I see the armchair generals are all out in force today.
So you think Maxine doesn't know anything about nuclear physics? Well, maybe that's because she's a journalist.
The concepts being explained to her, were not difficult to grasp. Anybody with O Level physics, and common sense, would have understood, but yes, you're right she's a journalist, and like the vast majority of them they refuse to even try and understand technology, ironic really, because it's cutting edge technology that enables them to broadcast.
Harsh. Last time I checked there was no requirement for 'O'-level Physics as a qualification to be a decent journalist. And assuming the audience have a grasp of 'O'-level Physics is also a woeful failure. A large chunk of the audience won't have. It doesn't mean they are stupid.
Sure - a basic understanding of science is very useful, as is a basic understanding of stats. On the other hand - I've found a huge number of physics, chemistry, engineering and maths graduates who can't write a decent English paragraph for toffee... One of the fundamental issues in Science and Engineering at the moment is that many very well qualified professionals can't communicate their subjects clearly without assumption of existing knowledge. That's not a fault of the audience.
The technology used to broadcast TV is irrelevant to a presenter, just as the offset-litho process is pretty much irrelevant to people working in print...
Yes - as someone who studied Nuclear Engineering at University level I find some of the coverage frustrating - however it isn't someone with a degree that they are broadcasting to...
CBS News' Early Show included opts from Tokyo, people coming in live from Skype and such. A few concerns over the effects on America, international reaction.
Not meaning to be picky - but I suspect they weren't 'opts' but contributions.
An 'opt' is where a local operation 'opts out' of the main network feed to provide different - usually more locally centred - coverage. If the coverage is being taken by all outlets, it isn't an 'opt'.
I knew there was something skewiff with my post, thanks for telling me. I was thinking of WCBS Opting out to report on 13 people dying in a bus crash, which was terrible news, followed by CBS Early Show running Japan's quake and potential nuclear disaster.
I see the armchair generals are all out in force today.
So you think Maxine doesn't know anything about nuclear physics? Well, maybe that's because she's a journalist.
The concepts being explained to her, were not difficult to grasp. Anybody with O Level physics, and common sense, would have understood, but yes, you're right she's a journalist, and like the vast majority of them they refuse to even try and understand technology, ironic really, because it's cutting edge technology that enables them to broadcast.
Harsh. Last time I checked there was no requirement for 'O'-level Physics as a qualification to be a decent journalist. And assuming the audience have a grasp of 'O'-level Physics is also a woeful failure. A large chunk of the audience won't have. It doesn't mean they are stupid.
No, I agree, but nothing these experts that are wheeled in say, ever seems to be used to update the headline scripts.
The shot of the power station cladding blowing off is still replayed ad infinitum, alongside evocative phrases such as 'meltdown'. What's the point of interviewing them, to fill five minutes of air time, as nothing more than 'opinion', or to try to and help explain to the audience what really might be happening ?
Sure - a basic understanding of science is very useful, as is a basic understanding of stats.
Sorry, but it should be essential. People take what television and radio presenters say, as being gospel, I so often hear inaccuracy, and even complete nonsense about topics I am expert in, that it makes me wonder should I believe anything I hear ?
On the other hand - I've found a huge number of physics, chemistry, engineering and maths graduates who can't write a decent English paragraph for toffee... One of the fundamental issues in Science and Engineering at the moment is that many very well qualified professionals can't communicate their subjects clearly without assumption of existing knowledge. That's not a fault of the audience.
The technology used to broadcast TV is irrelevant to a presenter, just as the offset-litho process is pretty much irrelevant to people working in print...
