Jump to content
  • Join the online East Midlands astronomy club today!

    With active forums, two dark sites and a knowledgeable membership, East Midlands Stargazers has something for everyone.

Campaign to Remove Annoying Professor Immediately..!


Dean Watson

Recommended Posts

Further to last nights programme on private space flight.  Now dont get me wrong, the material itself was interesting.  However...

 

We at CRAPI, We have a d:ream, we have a d:ream of other science presenters doing programmes on spacey stuff.  Further to that end we campaign:

 

1.  No more staring at the sky like you havent seen it before.

2.  No more cod reverence and going on about how inspired you are and how inspiring it all is. Bleuughhh....

3:  The voice.  Oh god the voice... (then again, come to think of it, a certain current Sky at Night presenter...)

4.  Not using a travel budget the size of the entire Cuban tobacco harvest.  We do not need to go to Angel Falls to explain black holes.  A plug hole was good enough in my day.

5. The (forgive me) astronomical levels of smugness.  Okay, Patrick had some... mmm, flaws, but at least he was a laugh and didnt take himself remotely seriously.

 

There are other science presenters and possibly even new blood?  BBC history programmes seem to manage quite well (Lucy Worsley?  Mmm...  yes indeed - Okay, so I have double standards).

 

We will also be campaigning for the use of less folicularly challenged Irish stand ups on even the most vaguely geeky programmes.  Home made robots playing video games while they do sums anyone?  And as for both of them on one...  And whats with the female biology graduate?  Oh yeah! Cos shes really really pretty!  No relevant expertise in the subject whatsoever other than being a bit sciency.

 

Needless to say, we at CRAPI are relieved to see the almost total absence of impressionists that happened to mention once in the BBC canteen that they looked through a telescope at the Moon.

 

So come on BBC and other channels, lazy knee jerk casting of 'celebrity' presenters must stop.  Time was , channels would take a risk on new presenters and not rely upon the same old starry gazey faces.

 

Together we can beat the housewives tousled haired dreamboat.  

 

Remember.  Things... Can Only Get Better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago, I had this idea of an X-Factor style programme where a panel judged science presenters and it went to a public vote.

 

I'm egotistical enough to want the job myself but the BBC told me that my face is better suited to radio.

 

I like your Brian Cox references!

 

I think a knowledgeable amateur could do the job, especially if they have presentation experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Dean, not a Coxy fan then? :D

i personally think he does too many posing, silhouette gazing shots and the distance walking shots which can do my head in, but then again if it was Prof Alice Roberts doing the same I might have different views! Sexist shallowism at work of course!

Despite the material, presenters have to be credible and interesting enough to watch for a hour! "Jim" Al-Khalili is good!  Even fossil man Richard Fortey gets the message over in an interesting way! 

 

What a cracking job though, would love to get about like they do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree with the sentiment behind this I would also like to point out Mr C along with the rest of them are being told what to do.  Where to stand and gaze ect ect by some arty farty director. 

Not to mention some producer who thinks the audience has the mental capacity of an average five year old. 

So can we get shot of them at the same time. 

Edited by Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Graham said:

Whilst I agree with the sentiment behind this I would also like to point out Mr C along with the rest of them are being told what to do.  Where to stand and gaze ect ect by some arty farty director. 

Not to mention some producer who thinks the audience has the mental capacity of an average five year old. 

So can we get shot of them at the same time. 

I agree about the director Graham.  My partner was filming an episode of Time Team (footsteps on the foreshore,

) - One of the Channel 4 luvvies was going 'Data, we must show data!' Didnt matter what the data actually was, or its relevance to the research (all hers was back at home and Uni), just wanted to show some data on screen to make it look all researchy and sort of sciencey.  Could just as easily have been the football scores.

 

Its this kind of thing that makes my stomach churn.  That and as regards the Professor who I most studiously havent named with his rubbish mystical gaze and tone gives me the steaming... Oh I'm becoming incoherent.  But its why CRAPI is most appropriate.  In fact, thinking of it makes me want to go off and have......

