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."
Nooo!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nooo!!! (Score:5, Informative)
It costs very little to produce Sky at Night. I worked on the show doing computer graphics over a decade ago; there's an old joke about the official BBC tartan being "small checks" and I can attest to that. The schedule was one 15-minute show a month involving a two-man talking-heads format in a tiny cubbyhole studio plus an annual "spectacular" with Sir Patrick making a visit to, say, Meteor Crater or a famous observatory like Siding Springs. Each studio program took a day to record, maybe three days production, scripting etc. There wasn't much else the BBC produced that cost as little per show.
Re: (Score:2)
As with much of TV, question is could they make more money repurposing that time for other programing?
The show might be cheap and making a return, but could they swap it out for something that could make an even better return?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the BBC makes its money from the license fee, not from advertising, it has no concept of "return" for a particular program. And, while viewer figures are not totally ignored, it is regarded as having some mandate to put on programs for minority groups not well catered for by commercial TV - such as, for example, amateur astronomers. On the other hand, TFA gives no idea what viewer figures actually are. If everybody has stopped watching after Moore died, it makes sense to drop the program. If viewer fi
Re: (Score:2)
Since the BBC makes its money from the license fee, not from advertising, it has no concept of "return" for a particular program. And, while viewer figures are not totally ignored, it is regarded as having some mandate to put on programs for minority groups not well catered for by commercial TV - such as, for example, amateur astronomers. On the other hand, TFA gives no idea what viewer figures actually are. If everybody has stopped watching after Moore died, it makes sense to drop the program. If viewer figures are holding up, it makes no more sense to drop it now than at any time over the past decades.
Sky at Night also has a magazine [skyatnightmagazine.com], which is very popular with excellent content.
Re: (Score:2)
Top Gear disagrees with you on the "no concept of return for a particular program".
Re: (Score:2)
How so?
Re: (Score:3)
DVD & foreign market sales, I'd presume.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the BBC makes its money from the license fee, not from advertising, it has no concept of "return" for a particular program. And, while viewer figures are not totally ignored, it is regarded as having some mandate to put on programs for minority groups not well catered for by commercial TV - such as, for example, amateur astronomers. .
The BBC also makes ASSLOADS of money from commercial ventures and selling their programming and licensing overseas. They actually do have a mandate under their public service obligation to produce certain types of programming.
Re: (Score:3)
it has no concept of "return" for a particular program
Actually the BBC is extremely conscious of the "return" that a programme produces. The reason is that it is funded from a compulsory (unless you don't have a TV set) fee, backed by prosecution if you refuse or avoid paying - a tax in every respect except name. The BBC is very sensitive to charges of "elitism": i.e. making programmes that are inaccessible (or too difficult) for the average, soap-watching, reality-loving, tabloid-reading viewer.
Oddly, the other end of the spectrum: people with high IQs tend
Re:Nooo!!! (Score:5, Funny)
The fragile self esteem of network executives intimidated by science.
Re: (Score:2)
The fragile self esteem of network executives intimidated by science.
Got to be careful with that science stuff. It sets off the politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it sets off loud ignorant people with nothing better to do then scream about how 'everyone' hates what science finds.
The politician reflect that.
Re:Nooo!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. The BBC isn't supposed to be chasing ratings, it was created to inform/educate* the public so this is exactly the sort of program the they're supposed to be producing. The low on budget, high on imagination approach has brought some truly great TV to the world. It also attracts people like Patrick Moore and David Attenborough who are in it for the passion, not the paycheck.
[*] Yes, those are the exact words used in the BBC charter: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf [bbc.co.uk]
(nb. For the Americans: there's no adverts on the BBC so audience figures don't translate into profits).
Great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, great idea. Let's clear the schedule for some more fucking reality TV.
Fucking morons.
Regenerate! (Score:2)
Why can't he just regenerate?
(It works for Dr Who)
Re: (Score:3)
It's The Doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
He's on first.
Bad Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not give the show to Prof. Brian Cox? He'd be brilliant and has a huge following and the admiration of young people. It would foster an interest in astronomy in a new audience for many years.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear god no, I think he makes a lousy presenter.
I'm not sure if I fall into the "young people" segment as understood here, being in my mid-20's, but there are so many other science presenters that are better.
I really don't get why people like Brian Cox so much, but then, apart from the odd fanboy/girl, I don't know anyone who actually likes him. Maybe it is just the case for teenagers?
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike most presenters he actually seems passionate about the subjects he presents on?