It's a far broader issue that that. The culture in the mass media is all wrong now, just look at the way programmes such as Horizon have been dumbed down in recent years. It's all CGI and dramatic music, with 10 mins worth of information stretched into an hour. There are contemporary presenters who are excellent and engaging on science and technology. Brian Cox, Alice Roberts, and James May for instance, they all tick the 'accessibility' box, May is a huge draw of course being a Top Gear presenter. However, two recent programmes the Stargzing Live and James May's Man Lab had been simply hijacked by 'media studies trendies' and were chopped up into trivial nonsense. The inclusion of Jonathon Ross in Stargazing was just crass, and Dara Ó Briain, one of the few comics who is actually a Physics graduate, was given the role of some sort thicko court jester asking inane questions. And the government wonder why no one these days is interested in a career in science and technology ! There's a sneering attitude that anyone interested in technology is some boring bespectacled geek, no one ever seems to be intersted in how things might work, technology is just consumed and taken for granted. It's very sad.
No, I agree, but nothing these experts that are wheeled in say, ever seems to be used to update the headline scripts.
It would be unlikely that the comments of any expert, used for context rather than factual reporting, so far away from the story, would be used to re-write scripts. These are almost certainly being updated (or not) based on agency copy, or statements made by Japanese authorities. It isn't really possible to do anything else. There has also obviously been the issue that a number of the experts that have been wheeled in, particularly in the case of a controversial industry like nuclear power, have not been entirely un-partisan. Some of the industry experts and the environmental experts have been saying very different things.
The basic science - how a BWR reactor works, and how nuclear fission is controlled, is not up for discussion - that's fact.
Quote:
The shot of the power station cladding blowing off is still replayed ad infinitum, alongside evocative phrases such as 'meltdown'. What's the point of interviewing them, to fill five minutes of air time, as nothing more than 'opinion', or to try to and help explain to the audience what really might be happening ?
I think that until we know what caused the explosion (hydrogen released exploding is the most widely espoused theory I think), and why Caesium has been detected, and how that has been released (earlier gas venting - if that happened), it isn't that clear.
Once you get beyond explaining cooling - you're really going to struggle to explain the concepts of nuclear energy to a lay public. Radiation, and half-life in particular, is a tricky concept to explain to an audience.
Another issue has been that a lot of the experts wheeled on have been very poor communicators - and have not really helped either the presenters/journalists and audience to understand what is going on that much.
You and I may well understand what the experts are saying (I did Nuclear Engineering as part of my degree) - it doesn't mean the audience OR the journalists covering the storey do.
Sure - a basic understanding of science is very useful, as is a basic understanding of stats.
Sorry, but it should be essential. People take what television and radio presenters say, as being gospel, I so often hear inaccuracy, and even complete nonsense about topics I am expert in, that it makes me wonder should I believe anything I hear ?
I agree - and it is true of every subject. I never believe any Which? reviews for the same reasons (they don't know what they are talking about in terms of TV reviews...)
The BBC CoJo and some of the journalists with a decent background, ARE trying to ensure that journalists have a stats background.
However experts, or people with degree level qualifications in a specific subject, will always be frustrated by the reporting of their own subjects. It isn't limited to science and stats - people who understand law, politics etc. feel the same I'm sure...
On the other hand - I've found a huge number of physics, chemistry, engineering and maths graduates who can't write a decent English paragraph for toffee... One of the fundamental issues in Science and Engineering at the moment is that many very well qualified professionals can't communicate their subjects clearly without assumption of existing knowledge. That's not a fault of the audience.
I'm with you 100% on that one
Yep - it is a real problem when you need to find experts quickly though. As someone booking a guest to appear on the news channel, if you can't get someone you know you've used before and who is good, you end up having a very quick phone interview and taking a punt that they'll be OK on-camera.
You also have to judge whether they are reputable, and not a nut-job...
The technology used to broadcast TV is irrelevant to a presenter, just as the offset-litho process is pretty much irrelevant to people working in print...
