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.

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

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.

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

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

-------------------------------------------
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.

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

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.

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

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?