I see other presenters like Ben Fogle, but he comes across as a presenter presenting whatever he's been told to present on even if he's not interested in it, but with Cox you see a clear passion for the subject which is what IMO makes him great at putting across the ideas and concepts in his shows.
About the only other presenters for science based shows I can think of that have this level of passion and gives them t
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike most presenters he actually seems passionate about the subjects he presents on?
Bingo. If you're going to show popular science programmes, you have to start with a presenter who can actually engage popular interest. Stuffy old academics are not the ideal population to search for such presenters, even if they might be world class authorities on the latest research in their field.
Cox has a long way to go before he's up there with the likes of David Attenborough, but then again he's only half the latter's age, with a presenting career that has so far collected only a tiny fraction of Atte
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm far, far from being a teen, and likely over twice you age.*
Like his shows, and I think he's a good presenter in that he makes t seem anyone can go into the sciences. Which is true, but often sidelined by social perceptions.
*I point that out so show I"m not a teen, or young. Not to make it seem like my age, in and of itself, should lend any weight to my argument
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing different subjects than you would have done is "downright wrong"? What are you, an aspie?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a question as to whether he'd want to do such late night show bearing in mind he's a lecturer at Manchester Uni.
It could be quite a problem staying up that late only to have to give a lecture the next morning.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some way to record the show in advance on so sort of storage device and then play it back at transmission time.
It isn't a live show, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realise that as I haven't been able to watch it in many years because I go to bed for work well before it's on.
Didn't it used to be live? I always thought that was part of the charm of it.
Perhaps when I was a teen and did stay up that late the episodes I watched did just happen to be live (because I know at least some were), hence why I assumed they all were.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. I've seen it on Saturday afternoon a few times when it's light outside.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was at university, the only people they trusted to lecture first years were the most experienced staff members, because getting the fundamental principles right was essential. Of course they might do things backwards in crazy old Manchester.
Re: (Score:2)
And you teach what to which level where, pray tell?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they really wanted a rock star, they could get Brian May to take it over!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't a joke, May was brilliant when he presented the programme many years ago. I'd much rather May take it over than that wet-fish Cox.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. He was great friends with Patrick Moore and knows the program well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. He was great friends with Patrick Moore and knows the program well.
How about Sir Patrick Stewart? I hear he knows something about stars.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Heather Couper (Score:2)
I agree ,I saw her presenting some science show over a decade ago. (when I lived in NZ)
This has been a long time coming (Score:5, Interesting)
Elements of the BBC has been trying to finish the Sky at Night program for many years. Back in the Year of Astronomy 2009, I was with a film crew interviewing him at his home, where he talked about the fight he has had keeping it going.
Now he's gone, the knives are out. The program does not fit well within the BBC's output - it is a fact based program without stupid gimics or pointless 'celebrities'. Those celebs that do appear are (very) keen astronomers. It is a program format that works well for it's target audience - and it's an audience that is quite big. Every year the BBC (to their credit) organise a public astronomy event. This has proved very popular with families and individuals. My local astronomy society has seen an increase in members and enquiries whenever this event is on.
The problem seems that although the program format works, it is seen to be 'old' - and as we all know, managers want change for change sake. They may talk about viewing numbers, but the program has been aired at different times - often edited to only 20 minutes.
The BBC want it gone, despite Chris Lintott and Lucie Green doing an excellant job with it recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey BBC, do us all a service and just leave it alone!
I miss The Star Hustler (Score:2)
But he's still on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
...and they have continued to produce "Star Gazers" episodes with new presenters since Jack Horkheimer's death in 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the plane'arium manager here at the college I work for is one of the new Hustlers...
http://www.sfcollege.edu/planetarium/ [sfcollege.edu]
With links to old Star Gazer episodes with Jack and the new ones at http://www.youtube.com/user/MiamiScienceMuseum [youtube.com]
Dont cancel it - fix it! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Don't pay the licence. (Score:2)
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/viewtopiccontent.aspx?id=TOP12 [tvlicensing.co.uk]
The world got along fine without dross TV shows. Go read a book, play music, paint, exercise, play games, fuck, cook. write. Go to a play. Watch live performace it's in 3D!. Make the world a better place.
As for the BBC make programmes for X. Do you really need another polar bear program?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you don't like TV; therefore you assume the thing you so like are better.
well done.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost me at that bit. I guess "make the world a better place" is a bad thing to want?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure watching "Spamalot" on stage is going to make the world a better place any more so than watching Hollyoaks on TV. They're both a load of old tripe; one load of old tripe being performed live while the other is recorded doesn't make it more worthy. Oh, did you mean "watch meaningful and intellectual theatre", rather than just ANYTHING on stage? In that case, can I qualify that you should only watch meaningful and intellectual television as a valid comparison?