It's a far broader issue that that. The culture in the mass media is all wrong now, just look at the way programmes such as Horizon have been dumbed down in recent years. It's all CGI and dramatic music, with 10 mins worth of information stretched into an hour. There are contemporary presenters who are excellent and engaging on science and technology. Brian Cox, Alice Roberts, and James May for instance, they all tick the 'accessibility' box, May is a huge draw of course being a Top Gear presenter. However, two recent programmes the Stargzing Live and James May's Man Lab had been simply hijacked by 'media studies trendies' and were chopped up into trivial nonsense. The inclusion of Jonathon Ross in Stargazing was just crass, and Dara Ó Briain, one of the few comics who is actually a Physics graduate, was given the role of some sort thicko court jester asking inane questions. And the government wonder why no one these days is interested in a career in science and technology ! There's a sneering attitude that anyone interested in technology is some boring bespectacled geek, no one ever seems to be intersted in how things might work, technology is just consumed and taken for granted. It's very sad.
Well - I can guarantee Stargazing Live wasn't hijacked by Media Studies Trendies - you're still unlikely to be in a senior position in the BBC with a Media Studies degree... (Most of them - apart from the specialised ones from Ravensbourne and Bournemouth are not that widely regarded)
It was a mix of the Wonders of the Solar System/Universe and The Sky at Night production teams, with some live input from the teams who make Crimewatch and Watchdog, and a good chunk of them had scientific backgrounds. It was the most watched show that week on BBC Two, Channel Four and Five, and caused Amazon to sell out of Planispheres within 24 hours. (Amazon telescope sales went up 400% as well I believe)
If the show had been on BBC Four - you could have taken a totally different approach. However you wouldn't have found as large an audience, and wouldn't have had the budget as a result.
The big issue in factual production and news coverage is that you can't assume knowledge, but you can assume intelligence.
Confusing knowledge with intelligence is often what BBC programmes made the mistake of in the past, and they excluded a large chunk of the audience who wanted to know more, as a result.
Asking questions which seem inane to those with knowledge is not always the wrong thing to do. You have to make content accessible. Asking questions that seem stupid is often precisely the RIGHT thing to do. You have to imagine what questions your audience think are too stupid to ask (and may have been too afraid to ask at school), but they really want to know the answer to, and then ask them...
Getting 4 million people to watch a show that pretty clearly explained the value of multi-spectral imaging and radio interferometry isn't that dumbed down...
It IS a real problem. I loved Horizon in the 80s, I really did. I'm not a fan of the current format, as I've got a reasonable decent scientific background - and the show isn't aimed at me. Instead the BBC Four stuff is what I enjoy - and that IS aimed at me. However if the show had stuck with that format it would no longer be on-air - the audience just wasn't there for it. Shows change to try to retain their audiences - and that means using modern production techniques.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of some new techniques.
I know that getting a narrative into documentary is important, but the 'journey of personal discovery' format doesn't hugely appeal to me. Similarly the style of 'telling you what I'm going to tell you, before I tell you, then telling you, then telling you again what I've told you' just means I grab the FF button on my remote...
However these techniques do grab wider audiences - and even at the BBC that is pretty important.
(However I think we've veered quite heavily off-topic for this thread)
NHK runs two international TV services: NHK World (TV) is a free-to-air, unencrypted satellite channel, and NHK World Premium is encrypted-so-subscription-is-needed channel that offers a variety of Japanese language programmes from their Domestic channels. Both channels are NOT available in Japan
Its always nice to see Peter Dobbie on the News channel (he was ex-news 24 wasn't he).
Yep - Peter did the 2300-0100 shift Chris Eakin now does for quite a while, and also presented shows like Europe Direct. (Though I think he was also doing shifts for BBC World)
Maxine Mawhinney (News channel) and Peter Dobbie (World News) double heading in N6 (News channel studio) again at 1pm.
Yes - and they're both very good presenters. Definitely a good idea to merge the channels in these circumstances, when the story is just as important to both audiences, to allow resources to be shared rather than split (particularly studio guests and live reporters)
Maxine Mawhinney (News channel) and Peter Dobbie (World News) double heading in N6 (News channel studio) again at 1pm.
Its always nice to see Peter Dobbie on the News channel (he was ex-news 24 wasn't he).