 

And you know what Mister Professor! I like astrologers and Moon hoax conspiracists! I mean, no one except the most addled takes them seriously (except possibly you prof by your reaction to them...). Its always fun to have a group who by their own lunacy set themselves up to be laughed at.  Getting all cross and smug, no ones impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ee bah gum, in my day it were tennis balls on a bit ota string non o this ere compooter stuff, and presented by a big bloke wit squint. But we were appy. Ay  :-)

 

Love him or hate him, Coxie has done a lot for getting science through to the masses. It's  a sign of the 3 minute attention span of viewers in this modern day and age which required info to be presented in easily digestible methods. General dumbing down of the population IMHO.

 

A good matter of fact presenter would be great, no daft tricks either and reduced budget however that would not get viewing figures.

 

I actually quite enjoyed the programme however.

Edited by philjay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I will wade in here i thin the said Prof Cox has done more for getting folks interested in science/astronomy and general

geek stuff than anyone else I know, including all the stuffy old presenters we used to get.  If we dont appeal to a wider

audience among the young, we will eventually become the dinosaurs and die out :(  I give a complete :thumbsup: in the

get folks interested and get them to understand stuff instead of assuming they know and boring them to death :D:D 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm... all very well appealing to the young and whatnot (although my six year old is starting to show interest on his own without exposure to drivel).  Its all the dreamy eyed 'wonder at the beauty of it all'  that gets up my nose.  Ooh, its so inspiring!  Play to the lowest common denominator and thats what you get (more LCD).  The material should (and does) speak for itself.  Accept people have a 3 minute attention span and play to that and thats what you end up with.  People with a 3 minute attention span.

 

Ooh! But hes so dreamy...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went to see Cody and Robin from the Infinate Monkey Cage podcast live at Nottingham Arena with the boss and thoroughly enjoyed it but tried listening to the podcast and I just can't get on with it. All the jokey entertainment factor padding out the info drives me nuts. Give me the Jodcast any day, academics and students presenting real science by the people that do it and I bet no arty directorial editing either! But I bet the average TV science program audience wouldn't engage with it at all so I accept we have to have both the dumbed down style for the 3 minute brigade and the proper stuff for those that appreciate it. It's a shame we don't get much of the proper stuff on the TV compared to the other stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my teaching days (not school, BTW), we generally accepted that it is possible to keep people's attention for 20 minutes, then we need to get them doing another activity. When I was a kid, I wondered why we needed two newscasters when they only needed to pay one. I later discovered that the change of presenter was a way of keeping the audience's attention. It's not like the old days where there were only 2 TV channels but these days TV has to compete against 24/7 multi-channel, mobile 'phones, entertainment on tap on the 'net.

 

I agree that most of us here are avid science watchers and would be happy watching a presenter flipping through a Powerpoint presentation but most aren't.

 

When soccer was taking off in the USA, I found the commentary very dumbed down but then the average US sports fan would have found our Channel 4 presentation o American football dumbed down.

 

I guess what it comes down to is that the BBC need to produce most science programmes that are aimed at the general public and not specialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think with these things, we talk about appealing to the 3 minuters but when you really think about it, how much impact does it actually have on them anyway?  I personally think, none, it affects their lives not one jot, always assuming they were sufficiently interested in the subject (whatever it may be) to watch it anyway.  SO I think the argument about appealing to the widest possible audience is in some ways an argument for lazy broadcasting and an excuse to take a subject to the lowest common denominator without it actually containing anything to appeal to the focus target audience, i.e. those who actually take an interest in the subject at hand.  

 

The general public on the whole arent interested in these subjects, unless you've had something in your life to specifically spur that interest (as I would suspect all of us).

 

And a certain mop top professor talking about how 'inspired' and 'inspiring' he finds it all is a thinly veiled instruction that I should find it inspiring too.  I do as it happens but not because some luvvie tells me to and I certainly dont feel the need to wax rhapsodic about it at the drop of a micro meteor.  I can work out the 'awe wonder and majesty' of it all on my own without some berk forcefeeding it.  And so too, I suspect can most viewers should they have been sufficiently motivated to watch in the first place.  Let the science speak for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeanWatson said:

 

The general public on the whole arent interested in these subjects, unless you've had something in your life to specifically spur that interest (as I would suspect all of us).