I'm not sure the world would be a bet
Death (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. Broadcast TV is dying.
The BBC has David Attenborough, ffs, and yet still we end up with the program dumbed down, repeating previous "information" on animals, and selling itself on 3D and other crap. And last I heard, it was all moved to the Eden channel which I can't get anyway.
The BBC have no interest in keeping this kind of stuff going, so forcing them to keep it is counter-productive. They'll just do their best to cripple it so it "dies" naturally. Already comedians appear on any programs that have the slightest bit of intellect to them to appear "entertaining" to people who wouldn't care less about the program anyway (QI, Science Club, Sky at Night, etc.). Some of them add something (Dara O'Brien or whatever his name is, is actually quite intellectual but still it descends into nob gags, and the people they bring on with him haven't a clue and are just there to be laughed at for not knowing the answer, basically).
Let them kill it off, one of the world's longest running programs on TV, just because they want to. Let them be the idiots. The alternative is a sidelining that will kill it eventually anyway, which is where we've been for the last few years.
The Internet really needs to have a way for people to find content online that has the same ideals as those programs did early on - to educate and inform, not entertain - and let people discover their own niches free of the BBC's over-paid "talent".
Schools and exams are dumbed down already. Now TV is dumbed down. Appeal to the lowest common denominator as always, and suck every outlier back to the "average".
There's little left of merit on the BBC and what there is I cherry-pick out of iPlayer. Let them re-run crap like Doctor-fucking-Who to their heart's content and then wonder why nobody's paying for a TV licence.
The "Great Stupiding" goes on (Score:2)
Something positive else you can do. (Score:2)
Actually check the iplayer, and watch new epsisodes.
We have something close to this (Score:2)
Psst (Score:2)
Nobody cares.
Re:Abolish the licence fee (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
BBC4 not Radio 4. But that too.
Re:Abolish the licence fee (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd like to see the BBC paid out of taxation
Depends how you define taxation. But for me, a mandatory user fee created and enforced by government is taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that the BBC's fault?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don' agree with them paying ridiculous amounts of money to their executives and huge salaries to their stars when they could be encouraging less well known names and nurturing young talent.
I don't think the BBC should get many kudos for their Olympics coverage as it's much cheaper for them
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising revenue depends on viewing figures. If you want high viewing figures all the time you have to show shite like Honey Poo Poo and Naked Monster Truck Wrestling because that's what the plebs watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you think it's such good value, then why not give people the choice about funding it rather than forcing everyone?"
Because some thing provide a societal good. The value makes spreading the cost out worth while.
There are economic tomes written on the subject. Tons of data.
Once you add advertising, YOU are no longer the customer., You are the products and you will only get to see what advertisers approve of. Having a non advertise based media stream is extremely valuable.
I wish the US had a BBC equivalent
Re: (Score:2)
I think the initial idea behind the BBC is good, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, now I am forced to pay for a service that I don't particularly want and have no vote or say in.
Incidentally, I don't care how many economic t
Re: (Score:2)
I wish the US had a BBC equivalent.
We used to, but then PBS started running ads (clustered at program change times, not during), and begging marathons selling overpriced cups and DVDs and books (infomercials). You might notice they no longer tout the fact that they aren't advertiser supported because they are the advertisers selling the merchandise themselves (or through shell companies).
And, come to think of it, I haven't heard the "if not us, then who?" slogan for a while.
In defence of the Beeb (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's OK for the BBC to have a few flagship shows for ratings sake. Keeps them on their toes. Such shows unite families too.
It's defiantly OK for them to spend money on programming that would otherwise not be commercially viable. I want quality & diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Never, I say!
Re: (Score:3)
There's still some excellent stuff on the BBC, but I do at least partially agree with you. The BBC has been chasing ratings too hard for too long.
The worst part is when they very nearly shut 6 Music because it didn't have enough listeners, when it was the only radio station catering for those who were really into their modern music. I.e. really top quality, but not necessarily commercially viable. Exactly the sort of thing the BBC should produce. Thank Deity they failed and their attempt actually turned int
Re:Abolish the licence fee (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that Dave made it's fame (and it's fortune) showing BBC repeats, and is 50% owned by BBC Worldwide, right? For all intents and purposes, it IS part of the BBC family.
And as for the Discovery Channel- it's original launch back in the 1980's was part funded by the BBC, and Animal Planet was a joint venture between Discovery Channel and the BBC. It might be pushing it to say that Discovery wouldn't exist if it weren't for the BBC- but the BBC was involved in the birth of that one too.
