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)