The Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Thread

There are a million and one reasons why he wouldn't be able to use the normal graphics in a forecast.

But I'm sure it was just him deciding he couldn't be bothered to sort it out

Well can you imagine that happening on the national?

Yes, I've seen it happen a few times.

I've even seen them disappear off air and have the continuity announcer have to read the forecast out instead. I always thought that was technical issues, but thanks to your post, I now know it was just the news teams wanting to get to the pub a bit quicker.

The point is though Look Leeds cock up regularly, and don't seem to learn from past errors. I'm getting a bit pissed off with it tbh.

I suspect the cock up's you don't notice far out number the ones that p*** you off. And I doubt any of them are down to people that couldn't be arsed to do the job they're paid to do.

No, each and every one of them piss me off. But not showing any of the forecast graphics is pretty ****.

A weather forecast without graphics is probably one of the easiest technical issues to deal with - the weather forecasters all do radio broadcasts without graphics or scripts, so if the graphics fail can switch into radio mode at the drop off a hat.

I'm sure there are backup plans - I've seen Paul do the weather with just a few still graphics before - but if the kit fails just before transmission there's a limit to how quickly you can get a contingency plan into place.

Every programme I've ever been involved in has had a technical or operator mishap. And at least 99% of them are invisible to the viewers. Generally, when a problem does make it to air, it's either because it was completely unpredictable, or a whole list of more minor issues have conspired against the production.

I simply don't believe you're pissed off by things you don't even see.



And the only reason you can think of as to why that could happen is that people couldn't be arsed to do their job?

I genuinely don't understand the personalities of some people on forums like ours.

On the whole most people at the BBC work their @rses of to get programmes on the air. I would agree with dosxuk, that every programme, live or recorded has some screw up somewhere. Live telly is an adrenalin rush and keeps you on your toes for the duration. Perhaps when the critics have produced such a programme then they can be permitted to criticise in the way they have.

Notwithstanding what I said earlier about weather people being experts at telling the weather story on the radio, I very much suspect (but I'll happily be corrected by anybody with specific insights) that it's a hell of a lot easier to present the forecast with graphics than without. The suggestion that the graphics were absent because Paul "couldn't be arsed" is laughable - it probably made his job considerably harder than usual.

The difference is weather forecaster/meteorologist vs weather presenter... The latter being used to present weather, the former being qualified, trained meteorologists who know what they're talking about. The likes of Shefali Oza, who was recruited as a presenter, even become trained as forecasters.