Modern presentation

[french frank]

I was a bit perplexed as to where this topic might fit. I've just listened to the Guardian's podcast about the Moldovan EU referendum. Interesting but I found the presentation somewhat annoying and eerily familiar. Okay, silly to even have an opinion but in the introduction "This is the Guardian" the intonation annoyed me - a 'promotional' tone of voice inviting the listener to be interested (I am interested: that's why I'm listening). The interview (yes, a duologue) is between two journalists both with relevant experience, there are musical cadences now and again, there are protests (sounds of protests), bloody war (sounds of bloody war) and so on.

Oh, how I miss the kind of talk where an informed, authoritative speaker tells me (not via an intermediary) in an undramatic voice about a subject that interests me. If I ask myself why presentation of serious subjects is done this way, it's not a rhetorical question: why is it felt that it must be done this way now?

[smittims]

I suspect the influence of Television, and in particular TV advertising. It seems to have become compulsory to have movement and variety at all times. Nothing is allowed to remain unaltered for more than two minutes. We have to be whisked away to 'coming up next', or 'let's see how Matt is getting on with his wall', and often accompanied, or even dominated, by 'rum-ti-tum, rum-ti-tum' music . I'm usually disappointed by TV documentaries which, for all their variety and expense, would be better, for me, replaced by 15-minute radio talk.

A few years ago the Parliament channel repeated the original seven-hour telecast of the 1953 Coronation, and I was struck by the way the camera was allowed to rest silently on an object, such as a fluttering flag, when there was nothing actually happening. This I felt more efectively helped the viewer to feel as if they were there, waiting with the spectators. Nowadays of course we'd be treated to presenters laughing round a table or asking celebrities how they feel, which for me quite spoils the mood. It's become a sort of religious dogma. And (I'm speculating here) I think it just doesn' occur to them to do anything else because they don't actually think creatively. They're part of a sort of cloned, Brave-new-world generation that daren't question the order.

[Pulcinella]

The concept of silence is indeed a strange one.
May have mentioned before, but my partner, a Quaker, is often amused when we go to the Minster and the service booklet says something like: We will observe a short period of silence.
I think the shortest we've endured was about 4 seconds.

[LMcD]

I suspect the influence of Television, and in particular TV advertising. It seems to have become compulsory to have movement and variety at all times. Nothing is allowed to remain unaltered for more than two minutes. We have to be whisked away to 'coming up next', or 'let's see how Matt is getting on with his wall', and often accompanied, or even dominated, by 'rum-ti-tum, rum-ti-tum' music . I'm usually disappointed by TV documentaries which, for all their variety and expense, would be better, for me, replaced by 15-minute radio talk.

A few years ago the Parliament channel repeated the original seven-hour telecast of the 1953 Coronation, and I was struck by the way the camera was allowed to rest silently on an object, such as a fluttering flag, when there was nothing actually happening. This I felt more efectively helped the viewer to feel as if they were there, waiting with the spectators. Nowadays of course we'd be treated to presenters laughing round a table or asking celebrities how they feel, which for me quite spoils the mood. It's become a sort of religious dogma. And (I'm speculating here) I think it just doesn' occur to them to do anything else because they don't actually think creatively. They're part of a sort of cloned, Brave-new-world generation that daren't question the order.

I think the lack of activity by the camera team in 1953 was down to the restrictions placed on the BBC by the authorities. If memory serves, Auntie had to fight hard in the first place to show the event at all and there was plenty of opposition to any kind of close-up shot. Unfortunately, the pendulum has now swung to the opposite extreme - as you say. unnecessary movement and
spurious excitement are now the norm. Richard Dimbleby may now come across as a ponderous and pompous establishment figure, but at least he had the necessary dignity and gravitas when they were called for. (He also reported on the liberation of the concentration camps and the spaghetti harvest, so he clearly lacked neither a sense of proportion nor a sense of humour).

[Ein Heldenleben]

The rise of the two handed hour long podcast is one of the most intriguing cultural phenomena of our time. The idea that two people (Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell ) sitting and discussing politics for an hour plus on a stage can sell out the O2 arena would have been dismissed as incredible ten years ago. The audiences for standard TV and radio discussion programmes is plummeting . So why are they so successful ? First they are top notch performers not the sort of third rate MP’s happy to do low audience stuff. Secondly they have every good producers and money. I wonder if they over record and cut down - a luxury that most political programmes can’t afford.
I have never listened to a podcast as years of working in speech radio has created a bit of an aversion to the entire spoked word genre be it audiobooks or radio talks but I gather podcasts like The Rest Is History are very well presented and produced and have a wealth of interesting information. That podcast again is on tour no doubt making millions . Interestingly it’s about classical music. From what I’ve seen in the press it’s rather dumbed down.
The twenty minute scripted radio talk has gone the way of the brown ball because of production costs. So much cheaper to do a live interview which most academics will do for a free ticket and to get their name on air.
They survive in the TED talk, Again a max of 18 mins - almost exactly the length of a Third programme interval talk. The speakers are unpaid but such is the global exposure I reckon many would pay to do one.

[french frank]

The twenty minute scripted radio talk has gone the way of the brown ball because of production costs. So much cheaper to do a live interview which most academics will do for a free ticket and to get their name on air.

You mentioned the concert interval talks too: so much cheaper to stick on a bit of recorded music

[mopsus]

There is still 'The Essay' on Radio 3 on weekday evenings.

[french frank]

There is still 'The Essay' on Radio 3 on weekday evenings.

Yes, and I recognise that it's a bit churlish of me to say that, this week for instance, five essays from Australia 'on the theme of place and belonging' doesn't really grab me.

[mopsus]

Yes, and I recognise that it's a bit churlish of me to say that, this week for instance, five essays from Australia 'on the theme of place and belonging' doesn't really grab me.

It's probably tied into the current royal visit somehow.

[french frank]

It's probably tied into the current royal visit somehow.

Ah, yes! A story I haven't been following bar the unavoidable headlines.

[AuntDaisy]

Yes, and I recognise that it's a bit churlish of me to say that, this week for instance, five essays from Australia 'on the theme of place and belonging' doesn't really grab me.

Is the ranine Michael Gove & co. more your cup of tea?

[Pulcinella]

Is the ranine Michael Gove & co. more your cup of tea?

Had to look this up (though I shouldn't: Italian rana); wonderful.

[kernelbogey]

....in the introduction "This is the Guardian" the intonation annoyed me - a 'promotional' tone of voice inviting the listener to be interested (I am interested: that's why I'm listening)....

I suspect that this is part of the Guardian's stance to create a global audience, which they have, in part, done by having a significant journalistic and editorial presence in the US and Australia. I'm biased as I'm a supporter of the Guardian, but that tone (which irritated me too) is a sort of modern 'This Is London' stance.

[french frank]

Is the ranine Michael Gove & co. more your cup of tea?

"Navigating a career in politics is a tricky business and in this series, Michael Gove talks to fellow politicians about the strengths and skills needed to help weather the storm."

It probably embodies everything that I dislike most about 'serious' broadcasting nowadays .

[french frank]

but that tone (which irritated me too) is a sort of modern 'This Is London' stance.

Also of R3, home of k-LASSical music.