On May 10, 1:23*pm, oriel36 wrote:

....

What makes it boring for everyone is that the vital interpretative
element of astronomy was squeezed out centuries ago leaving what is
essentially a magnification exercise on one side and a speculative
modeling mess on the other.

I don't think astronomy is boring! Far from it. I was saying that
since Patrick Moore's demise The Sky at Night has become boring for
the reasons stated.

Of course, it's easy to see faults. What could they do to fix the
programme? Here are some thoughts:

1. Editorially: Go back to having a mixture of:

* stories of discovery (how science gradually progressed its
understanding of a certain astronomy-related topic),

* in-depth investigations into specific astronomical wonders (e.g. a
particular moon and what we know about it and how science missions
have learned more over time),

* a specific astronomy-related issue (e.g. light and how we can lean
from analysing it)

* cosmology issues such as the lives of certain types of stars, dark
matter and energy, specific galactic clusters and superclusters etc.

2. Keep the monthly newsnotes - i.e. things to look out for before the
next programme. Possibly keep the answering of viewers' questions but
answer them in more depth.

3. Go back to a single presenter who should be an enthusiast in the
topic. Note that "enthusiast" does *not* mean he or she needs to talk
quickly! (Most of the current presenters talk too quickly possibly
because they are in pairs and are trying to keep up with the other
person.)

The presenter needs to be someone with a genuine love of the topic who
will put it across in a way that helps the viewer to share that
feeling. Patrick Moore could talk quickly when he wanted but he could
slow down very deliberately when talking of important points and he
wasn't afraid of the dramatic pause.

As for who should present now that Patrick has gone why not, for a
while, have a different main presenter each month or have a presenter
cover it for two months at a time? They could use each of the current
crop of presenters but also have guest presenters from time to time.
If this seems like a job interview process then why not! Once they see
who make good anchors they can pick one of them. Frankly, going back
to one presenter - even if that presenter is not ideal - would improve
on the frenetic and somewhat competitive style they have now.

If they didn't want to go through that period of transition then of
the current personnel I think Pete Lawrence would be *by far* the most
appropriate as anchor. He has a genuine love of the topic and does a
lot of work behind the scenes. He is also good at explaining topics to
viewers. He is not so good as roving reporter. For that, Chris Lintott
and Chris North would be good choices.

I would drop Paul Abel and (with regret!) Lucie Green entirely from
regular presence though they could be occasional contributors.

Other potentially good anchors could be Michele Dougherty or Brian May
but I would like to see them present a show before deciding.

In short, astronomy is far from boring. Of all the sciences it is one
which is disproportionately full of wonders and there are plenty of
topics within astronomy to bring to the public a sense of awe for many
years to come - as long as it is presented properly.

James