Yes, indeed. He was ex-News 24, but even before that, he was on World back in the day........
I have been quite impressed by the number of senior staff and reporters all outlets appear to have managed to get onto the ground rather rapidly, especially considering that a significant number of resources are also in Libya at the moment.
From a "World" perspective, it is still always noticeable when the simulcast veers into UK-centricity, making references to "the Foreign Office" and "The Prime Minister" and "The Foreign Secretary", and the fact that "50 Britons have been found.........", etc. Are such comments made by the anchor "off the hoof", so to speak, or is it actually dumped into autocue in that manner?
Maxine Mawhinney (News channel) and Peter Dobbie (World News) double heading in N6 (News channel studio) again at 1pm.
Its always nice to see Peter Dobbie on the News channel (he was ex-news 24 wasn't he).
Yes, indeed. He was ex-News 24, but even before that, he was on World back in the day........
Yep - and a Foreign Correspondent or Producer I believe before turning to presenting.
Quote:
I have been quite impressed by the number of senior staff and reporters all outlets appear to have managed to get onto the ground rather rapidly, especially considering that a significant number of resources are also in Libya at the moment.
Yes - I think they didn't deploy quite as massively to the Middle East and North Africa as they once might have (budget cuts and all that), so they may have benefited from that decision. They've also redeployed people from the region (China for instance) as well as flying people in from futher afield.
They've got a very strong reporting line-up - Damian Grammaticas, Alistair Leithead, Rachel Harvey on the ground and Chris Hogg in Tokyo (himself a former Tokyo Correspondent), as well as Clive Myrie - all of whom are excellent reporters in these situations.
Quote:
From a "World" perspective, it is still always noticeable when the simulcast veers into UK-centricity, making references to "the Foreign Office" and "The Prime Minister" and "The Foreign Secretary", and the fact that "50 Britons have been found.........", etc. Are such comments made by the anchor "off the hoof", so to speak, or is it actually dumped into autocue in that manner?
It's tricky - some stuff will no doubt be being dragged and dropped from domestic running orders - particularly those joint bulletins coming from the News Channel studio rather than the World studio (the studio is a good guide as to which production teams are building the orders). There won't be the manpower to go round re-writing every single script to remove domestic language from it just for joint bulletins - and you wouldn't want BBC World scripts for domestic only bulletins.
Also - if you are a presenter who usually only works on domestic output it is naturally to adlib domestically. (And at times you might not actually know which networks you are on!)
Quote:
NHK have continued with splendid coverage today.
Yes. Their special programme from the blacked studio with Holoscreens and a VR map on the floor was well produced, and they're doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. It looks like some of the NHK newsgathering infrastructure is still intact. There is a TV studio in Sendai working - as they were interviewing someone down the line from it during that show.
(However I think we've veered quite heavily off-topic for this thread)
Well, yes and no. This is really about the
presentation
of science and technology on TV.
The challenge is to avoid alienating viewers that do understand the basics of what's being discussed, whilst at the same time educating others without patronising them, and hopefully igniting an interest in a subject, particularly for the young.
The remit for News should, and can only really address the first two, but I don't think it's succeeding.
In fact there is no news programme or channel that has coverage for the 'initiated,' C4 News and Newsnight sometimes come close, but more generally not. The BBC's 'Click' is actually the closest regarding IT and consumer electronics, and stands head and shoulders above the drivel that is C5's Gadget Show.
As for general science and technology for the initiated, yes, that is indeed BBC 4's territory, but by your own admission the young, and general population are not drawn to that channel, so what's going to spark their interest ?
As a teenager I watched the classic 1978 Horizon programme about the Silicon Chip revolution, and that galvanised me into wanting a career in electronics, (which now I have), we need more of that today, James May's earlier series, the 'Inventions' and later the 'Challenge' stuff were first rate I thought. Man Lab was a disaster, and its title alone would have alienated most female viewers. We need far more of the former, and on BBC 1/2, not hidden away on 4.