 

 

What spurred your interest Dean?

i am not sure what spurred mine. Maybe it was as a 12 year old, when my mate had a Tasco small cheap refractor for his birthday and together we peered at the moons craters and ridges - all blurry and fringed with colours...  or was it watching tv's sky at night...

or is just a personal inane want to learn more about us, our planet our universe, its laws, it's wonder, how does it all work, how did it start, how will it end. I find myself on a quest to try and understand about physics, maths, biology, life, I want to know how it all hangs together.

I could go on... but what I really don't understand is why most people just don't want to know anything about all this stuff. They are not interested at all! I guess we are all different. Evolution at work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smithysteve said:

What spurred your interest Dean?

i am not sure what spurred mine. Maybe it was as a 12 year old, when my mate had a Tasco small cheap refractor for his birthday and together we peered at the moons craters and ridges - all blurry and fringed with colours...  or was it watching tv's sky at night...

or is just a personal inane want to learn more about us, our planet our universe, its laws, it's wonder, how does it all work, how did it start, how will it end. I find myself on a quest to try and understand about physics, maths, biology, life, I want to know how it all hangs together.

I could go on... but what I really don't understand is why most people just don't want to know anything about all this stuff. They are not interested at all! I guess we are all different. Evolution at work!

Hi Steve.  Its true though isnt it, most people couldn't give a monkeys about this stuff.  Just appealing to everyone to raise ratings is a false economy as it were.  It has no real value.  So why not present to peopkle who actually care about this stuff.  My partner (the Phd archaeologist) cant watch archaeology programmes anymore.  They're all so exciting and glossy with all the nutrional value of a Sony Walkman.

 

For me (being as I was born in 67 - 50 in October Hurrah... muted applause.  Never understood why people say congratulations btw - Well done on not dying!).  I was given by my Dad a collection of newspapers on the Moonlandings.  Wish to god I still had them, though I guess in some ways I do as they are kind of in my bloodstream as it were.  Also, was a reader early, exposed to Dr Doolittle (Moon Moth! I keep looking for one of an evening but Nurse always calls me in for my magic Smarties just as I think Ive seen one).

 

 Also grew up (I use the phrase advisedly) in the age of Space 1999, Thunderbirds, Apollo Soyuz linkup, space agey stuff generally.  Astronomy was a natural extension and spacey stuff has been a part of (if not the defining part) of my life ever since.  Consequently I love most science stuff, rational thinking (although youd never know it...) and all that seeing and understanding the world as it really is in all its 'inspiring and beautiful majesty' Oh jeebus, I'm getting as bad as the origin of this thread... I take solace in my hypocrisy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to buck the trend and say I don't mind a bit of foxy Coxy.

I enjoy the infinite monkey cage and at least swmbo will watch his programs with me rather than the soaps. I also really enjoyed seeing him live. Admittedly he does seem to be the default presenter at the moment but he has done a great deal, ok not just him, to raise an interest in astronomy and science in the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I do find he can sometimes become almost a parody of himself with the "millions and billions" and the wistful looking up, pointing at shiny things in the sky, I do find him quite easy to watch. He probably did inspire me to take my hobby further with Stargazing live too. I enjoyed his "wonders of" series too, and for tv I find his programmes to be of about the right level to keep me interested yet simple enough that non-astro nerds can follow it too.

 

At the end of the day I think those that dislike him should avoid watching him if they so wish. The viewing figures obviously warrant his regular appearances or else the BBC wouldn't keep getting him to do it. I do agree though that all this constant globe trotting is a bit unnecessary in a lot of cases. That said, S@N have gone the same way to some extent and don't get me started on the shambles that was Stargazing (recorded) Live 2017 from Australia!

 

Media has changed a lot since I were a lad. No longer are we restricted to 3 channels that ran from some time in the morning and went to cefax sometime around midnight. Now we have a vast array of channels that are free to view (apart from a tv license) let alone the hundreds on cable and satellite. There are space related programmes on a channel almost every day from many different presenters. But aside from this there are years worth of videos available on the internet. Many of them never seen on tv even. If there is anything you want to know about it is there at the stroke of the keyboard. I say Coxy is okay by my book. He has no doubt inspired a few folk, popularised the subject and taken it away from the image of a load of blokes sat in a village hall wearing tweed talking about telescopes and how best to avoid actually having to use them. 

