Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having heard the 5.57 pm forecast and (just now) the 0030 "Weather
report and forecast" (sic) on Radio 4 I am now convinced more than ever that Radio 4 should give up on the idea of using weather forecasters (presenters?) and get someone in Exeter to tap it out on a keyboard, send it up the wires and have it read out by an announcer. Or just give up on weather forecasts altogether as being far too serious and grown-up for the media airheads and stick to what they're good at, which, paradoxically, is quite a lot, at least on Radio 4. At 5.57 pm, after the usual time-filling frivolities at the end of the PM programme, Eddie Mair indulged in some extensive banter with Laura Tobyn, eating into the precious seconds, with the result that the actual forecast lasted less than a minute. Tobyn gabbled away at high speed in her usual detached robotic way and few could have learnt anything from what she said. At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. (Come in, Bob Prichard). New depths of dumbing down at the BBC have been reached, aided by the apparent indifference of the Met Office. An article in the latest edition of "Weather" shows how much both accumulated and instantaneous expertise now goes into a forecast yet the Met Office allows it to be delivered by a troupe of grinning chimpanzees. Don't they care? No, they get the money. Would any other media outlet be better? No, worse. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tudor Hughes wrote:
Having heard the 5.57 pm forecast and (just now) the 0030 "Weather report and forecast" (sic) on Radio 4 I am now convinced more than ever that Radio 4 should give up on the idea of using weather forecasters (presenters?) and get someone in Exeter to tap it out on a keyboard, send it up the wires and have it read out by an announcer. snip My complaint is on 'Breakfast' when they send they the weather presenter out to some location, then waste a couple of precious minutes telling us how 'luv-lee' the spring flowers are looking at Kew Gardens or whatever. Paying a highly trained meteorologist to witter on like this is a nonsense, let them talk about the weather, that's what they are suposedly there for. I've always wondered what these 'on location' forecasts actually bring anyway in terms of 'added-value'. Unless they send the presenter to an area of very bad weather and it's being done for 'effect' to emphasise the point, presenter being plastered with snow, almost being knocked off their feet in a gale on a sea-front (you know the thing), I don't really see the point. -- Col Bolton, Lancashire 160m asl |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tudor Hughes wrote:
At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. (Come in, Bob Prichard). You're probably referring to the slot that was titled "The Weather Commentary". That was a very useful 5-minute programme presented in a sober scientific way and the presenter didn't get in the way of the information. It was very much in the mould of what Radio 4 is usually very good at. The present day pseudo-celebrity style of presentation that we often now get doesn't fit at all well. Fortunately, with all of the material now available on the web, the DIY approach to weather forecasting is much more reliable than anything on the broadcast media, especially for site-specific interests. -- Norman Lynagh Tideswell, Derbyshire 303m a.s.l. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tudor Hughes wrote:
Having heard the 5.57 pm forecast and (just now) the 0030 "Weather report and forecast" (sic) on Radio 4 I am now convinced more than ever that Radio 4 should give up on the idea of using weather forecasters (presenters?) and get someone in Exeter to tap it out on a keyboard, send it up the wires and have it read out by an announcer. Or just give up on weather forecasts altogether as being far too serious and grown-up for the media airheads and stick to what they're good at, which, paradoxically, is quite a lot, at least on Radio 4. At 5.57 pm, after the usual time-filling frivolities at the end of the PM programme, Eddie Mair indulged in some extensive banter with Laura Tobyn, eating into the precious seconds, with the result that the actual forecast lasted less than a minute. Tobyn gabbled away at high speed in her usual detached robotic way and few could have learnt anything from what she said. At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. (Come in, Bob Prichard). New depths of dumbing down at the BBC have been reached, aided by the apparent indifference of the Met Office. An article in the latest edition of "Weather" shows how much both accumulated and instantaneous expertise now goes into a forecast yet the Met Office allows it to be delivered by a troupe of grinning chimpanzees. Don't they care? No, they get the money. Would any other media outlet be better? No, worse. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. ------------------------------------------- Well put Tudor. As an aside there are also a lot more people out there who want a "serious" forecast than we might imagine. Because of my interest I am finding that people in my photographic club, bird watchers , fellow golfers and gardeners are quite knowledgeable and rely on decent weather forecasts and just those groups alone represent several million people UK wide. Dave |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 28, 2:39*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:
