
it's the argument, but it doesnt hold with me.two ways i see it:
1) sam neil did a great job fronting 'space', which was still explanatory, and precisely aimed at the same people. as an actor, he could evoke dramma and action more easily than most experts on that kind of prime time show.
2) the qualified presenters sprang up at the same time as the more involved programs of the type discussed further up, got marginalised. part of me cant help but feel that this was planned - by putting up authoritative front men on the same old type of show, it quietened any arguments about bbc1 & 2 dumbing down - which they have.
if you complained that factual programs have been shunted into the background, they would simply say 'but we have leading scientists and academics on every weekend at prime time!
disingenuous at best.
(1) sam neil did a great job fronting 'space', which was still explanatory, and precisely aimed at the same people. as an actor, he could evoke dramma and action more easily than most experts on that kind of prime time show.
2) the qualified presenters sprang up at the same time as the more involved programs of the type discussed further up, got marginalised. part of me cant help but feel that this was planned - by putting up authoritative front men on the same old type of show, it quietened any arguments about bbc1 & 2 dumbing down - which they have.
if you complained that factual programs have been shunted into the background, they would simply say 'but we have leading scientists and academics on every weekend at prime time!
disingenuous at best.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:28,
archived)