Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Television United Kingdom

BBC Thinking of Canceling Sky At Night 171

Smivs writes "A year after veteran presenter Sir Patrick Moore died, the BBC are discussing pulling this iconic program. This has unleashed a torrent of criticism from fans of the monthly science-based astronomy show. There is an on-line petition for those who want to have their say."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Thinking of Canceling Sky At Night

Comments Filter:
  • Great idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:34AM (#44957829)

    Yeah, great idea. Let's clear the schedule for some more fucking reality TV.

    Fucking morons.

  • by Tanaka ( 37812 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:55AM (#44957921) Homepage

    No thank you. If it weren't for the BBC, The Sky At Night, would never have even existed.
    If there was no BBC, all we would have to look forward to is wall to wall reality TV.

  • by schizz69 ( 1239560 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:55AM (#44957923) Journal
    The BBC is THE best broadcasting agency in the world. It has provided an outlet for so many different arts, science and cultural programs that would never have been made with out the public funding it receives and not tied to being a slave to advertising agencies and the wares they are trying to flog.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:56AM (#44957929)

    What the BBC badly need to do, is revert the show to its old format - one main presenter (e.g. Dr Lintott) expounding on Astronomy, plus *relevant* guest experts, and loose the current crop of b-list cabaret circuit comedians and fading celebs, who have infested the show like roaches over the past few years - if I wanted to see that lot, I'd be watching the One Show, sick bag in hand.

    Like a lot of other BBC sourced science programs (e.g. Horizon), Sky at Night has been dumbing down for some time, and, frankly, both the programme and the licence-fee payers deserve better.

  • by Tanaka ( 37812 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @07:10AM (#44957997) Homepage

    What nonsense. BBC4?

    The BBC is so cheap for what you get. It has to cater for all tastes, so your not going to like everything.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @07:34AM (#44958129)

    I agree that it is probably unwise for the BBC to compete too much with commercial channels. However, compared to what's on most of those commercial channels, the BBC remains a very different broadcaster with a much broader spectrum of programming. Of the major commercial alternatives, only Channel 4 comes anywhere close.

    I think it's fair to claim that, among other things, the BBC offers by far the best news and current affairs reporting of any major UK TV network (investigative/undercover journalism programmes, Newsnight, political debate and parliamentary coverage, several niche programmes on the BBC News channel, plus of course their main news bulletins), numerous excellent science and human interest series (Planet Earth, Human Planet, Our World, Wonders of the Solar System; notably, they cover a range from special interest programmes like The Sky at Night through to popular science with the likes of Dara O'Briain's Science Club), numerous original drama miniseries, better-than-average coverage of major sporting events, a broad range of films, and sometimes just good, old-fashioned entertainment (numerous Saturday night BBC One family shows, thoughtful/satirical/informative comedy like QI and Mock the Week). And of course we get all of this without disruptive commercial breaks every few minutes or having graphics advertising the next tacky programme that appear just to spoil the critical moment in what you're watching.

    Compared to spending Saturday nights watching Simon Cowell smugly mocking children who were brave enough to have a go at something, news coverage on Sky that really does make Fox seem fair and balanced, and Celebrity Big Brother 174, I'd gladly pay a lot more than the current licence fee if the BBC did go commercial. In fact, I could happily take the BBC channels and the Channel 4 family and dump almost everything else, because I don't watch that much live any more but almost everything I do find worth watching is on a very limited set of the available channels.

  • by Xest ( 935314 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:04AM (#44958295)

    Agreed.

    I've been to many countries around the globe and few have TV as great quality as we have in the UK and the BBC is the reason for that.

    If it weren't for the BBC's advertising uninterrupted shows and so forth you'd rapidly see the race to the bottom you get in North American TV where you can't go 5 minutes without an advert interrupting your show.

    In North America you have to have over a hundred channels just to have a chance of anything decent popping up amongst all the shit. I like the fact that in the UK you can find something worth watching nearly all the time by checking only a handful of channels because the quality bar is set high enough by the BBC that they all have to provide as good or better stuff to compete raising the bar in general.

    The BBC is one thing the UK does absolutely right.

  • by Tanaka ( 37812 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @08:44AM (#44958521) Homepage

    It's good value when you look at the diversity the BBC provides. Sure you cant agree with the BBC on everything, but a lot better overall. Look at the Olympics. In the US, they got highlights. The BBC showed just about everything, live, without any breaks, for no extra cost.

    Personally, I'd like to see the BBC paid out of taxation, providing it cant be touched by MPs. Link the rate to GDP or something, so there is never any question over how much money they get each year.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...