 

Live and let live I say. But he'll never be a patch on Segan or Moore! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with some of the above comments, I suppose I blame the way society has changed and for that the broadcasters have to pander to the masses. The presenters don't have to look authoritative or that they even have a connection with the subject. No longer are suit and ties the standard uniform either, some of them look like an explosion in a charity shop.  The weather is a case in point for that, you don't have to be a meteorologist now, just a presenter. (God Bless Carol Kirkwood!)

I also think that as technology has also become so advanced, education has failed to keep up for the majority of the population. Most people are less likely to even know about the basics of science and technology, look how poor even basic grammar has become. (cough. :ph34r:)

 

Some of the young lads I work with don't have the faintest inkling of basic physics and these are engineers. I am the company nerd, they have no idea who Tesla was or how much fun his ideas could be! Capacitance is just canned wizardry and resistance is what occurs when the karzi door refuses to open.

They don't have the need to know, as mentioned above it's just a click away, but if you don't have the fundamental understanding in the first place, will that answer mean anything?

 

Mikes comment about three channels made me smile, how many of us have come in from a night out and sat watching the Open University programs? Some of them even made sense! That was serious tank top and cardigan territory. :D

 

So long as there are good folks like ourselves, who want to know what happens when you push the button that says " Don't press" above it, then at least there will be someone to say "That wouldn't be a good idea" and people will know it isn't, based the fact they know you are likely to have good reason to know it's not a good idea!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go on for hours about how society has changed. To be fair, I love the 'net 24/7 multi-channel telly, cheap international 'phone calls and the like.

 

But yes, people might be connected to a group of people worldwide who are interested in astronomy but how many people have you had meaningful conversations with IN PERSON this week?  Do you even sit at the table to share meals with at least one family member? Do you ever actually read a book?

 

Without being too pessimistic, we (as a world) expect to be fed information and entertainment and if it doesn't grab our attention for more than a few minutes, we abandon it. Mad magazine once said that news programmes were aimed at 15-year-olds and did a parody of what it would be like if they were aimed at 7-year-olds. I don't think we're that far away now.             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coxy knows his stuff, but I fear he's playing up to his own parody, it's getting to be a job to tell him from Jon Culshaw. Whether that's him, or his producer/director, who knows? Having grown up watching Magnus Pyke and Patrick Moore (plus James Burke and Raymond Baxter), who am I to say? I do like Jim Al-Khalili, though, and could listen to Lucie Green, Helen Czersky and Alice Roberts all day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I've watched the programme. The content was very interesting. The Man they call Brian took a back seat when allowing the major players have their say. Not sure I'd pay a quarter of a million for a sub-orbital flight, though.

 

As I've said, maybe us lot here are not a cross-section of the general population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Al said:

Coxy knows his stuff, but I fear he's playing up to his own parody, it's getting to be a job to tell him from Jon Culshaw. Whether that's him, or his producer/director, who knows? Having grown up watching Magnus Pyke and Patrick Moore (plus James Burke and Raymond Baxter), who am I to say? I do like Jim Al-Khalili, though, and could listen to Lucie Green, Helen Czersky and Alice Roberts all day...

Magnus Pike! Now there was a man who could keep your attention! He was excellent! And credible too!

Have any of you ever attended any of Paul Money's lectures/talks? He is not a tv presenter but he writes books on astro, (and fiction), and works on the Sky at Night mag, and of course delivers great animated talks at societies up and down the country. He will no doubt be at the IAS Show in October. He would be great on the tv... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithysteve said:

Magnus Pike! Now there was a man who could keep your attention! He was excellent! And credible too!

Have any of you ever attended any of Paul Money's lectures/talks? He is not a tv presenter but he writes books on astro, (and fiction), and works on the Sky at Night mag, and of course delivers great animated talks at societies up and down the country. He will no doubt be at the IAS Show in October. He would be great on the tv... 

His jokes are appalling - but at least he knows that. I agree he would be idea for TV

 

I vote for Jem Stansfield a very practical guy and a degree in Aeronautics and a qualified Welder. Plus worked on "Lost in Space" plus exhibitions at  Royal Ob. My kind of presenter brainy and practical.

 

 

Edited by stash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Dear me I thought I was getting on then you mentioned lost in space, I’m sure that was on the radio

in late 40s early 50s 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.