Not best pleased

But at least they put it out.Can you see ITV1 transmitting it?

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Only if they offer a £50,000 prize for the first person that rings in and
can spell the word "Moon"

"Mutz" wrote in message
...
On 6 Jan 2007 22:31:34 -0800, "
wrote:

Patrick Moore is not happy

Just shows how bad things at the BBC have become.
The last serious science based programme and they can't even be
bothered to put it on at a decent hour.
I watched a couple of Horizon episodes I taped in the 80s and despite
the lack of fancy graphics and bull**** mood music they were still
head and shoulders above any of the crap the BBC squeezes out these
days.

You have to ask WHY the BBC keeps the Sky at Night at all. Here's why I
think they do.

1. It's cheap to make (they don't even use a studio)

2. It's short making it a good schedule filler

3. It's a "minority" interest so kicking it around the schedules won't stir
up much anger (just see the abuse the BBC gets when Eastenders gets moved
for football)

4. The BBC can point to it as a show that meets their duty to produce
programmes that "educate and inform"


Lets be honest, it wouldn't get made today.

"Ian Evans" wrote in message
...
Maybe some of the posters on this thread should take a moment to climb
down off their own particular high horse and have a look at the TV
schedule. Sky at Night is on 4 times this week. Tomorrow morning on BBC 1,
tomorrow night at 19:30 on BBC4, Tuesday morning at 02:45 on BBC4 and
Saturday at 12:30. The BBC4 version is ten minutes longer.
I would agree that the BBC science coverage has been well below what I
would want it be, although it is far better than any of the other
terrestrial channels. I'm not quite sure how many of the comments about
the BBC have anything to do with the scheduling of the Sky at Night. I'm
pretty sure that gender and sex issues are low on the list of priorities
when deciding when we should see Sir Patrick.

Ian

Your point is taken Ian and the BBC often use the "excuse" that programmes
can be recorded so the time they go out doesn't really matter. However, if
so why don't the BBC put Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing out at 2AM? How
many programmes have you recorded, then never got to watch?

The 7-10PM slot is seen as prime time, when most families are probably
sitting down together to watch TV.

In my view a show like the Sky at Night would be ideal to put out at that
time as it clearly has an appeal to all ages.

Many people flick through channels and will often "discover" a TV show often
by accident.

The Sky at Night doesn't have any regular time slot. It gets booted around
all over the place.

Me thinks the BBC controller is probably an arts graduate.

Oh an am I the only one totally FED UP with news presenters when discussing
the story about the 3D image of the Universe (the dark matter map) all
laughing and admitting they know nothing about it or don't understnad it?
Like it's "KOOL" to be thick. They NEVER admit to not understanding
Shakespeare do they?

(Rant over)

Peter Hayes wrote:

But at least they put it out.Can you see ITV1 transmitting it?

No.

And more to the point I can't see the BBC doing so either. When would
it be on the ITV then? I imagine it would get a longer slot than the
BBC gives it as they would have 5 minutes of commercials if they put it
on at peak time.

Ian Evans wrote:
Maybe some of the posters on this thread should take a moment to climb down
off their own particular high horse and have a look at the TV schedule. Sky
at Night is on 4 times this week. Tomorrow morning on BBC 1, tomorrow night
at 19:30 on BBC4, Tuesday morning at 02:45 on BBC4 and Saturday at 12:30.
The BBC4 version is ten minutes longer.
I would agree that the BBC science coverage has been well below what I would
want it be, although it is far better than any of the other terrestrial
channels. I'm not quite sure how many of the comments about the BBC have
anything to do with the scheduling of the Sky at Night. I'm pretty sure that
gender and sex issues are low on the list of priorities when deciding when
we should see Sir Patrick.

Ian



I couldn't agree more. Like it or not astronomy is a minority interest,
I think with the schedule above most poeple who were interested would
be able to find the time to watch it (even those who are 'out
shopping').

Its not ideal but at least we have a regualr astronomy program, things
could be worse....

"Gaz" wrote in message
oups.com...




I couldn't agree more. Like it or not astronomy is a minority interest,
I think with the schedule above most poeple who were interested would
be able to find the time to watch it (even those who are 'out
shopping').