* * Having heard the 5.57 pm forecast and (just now) the 0030 "Weather report and forecast" (sic) on Radio 4 I am now convinced more than ever that Radio 4 should give up on the idea of using weather forecasters (presenters?) and get someone in Exeter to tap it out on a keyboard, send it up the wires and have it read out by an announcer. Or just give up on weather forecasts altogether as being far too serious and grown-up for the media airheads and stick to what they're good at, which, paradoxically, is quite a lot, at least on Radio 4. * * * At 5.57 pm, after the usual time-filling frivolities at the end of the PM programme, Eddie Mair indulged in some extensive banter with Laura Tobyn, eating into the precious seconds, with the result that the actual forecast lasted less than a minute. *Tobyn gabbled away at high speed in her usual detached robotic way and few could have learnt anything from what she said. * * *At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. *You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. *The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. *There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. *(Come in, Bob Prichard). * * * New depths of dumbing down at the BBC have been reached, aided by the apparent indifference of the Met Office. *An article in the latest edition of "Weather" shows how much both accumulated and instantaneous expertise now goes into a forecast yet the Met Office allows it to be delivered by a troupe of grinning chimpanzees. *Don't they care? *No, they get the money. *Would any other media outlet be better? *No, worse. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. The weather report and forecast at before the 00.33 shipping forecast used to be compulsive listening - delivered in a sober and authoritative style by the likes of Nigel Gait. As you point out there must surely be a demand for this away from the current witless old tosh that seems to have replaced it |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
-------------------------------------------
Well put Tudor. As an aside there are also a lot more people out there who want a "serious" forecast than we might imagine. Because of my interest I am finding that people in my photographic club, bird watchers , fellow golfers and gardeners are quite knowledgeable and rely on decent weather forecasts and just those groups alone represent several million people UK wide. Dave I couldn't agree more. But it's part of the progressive dumbing-down process where the powers-that-be think we're all incapable of following anything unless it contains a large dollop of glitz, hype, spin or repetition. If you watched Horizon earlier this week, about sunspots, you'd see another prime example. The graphics were good (as they all should be these days) but we were assailed by pointless asides and repeated summaries of what we'd already been told, pre-supposing we'd forgotten it all or the viewer's attention span was less than an Alzheimic gnat. That meant I lost interest for large chunks of the programme. If there's something wrong with the education of young people these days, fix it; don't cover it up with sub-standard information for the rest of us by bringing all broadcasting down to the level of insulting Redtop mental mush. - Tom. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom wrote:
------------------------------------------- Well put Tudor. As an aside there are also a lot more people out there who want a "serious" forecast than we might imagine. Because of my interest I am finding that people in my photographic club, bird watchers , fellow golfers and gardeners are quite knowledgeable and rely on decent weather forecasts and just those groups alone represent several million people UK wide. Dave I couldn't agree more. But it's part of the progressive dumbing-down process where the powers-that-be think we're all incapable of following anything unless it contains a large dollop of glitz, hype, spin or repetition. If you watched Horizon earlier this week, about sunspots, you'd see another prime example. The graphics were good (as they all should be these days) but we were assailed by pointless asides and repeated summaries of what we'd already been told, pre-supposing we'd forgotten it all or the viewer's attention span was less than an Alzheimic gnat. That meant I lost interest for large chunks of the programme. If there's something wrong with the education of young people these days, fix it; don't cover it up with sub-standard information for the rest of us by bringing all broadcasting down to the level of insulting Redtop mental mush. - Tom. ----------------------------------- Sounds a bit like the management speak for doing presentations. Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. You'd hope for something a bit more creative to gain people's attention. Dave |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, 28 April 2012 12:10:36 UTC+1, Tom wrote:
