The Newsroom

BBC Breakfast - 16th July onwards

Split from BBC News (UK) presentation - Reith launch onwards (July 2019)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MI
m_in_m
Hatton Cross posted:
I guess it's the 'mobile phone' issue. People are used to seeing the time as 3 or 4 digit numbers.
Hour hand, minute hand, sweep seconds arranged in a circle? #mindblown.

It's the same reason I blame the wholesale reduction of accurately phrased timechecks on radio these days.

Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.

I've heard 41 minutes past 1 on BBC Local Radio in the past as well. That is just criminal.

I though BBC radio studio clocks had the time displayed as it should be said?
XX o'clock.
XX minutes past (hour)
Half past (hour)
XX minutes to (hour)

I’ve seen that for the Today programme but I don’t know if that is used on all programmes. I don’t believe they use it on TV bulletins - perhaps the Today programme audience are very vocal with time mistakes.
CU
Custard56
Neil Jones posted:
Its a shame we don't seen analogue clocks any more on TV in the UK. Telemation proves that they can integrate with the graphics without taking up an obscene amount of screen space, and of course they were common in the 1980s what with Breakfast Time and TV-am having them, though sadly they seemed to fall out of favour by the time the 90s came along. I think by 1992 it was only TV-am who were still using an analogue clock (but of course by that stage the clock wasn't the only thing they still holding onto!)


Someone will correct me but I'm pretty sure the analogue clock on BBC Breakfast News lasted throughout both its original look (1989-1993) and its corporate blue virtual reality era, 1993-1997. It was only in June 1997 (?) when Breakfast News was revamped away from the virtual reality look that the clock went "digital" and converted to numbers.
itsrobert, tightrope78 and Lou Scannon gave kudos
JO
Jon
If I heard 27 minutes to 4 on the radio my brain would automatically convert that 14:33. To me only past quarter to should it be said in the way you suggest as that’s when you’d start using it in normal conversation apart from 25 to and 20 to.

Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.
IS
Inspector Sands
Jon posted:

If I heard 27 minutes to 4 on the radio my brain would automatically convert that 14:33.

Yes, me too. I'm not sure at what stage I mentally flip from thinking 'past' to thinking 'to' though

Quote:
Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.

But then that depends on the person, some of us don't need a couple of seconds of processing time to work out the time on a clock
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 27 July 2019 8:50am
BR
Brekkie
The way this country seems to be going I suspect all clocks will be replaced by sundials next year anyhow.
NJ
Neil Jones Founding member
Inspector Sands posted:
Quote:
Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.

But then that depends on the person, some of us don't need a couple of seconds of processing time to work out the time on a clock


It may be in one's upbringing as the ability to instantly look at an analogue clock and be able to see it's twenty five to nine. Considering we had them all over school when I was at primary school, my parents had (and still do have) copious analogue clocks all over the place (in fact anything that's "digital" clock wise only exists if its on an oven, a Windows taskbar or the default Android lock screen). Thus it sort of becomes second nature to myself anyway to read them quickly.

I'm sure CBeebies used to use analogue clocks at some point on their trailers?
IS
Inspector Sands
Neil Jones posted:

I'm sure CBeebies used to use analogue clocks at some point on their trailers?

Yes I think they still do. Channel 4 did too when they had their circles logo.


Talking about primary school and growing up, I still base my thinking of the 24 hour clock on 4pm being 1600 because of seeing it on our only 24 hour clock - on our video recorder while watching TV after school so it was the first 24 clock time I knew
WW
WW Update
Hatton Cross posted:
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?
RN
Rolling News
WW Update posted:
Hatton Cross posted:
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?

No but she wouldn't really say it's 33 minutes past 3 either. She'd most likely say "just gone half three" or maybe "nearly twenty five to four".
chevron, scottishtv and itsrobert gave kudos
JW
JamesWorldNews
WW Update posted:
Hatton Cross posted:
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".
WW
WW Update
JamesWorldNews posted:
WW Update posted:
Hatton Cross posted:
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".


I understand the rounding issue, but Hatton Cross wrote that he perceived "33 minutes past three" (and presumably "three-33") as incorrect, which surprised me.
DV
dvboy
JamesWorldNews posted:
WW Update posted:
Hatton Cross posted:
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".

"Just gone half 3" more likely


Shaun Keaveney used to mock timechecks on his 6 music breakfast show with things like "22 minutes to 3 minutes past 8"

Newer posts