Its not ideal but at least we have a regualr astronomy program, things
could be worse....

And an exceptionally long running one with a famous and venerable
presenter. *Everybody* has heard of The Sky at Night, even if most
of them have probably never actually seen it.

Things could indeed be worse. There is no such programme dealing with
the weather. So for those from the astronomy group, be thankful for
what you've got
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 00:38:40 -0000, Billy no Mates wrote:

Oh an am I the only one totally FED UP with news presenters when discussing
the story about the 3D image of the Universe (the dark matter map) all
laughing and admitting they know nothing about it or don't understnad it?
Like it's "KOOL" to be thick. They NEVER admit to not understanding
Shakespeare do they?

Ahh, but that's culture - innit? You've got to be cultured, even if you
are stupid. Like it's alright to be thick, so long as you're pretty.
Let's face it: TV is a superficial medium where image is everything
and content counts for very little.

As it is, the fleeting stargazing mentions on local programmes, such
as BBC Points West probably puts astronomy in front of more non-
enthusiasts than SaN does. Sadly, they're so short and shallow, you're
likely to miss them if you're not paying attention.

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

In uk.sci.astronomy Weatherlawyer wrote:

I'll be at work on Monday morning and probably out shopping like the
rest of Britain on Saturday at about 12:30. Do people actually watch
BBC 4?

As with every other channel, if there's something interesting on BBC4
then it gets recorded for later perusal.

I gave up watching television during broadcast time some years ago.
There are simply too many advantages in recording programmes to watch
when I feel like watching them. One of those advantages is that I don't
care when a programme is broadcast. Indeed it is an advantage if it's
broadcast at a time when it won't clash with other programmes of
interest because I only have five recording devices.

The most major advantage is that I can skip through adverts. of course
this shouldn't apply on BBC channels. However they have a habit of
filling in a lot of guff and advertsing in between programmes and so for
a programme ostensibly lasting half an hour, I'll probably save myself 5
or 6 minutes. On advertising channels, one hour of programming can be
watched in something between 43 and 47 minutes.

Of course I'll probably only spend the time saved by watching yet another
series of CSI...

FoFP

In uk.sci.astronomy Col wrote:

Things could indeed be worse. There is no such programme dealing with
the weather.

Heh. Give it time and there'll be "Global Warming Warning" on a twenty
minute slot every night. Probably on Channel Four.

FoFP

"M Holmes" wrote in message
...
In uk.sci.astronomy Weatherlawyer wrote:

I'll be at work on Monday morning and probably out shopping like the
rest of Britain on Saturday at about 12:30. Do people actually watch
BBC 4?

As with every other channel, if there's something interesting on BBC4
then it gets recorded for later perusal.

I gave up watching television during broadcast time some years ago.
There are simply too many advantages in recording programmes to watch
when I feel like watching them. One of those advantages is that I don't
care when a programme is broadcast. Indeed it is an advantage if it's
broadcast at a time when it won't clash with other programmes of
interest because I only have five recording devices.

The most major advantage is that I can skip through adverts. of course
this shouldn't apply on BBC channels. However they have a habit of
filling in a lot of guff and advertsing in between programmes and so for
a programme ostensibly lasting half an hour, I'll probably save myself 5
or 6 minutes. On advertising channels, one hour of programming can be
watched in something between 43 and 47 minutes.

Of course I'll probably only spend the time saved by watching yet
another
series of CSI...
The problem is when four things are all scheduled for the same time. I
have two HD videos, cable, and satellite, as well as a DVD recorder. I can
simultaneously record from the cable, satellite, and freeview, yet have
still known times when there are more things I want to see, than I can
save. Then you go weeks, when nothing is available. It is all part of the
brilliant 'master plan', by the program schedulers, to put _everything_ on
at what is seen as 'prime time', and almost nothing at other times (except
Sky at Night...).
The 'fill in' you are noticing on BBC programs,is why things like 'Planet
Earth', have a ten minute 'making of' bit at the end. Programmes are being
made on the assumption that they _will_ be shown at some point on a
channel with advertisements, so 'full' timing, is being avoided, and they
aim for about 50 minutes in the nominal hour.

Best Wishes