------------------------------------------- Well put Tudor. As an aside there are also a lot more people out there who want a "serious" forecast than we might imagine. Because of my interest I am finding that people in my photographic club, bird watchers , fellow golfers and gardeners are quite knowledgeable and rely on decent weather forecasts and just those groups alone represent several million people UK wide. Dave I couldn't agree more. But it's part of the progressive dumbing-down process where the powers-that-be think we're all incapable of following anything unless it contains a large dollop of glitz, hype, spin or repetition. If you watched Horizon earlier this week, about sunspots, you'd see another prime example. The graphics were good (as they all should be these days) but we were assailed by pointless asides and repeated summaries of what we'd already been told, pre-supposing we'd forgotten it all or the viewer's attention span was less than an Alzheimic gnat. That meant I lost interest for large chunks of the programme. If there's something wrong with the education of young people these days, fix it; don't cover it up with sub-standard information for the rest of us by bringing all broadcasting down to the level of insulting Redtop mental mush. - Tom. Horizon! A few years ago I co-signed a letter written by a FRS weather modeller (I am saying no more) to the then producer of the programme to complain about the level of science in the programme. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 28, 9:21*am, "Norman" wrote:
Tudor Hughes wrote: * * *At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. *You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. *The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. *There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. *(Come in, Bob Prichard). You're probably referring to the slot that was titled "The Weather Commentary". That was a very useful 5-minute programme presented in a sober scientific way and the presenter didn't get in the way of the information. It was very much in the mould of what Radio 4 is usually very good at. The present day pseudo-celebrity style of presentation that we often now get doesn't fit at all well. Fortunately, with all of the material now available on the web, the DIY approach to weather forecasting is much more reliable than anything on the broadcast media, especially for site-specific interests. -- Norman Lynagh Tideswell, Derbyshire 303m a.s.l. Yes, there is enough information on the web for me and probably most of USW to make our own forecasts but I like to tune in to hear the "official" version to see if I've missed anything. But these days that has become quite simply a perpetual disappointment and irritation. I don't know why I do it. I may as well get my camera out and wait for one of these: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1011233 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 28, 11:15*am, Scott W wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:39*am, Tudor Hughes wrote: * * Having heard the 5.57 pm forecast and (just now) the 0030 "Weather report and forecast" (sic) on Radio 4 I am now convinced more than ever that Radio 4 should give up on the idea of using weather forecasters (presenters?) and get someone in Exeter to tap it out on a keyboard, send it up the wires and have it read out by an announcer. Or just give up on weather forecasts altogether as being far too serious and grown-up for the media airheads and stick to what they're good at, which, paradoxically, is quite a lot, at least on Radio 4. * * * At 5.57 pm, after the usual time-filling frivolities at the end of the PM programme, Eddie Mair indulged in some extensive banter with Laura Tobyn, eating into the precious seconds, with the result that the actual forecast lasted less than a minute. *Tobyn gabbled away at high speed in her usual detached robotic way and few could have learnt anything from what she said. * * *At 0030 it was Helen Willetts, who not for the first time had difficulty in supressing giggles. *You're doing a weather forecast for Radio 4, Helen, not for ShaggitFM, for goodness' sake. *The day's extremes were mechanically delivered and not put into any context, as usual these days. *There cannot be any pressure of scheduling at this time of the night and there is time for a rather more discursive approach, as there once was. *(Come in, Bob Prichard). * * * New depths of dumbing down at the BBC have been reached, aided by the apparent indifference of the Met Office. *An article in the latest edition of "Weather" shows how much both accumulated and instantaneous expertise now goes into a forecast yet the Met Office allows it to be delivered by a troupe of grinning chimpanzees. *Don't they care? *No, they get the money. *Would any other media outlet be better? *No, worse. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. The weather report and forecast at before the 00.33 shipping forecast used to be compulsive listening - delivered in a sober and authoritative style by the likes of Nigel Gait. As you point out there must surely be a demand for this away from the current witless old tosh that seems to have replaced it Isn't that why they did away with Bill Giles? So they could promote all the losers from Blue Peter? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Radio4 forecasts - have they given up on them? (Rant) | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Another Radio 4 rant | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Validation of MRF's - reality checks (Longish) | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
TWO medium range forecast progress (longish) | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Disappointing HP, really (longish) | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |