I know I've commented on the Swiss forecasts before, and how they don't
treat their viewers as stupid. And now I have even more evidence.

It appears that the Swiss (Deutsch Schweiz) TV forecasts have had a makeover,
and their opening and closing sequence has a picture of snowy mountains
with contour lines over them labelled 574 dam, 568 dam and 562 dam (see
http://www2.sfdrs.ch/sfmeteo/ and click on the videos link - you'll probably
need the broadband version to make out the text).

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid? And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

I'm sure both are true.

And it IS partly the fault of the media for failing to report facts in
favour of hype and sensationalism - the general public like that as most of
the younger members have been brought up on it, and expect it as the norm.


CK.
"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
I know I've commented on the Swiss forecasts before, and how they don't
treat their viewers as stupid. And now I have even more evidence.

It appears that the Swiss (Deutsch Schweiz) TV forecasts have had a
makeover,
and their opening and closing sequence has a picture of snowy mountains
with contour lines over them labelled 574 dam, 568 dam and 562 dam (see
http://www2.sfdrs.ch/sfmeteo/ and click on the videos link - you'll
probably
need the broadband version to make out the text).

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is
stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid?
And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

even the Spanish do a grand job

http://www.inm.es

and the Hungarians

in fact anywhere but here

and you want to know why

The Met Office charges for everything !!!

so give Joe Public the crap

the classic is the radar area on Met Office v the area available on American
sites


M


"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
I know I've commented on the Swiss forecasts before, and how they don't
treat their viewers as stupid. And now I have even more evidence.

It appears that the Swiss (Deutsch Schweiz) TV forecasts have had a
makeover,
and their opening and closing sequence has a picture of snowy mountains
with contour lines over them labelled 574 dam, 568 dam and 562 dam (see
http://www2.sfdrs.ch/sfmeteo/ and click on the videos link - you'll
probably
need the broadband version to make out the text).

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is
stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid?
And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

....

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid? And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?



I think that the immediate "problem" is caused by non-science graduates
holding almost all of the Producer/Director/Editor/sub-Editor positions in the
media.

(You may extend that observation to other sectors in British life, with
more-or-less aggreement...)

It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


I contrast that situation to what I know of France and Germany (as examples)
where scientists often reach high positions within Business, especially.

If closer scrutiny supports my observations then the matter becomes one of a
British "culture" born of hundreds of years in which scientists have never
come to dominate, or strongly influence, the life of the country, despite the
fact that Victorian Engineering and Science "built an Empire"!

The British people are not "more stupid" than any other, but they are not
constantly exposed to good science through the media, and as a result
remain under-informed.

"techies" and "geeks" remain derogatory epithets, after all.

However, despite that, "Science" is still held in high regard - which is why
"Richard & Judy" (for example) are keen, occasionally, to interview scientists
and are genuinely (I think) interested in trying to understand science.

But then, contrast that with the knowledge that "Most Haunted" (or whatever it
is called) is the most popular programme on its channel, and you get this
conflicting picture of a public which is (apparently) mismerised by bull****
(viz. astrology) and very gullible (Space Cadets - or is the joke on the
viewers?), but still fascinated by what science can tell them.

Without constant exposure to good science, one of the aspects which is most
guaranteed to undermine public understanding of science is probability, and
how to take it. Weather forecasting (and climate change!) fall strongly into
that category, and the effects of that lack of understanding of what probabilty
means often gets reflected even in this news group:-(

But I digress... Three Cheers for the Swiss DRS and a hearty Boo! for the
BBC's squeezing-the-life-out-of-their-weather-slots.

So, more science Producers please!



Cheers,

keith








---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...

Keith Dancey wrote:
In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

...

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid? And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?



I think that the immediate "problem" is caused by non-science graduates
holding almost all of the Producer/Director/Editor/sub-Editor positions in the
media.

(You may extend that observation to other sectors in British life, with
more-or-less aggreement...)

It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


I contrast that situation to what I know of France and Germany (as examples)
where scientists often reach high positions within Business, especially.

If closer scrutiny supports my observations then the matter becomes one of a
British "culture" born of hundreds of years in which scientists have never
come to dominate, or strongly influence, the life of the country, despite the
fact that Victorian Engineering and Science "built an Empire"!

The British people are not "more stupid" than any other, but they are not
constantly exposed to good science through the media, and as a result
remain under-informed.

"techies" and "geeks" remain derogatory epithets, after all.

However, despite that, "Science" is still held in high regard - which is why
"Richard & Judy" (for example) are keen, occasionally, to interview scientists
and are genuinely (I think) interested in trying to understand science.

But then, contrast that with the knowledge that "Most Haunted" (or whatever it
is called) is the most popular programme on its channel, and you get this
conflicting picture of a public which is (apparently) mismerised by bull****
(viz. astrology) and very gullible (Space Cadets - or is the joke on the
viewers?), but still fascinated by what science can tell them.

Without constant exposure to good science, one of the aspects which is most
guaranteed to undermine public understanding of science is probability, and
how to take it. Weather forecasting (and climate change!) fall strongly into
that category, and the effects of that lack of understanding of what probabilty
means often gets reflected even in this news group:-(

But I digress... Three Cheers for the Swiss DRS and a hearty Boo! for the
BBC's squeezing-the-life-out-of-their-weather-slots.

So, more science Producers please!



Cheers,

keith

I'll go along with most of that. Science and engineering
have never been held in high regard by the Establishment, who seem to
regard it as "dirty hands" stuff, not fit for a gentleman, or a lady.
Our only hope is the rather unfairly-derided Melvyn Bragg, one of the
few members of the liberal arts mob who shows an interest in science
and knows its importance, as his R4 programme "In our time" shows. He
at least would not boast, as some do, that they are totally ignorant of
maths, physics etc.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

BBC were basically told to clean up their act if they want to hold on to the
bragging rights. Reality shows and other junk have been the main focus in
recent years for the BBC.. oh and some political brainwashing junk in some
areas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

...

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is
stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid?
And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?



I think that the immediate "problem" is caused by non-science graduates
holding almost all of the Producer/Director/Editor/sub-Editor positions in
the
media.

(You may extend that observation to other sectors in British life, with
more-or-less aggreement...)

It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high
into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


I contrast that situation to what I know of France and Germany (as
examples)
where scientists often reach high positions within Business, especially.

If closer scrutiny supports my observations then the matter becomes one of
a
British "culture" born of hundreds of years in which scientists have never
come to dominate, or strongly influence, the life of the country, despite
the
fact that Victorian Engineering and Science "built an Empire"!

The British people are not "more stupid" than any other, but they are not
constantly exposed to good science through the media, and as a result
remain under-informed.

"techies" and "geeks" remain derogatory epithets, after all.

However, despite that, "Science" is still held in high regard - which is
why
"Richard & Judy" (for example) are keen, occasionally, to interview
scientists
and are genuinely (I think) interested in trying to understand science.

But then, contrast that with the knowledge that "Most Haunted" (or
whatever it
is called) is the most popular programme on its channel, and you get this
conflicting picture of a public which is (apparently) mismerised by
bull****
(viz. astrology) and very gullible (Space Cadets - or is the joke on the
viewers?), but still fascinated by what science can tell them.

Without constant exposure to good science, one of the aspects which is
most
guaranteed to undermine public understanding of science is probability,
and
how to take it. Weather forecasting (and climate change!) fall strongly
into
that category, and the effects of that lack of understanding of what
probabilty
means often gets reflected even in this news group:-(

But I digress... Three Cheers for the Swiss DRS and a hearty Boo! for the
BBC's squeezing-the-life-out-of-their-weather-slots.

So, more science Producers please!



Cheers,

keith








---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...

In article ,
Keith Dancey writes:
snip
It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


Whilst I sympathise with the point that you are making, 50% of the
population are women, but only 5% (at a guess) could be described as
scientists. So it's hardly surprising if there are far more women in
parliament than there are scientists. (I'm assuming that when you say
"less represented" you mean that they have fewer MPs.) A similar
argument would apply, though less strongly, if comparing scientists with
non-whites.

Of course, there was one noted MP a decade or two ago who was both a
scientist and a woman, but I suspect that she may not have been a
favourite of yours.
--
John Hall

"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

And then there is the issue of the 'new graphics' and the BBC's inability to
listen to the public.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

...

At a time when the BBC are removing isobars from the charts, DRS is
introducing dam contours into its publicity!

Is it a purely British thing that the media think their audience is
stupid?
Or is it a purely British thing that their audience IS (mostly) stupid?
And
if the latter, is that the media's fault?



I think that the immediate "problem" is caused by non-science graduates
holding almost all of the Producer/Director/Editor/sub-Editor positions in
the
media.

(You may extend that observation to other sectors in British life, with
more-or-less aggreement...)

It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high
into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


I contrast that situation to what I know of France and Germany (as
examples)
where scientists often reach high positions within Business, especially.

If closer scrutiny supports my observations then the matter becomes one of
a
British "culture" born of hundreds of years in which scientists have never
come to dominate, or strongly influence, the life of the country, despite
the
fact that Victorian Engineering and Science "built an Empire"!

The British people are not "more stupid" than any other, but they are not
constantly exposed to good science through the media, and as a result
remain under-informed.

"techies" and "geeks" remain derogatory epithets, after all.

However, despite that, "Science" is still held in high regard - which is
why
"Richard & Judy" (for example) are keen, occasionally, to interview
scientists
and are genuinely (I think) interested in trying to understand science.

But then, contrast that with the knowledge that "Most Haunted" (or
whatever it
is called) is the most popular programme on its channel, and you get this
conflicting picture of a public which is (apparently) mismerised by
bull****
(viz. astrology) and very gullible (Space Cadets - or is the joke on the
viewers?), but still fascinated by what science can tell them.

Without constant exposure to good science, one of the aspects which is
most
guaranteed to undermine public understanding of science is probability,
and
how to take it. Weather forecasting (and climate change!) fall strongly
into
that category, and the effects of that lack of understanding of what
probabilty
means often gets reflected even in this news group:-(

But I digress... Three Cheers for the Swiss DRS and a hearty Boo! for the
BBC's squeezing-the-life-out-of-their-weather-slots.

So, more science Producers please!



Cheers,

keith








---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...

In article , John Hall writes:
In article ,
Keith Dancey writes:
snip
It is a situation which has long historical precedence, and reaches high into
Government and the Civil Service. I believe that scientists are less
represented in Parliament, for example, than either women or non-whites (I
may be wrong on this because I do not have definitive figures, but I know
of few scientist MPs, even including those from the medical profession.)


Whilst I sympathise with the point that you are making, 50% of the
population are women, but only 5% (at a guess) could be described as
scientists. So it's hardly surprising if there are far more women in
parliament than there are scientists. (I'm assuming that when you say
"less represented" you mean that they have fewer MPs.) A similar
argument would apply, though less strongly, if comparing scientists with
non-whites.

I suspect you are right, but I don't have definite figures. I was thinking
on a pro-rata basis.. and I suspect that representation of the medical
profession invalidates my belief. However, if you exclude the medical
profession, I may well be correct.. ? I can think of just two!


Of course, there was one noted MP a decade or two ago who was both a
scientist and a woman, but I suspect that she may not have been a
favourite of yours.


She wasn't! But her position on global warming was a credit to her.


Cheers,

keith


---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...