BBC Young Musician 2024

[Serial_Apologist]

The assumption probably is correct. But the natural corollary is deemed to be that they should provide only what 'most people' want and not bother too much about what an admitted minority wants, even if it's the exact opposite.

Last night's Panorama on how using loyalty card inducements selectively supermarkets compete to persuade shoppers to buy junk food is an analogous instance of today's ubiquitous marketing strategies. Ubiquitous, and iniquitous.

[Dave2002]

It certainly suits them to hang on to that assumption - factual content adds cost - but it reminds me of the Grotneys Red Barrel assumption, that because people drank it then there was nothing wrong with it. Conveniently overlooking that if people want a drink and that is all that is available then it is quite likely that is what they will drink, as it is preferable to doing without.
That physicists, historians, archaeologists, naturalists can continue to draw TV audiences suggests it isn't a justified assumption, but presumably the fact that people will watch programmes which are superficial is all the "evidence" that is needed.

Which physicists?

I don't think many people actually bother to watch whatever "science" is on TV, and many knowledgeable people say it's completely dumbed down.

[LMcD]

Which physicists?

I don't think many people actually bother to watch whatever "science" is on TV, and many knowledgeable people say it's completely dumbed down.

Brian Cox is a physicist, and 2 of the current presenters of The Sky At Night have degrees in physics.

[edashtav]

The assumption probably is correct. But the natural corollary is deemed to be that they should provide only what 'most people' want and not bother too much about what an admitted minority wants, even if it's the exact opposite.

Nicely nuanced.

[Dave2002]

Brian Cox is a physicist, and 2 of the current presenters of The Sky At Night have degrees in physics.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean the programmes he features in aren't dumbed down.
That may not be his problem though - but the BBC and similar organisations often prefer "style" over substance.

Someone like Leonard Susskind is unlikely to make prime time viewing fun for most people.

[oddoneout]

Indeed, but that doesn't mean the programmes he features in aren't dumbed down.
That may not be his problem though - but the BBC and similar organisations often prefer "style" over substance.

Someone like Leonard Susskind is unlikely to make prime time viewing fun for most people.

But at least starting with a respected "proper" physicist limits the misinformation that dumbing down will result in, and if such a specialist/qualified person has also written books aimed at the non-specialist then so much the better, as if interest has been piqued(or peeked/peaked as it often appears...), that can be followed up. Not as dumb as choosing a well known name to regurgitate poorly understood facts, or a journalist who has no science knowledge (and often it seems no inclination to at least try and understand what they write about) to write a column about something topical.
There are people who have the combination of knowledge and ability to present that knowledge in an engaging and sensible manner in the music world, and some of them have occasionally been allowed to do so, but if those responsible for commissioning programmes continue to believe (for whatever reason) that audiences are a) not interested in and b) not capable of understanding factual content, then they don't get a chance to share that knowledge and ignite an interest.

[Dave2002]

But at least starting with a respected "proper" physicist limits the misinformation that dumbing down will result in, and if such a specialist/qualified person has also written books aimed at the non-specialist then so much the better, as if interest has been piqued(or peeked/peaked as it often appears...), that can be followed up. Not as dumb as choosing a well known name to regurgitate poorly understood facts, or a journalist who has no science knowledge (and often it seems no inclination to at least try and understand what they write about) to write a column about something topical.
There are people who have the combination of knowledge and ability to present that knowledge in an engaging and sensible manner in the music world, and some of them have occasionally been allowed to do so, but if those responsible for commissioning programmes continue to believe (for whatever reason) that audiences are a) not interested in and b) not capable of understanding factual content, then they don't get a chance to share that knowledge and ignite an interest.

I thnk - and hope - that if I ever meet Brian Cox I would get on with him, so agree on that issue. Otherwise there do seem to be issues re supply side vs demand side.The media companies provide pap, because [so they might claim] there is no demand for serious material, and the viewers put up with that for various reasons. Also, even where there is a respected specialist in one field, using that person to front a progamme completely outside their field of expertise doesn't make sense, though might be entertaining. An example - ask a serious scientist about sport history questions for a sport in which they have no interest. Might amuse hundreds or thousands, who would be falling off their armchairs at the "ignorance" of the specialist.

Come to think of it, that might be a good idea for a programme!

[Ein Heldenleben]

But at least starting with a respected "proper" physicist limits the misinformation that dumbing down will result in, and if such a specialist/qualified person has also written books aimed at the non-specialist then so much the better, as if interest has been piqued(or peeked/peaked as it often appears...), that can be followed up. Not as dumb as choosing a well known name to regurgitate poorly understood facts, or a journalist who has no science knowledge (and often it seems no inclination to at least try and understand what they write about) to write a column about something topical.
There are people who have the combination of knowledge and ability to present that knowledge in an engaging and sensible manner in the music world, and some of them have occasionally been allowed to do so, but if those responsible for commissioning programmes continue to believe (for whatever reason) that audiences are a) not interested in and b) not capable of understanding factual content, then they don't get a chance to share that knowledge and ignite an interest.

The decline in presenter led high- end factual is largely because of money not any general cultural “dumbing -down” (that took place in the nineties when there was still a lot commissioned in this genre). As always it’s largely down to money . Spending on UK programming has fallen by thirty per cent since 2000 - might even be more.The licence fee revenue has fallen by about that amount (in real terms) and C4 - traditionally big commissioners in their genre have also lost a lot of ad revenue, The BBC a has taken on extra responsibilities S4C and the World Service - all with no extra money.
These programmes were traditionally made with a lot of external investment - foreign TV companies, book tie-ins etc.The global demand has fallen and tastes have also changed. The huge sums the BBC used to get from a big factual deal with Discovery aren’t as big . Though some genres are still in demand - Natural History, Science esp astronomy with others e,g, History * the bubble has well and truly burst.
* except for cheap bang- bang archuve based WW2 stuff .

If you think it’s depressing watching or not watching quality factual imagine being a programme maker in these genres . Virtually every one I know (save for Natural History ) has either retired or left the business.

[LMcD]

I thnk - and hope - that if I ever meet Brian Cox I would get on with him, so agree on that issue. Otherwise there do seem to be issues re supply side vs demand side.The media companies provide pap, because [so they might claim] there is no demand for serious material, and the viewers put up with that for various reasons. Also, even where there is a respected specialist in one field, using that person to front a progamme completely outside their field of expertise doesn't make sense, though might be entertaining. An example - ask a serious scientist about sport history questions for a sport in which they have no interest. Might amuse hundreds or thousands, who would be falling off their armchairs at the "ignorance" of the specialist.

Come to think of it, that might be a good idea for a programme!

Make sure it IS Brian Cox and not Jon Culshaw!

[Dave2002]

If you think it’s depressing watching or not watching quality factual imagine being a programme maker in these genres . Virtually every one I know (save for Natural History ) has either retired or left the business.

I really don't know. How much do such people cost? How many are needed to produce a quality programme?

Then we can get into a "conversation" about how much train drivers get paid.

[oddoneout]

The decline in presenter led high- end factual is largely because of money not any general cultural “dumbing -down” (that took place in the nineties when there was still a lot commissioned in this genre). As always it’s largely down to money . Spending on UK programming has fallen by thirty per cent since 2000 - might even be more.The licence fee revenue has fallen by about that amount (in real terms) and C4 - traditionally big commissioners in their genre have also lost a lot of ad revenue, The BBC a has taken on extra responsibilities S4C and the World Service - all with no extra money.
These programmes were traditionally made with a lot of external investment - foreign TV companies, book tie-ins etc.The global demand has fallen and tastes have also changed. The huge sums the BBC used to get from a big factual deal with Discovery aren’t as big . Though some genres are still in demand - Natural History, Science esp astronomy with others e,g, History * the bubble has well and truly burst.
* except for cheap bang- bang archuve based WW2 stuff .

If you think it’s depressing watching or not watching quality factual imagine being a programme maker in these genres . Virtually every one I know (save for Natural History ) has either retired or left the business.

Hence my comment in an earlier post that factual content adds costs.
Has the History bubble burst? David Olusoga for one still seems to appear, and the likes of Digging for Britain are still around(or does archaeology not count as history in TV terms?)

[Ein Heldenleben]

I really don't know. How much do such people cost? How many are needed to produce a quality programme?

Then we can get into a "conversation" about how much train drivers get paid.

The answers are less than you might think and more than most people assume.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Hence my comment in an earlier post that factual content adds costs.
Has the History bubble burst? David Olusoga for one still seems to appear, and the likes of Digging for Britain are still around(or does archaeology not count as history in TV terms?)

A fraction of the days when Starkey et al were strutting over the UK and indeed across the world

[LMcD]

A fraction of the days when Starkey et al were strutting over the UK and indeed across the world

Somebody has just posted a glowing review - on the Recommended TV Programmes' thread - of last night's factual programme on fungi on BBC 4 last night. (Mind you, David Mitchell's quite a fun guy).

[Serial_Apologist]

Somebody has just posted a glowing review - on the Recommended TV Programmes' thread - of last night's factual programme on fungi on BBC 4 last night. (Mind you, David Mitchell's quite a fun guy).

Does he leave mushroom for anything else?