Re:Abolish the licence fee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abolish the licence fee (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. The BBC may not be as good as people want them to be, but they are certainly better than all the other channels.
All commercial channels first of all broadcast around 30-35% advertisements. Pure garbage.
Secondly, many commercial shows repeat fragments throughout their shows - especially around the commercial breaks. More garbage.
But most importantly, the BBC have a primary task to inform the public, whereas most other channels have a primary task to earn money.
And I really like it that they allow quite some of their shows to be put on Youtube for the whole world to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not supoosed to chase ratings, but they do.
They're not supposed to promote state views, but they do.
They're supposed to be balanced, but they are far from balanced. Apple good, Android bad. Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea good, every other team bad. Israel good, the rest bad.
Inform the public? That's funny because when you read the news from other websites, you clearly see the BBC choosing not to report certain stories.
Their top story two weekends ag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who is hilariously pro Israel, and is upset by news which isn't tub-thumpingly supportive of your views your side.
The BBC is excruciatingly, almost absurdly careful about producing unbiased coverage. Every regulator and watchdog in the country agrees. But for some reason whenever they report on anything controversial, there are always choruses of "why don't they agree with me, they're so biased!" from one side or another. See just about any reporting about government policy from the last
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're paying to be able to receive a set of channels*, which operate under public oversight. In what way is it ridiculous?
*You don't have to pay if you don't receive the signal, and it's only billed against the household receiving the service rather than per TV sold, so it's hardly a tax on hardware
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always go back to whichever former Warsaw Pact turdbucket you came from, r_m.
Culture (Score:3)
Sir Humphrey: "Bernard, subsidy is for art...for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want, it is for what the people don't want but ought to have."
--------------------Courtesy - The BBC.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it's programming is still far better than that of any of the commercial channels.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it's programming is still far better than that of any of the commercial channels.
Any network could make programmes of BBC quality if they were given the budget the beeb has - and no commercial pressures on how to raise advertising revenue. What the BBC has done is give away for free what all the other channels have to get advertisers for. No commercial organisation could compete on an equal footing in that environment. That's why state aid of industry is deemed anti-competitive and is broadly speaking illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
One minor hitch: apart from the BBC, no such network exists.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean Michael Le Vell? Who was found not guilty on all counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be him anyway, he got off. On a technicality, of course. People like that don't deserve a trial anyway.
Sorry, got a bit confused. Thought I was doing my column for the Daily Mail.
Re: (Score:2)
So for you, Fair point; I'd add anything with Professor Jim Al-Khalili; but its so dumbed down I'd rather not bother.
I can't opt out off the BBC and not have people knocking at the door. Search TV licence fee on youtube as see the harassment people get.
I don't have sky, virgin, netflix, or any other cable. NHK and Al Jazeera English do better news coverage. I've not watched ITV or C4 in about 5 years. I want out!
So with no BBC connections try these on
Re: (Score:2)
"Middle class" means something else in the UK. Whereas your American middle class is everyone too wealthy to live on the street but too poor to own an airplane, in the UK... well, it was coined to refer to those people who were neither "lower class" manual workers or "upper class" landed gentry who hadn't worked a day in their lives. Today it basically means you're a doctor or a lawyer or high level management in a company, or something, you're financially secure and upwardly mobile, and socially implies t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watching the BBC iPlayer (or other catch-up services) is completely legal even without a licence, but the caveat is you cannot watching anything that is broadcast in real time.
Also, owning a television is not illegal either, assuming that it is not capable of receiving real time broadcast television (so detuned or otherwise not connected to an aerial).
The way that TV Licencing (the arm of the BBC that enforces licence fee payment) choose to deal with you depends entirely upon the postcode of the area you
Re: (Score:2)
BBC Worldwide makes about £100m profit p/a, and being privately held that money goes back into the regular old BBC itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a different BBC Worldwide to the one [bbcworldwide.com]hope you enjoy my rantsworth :)
On the contrary, merely reading it made lose about 5 IQ points. While I can spare them (unlike some) I really hope it's not permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Patrick Moore may have held views that were certainly more UKIP than Labour, however describing him as a "far-right Nazi" (Head of the SS-type far-right Nazi?) is just nuts. I wouldn't have agreed with much of his politics, but just as Labour voters aren't communists, UKIP voters aren't fascists (and personally, I'd like to see Labour be a lot more socialist).
I always thought of Moore as being a complex human-being. His views on 'foreigners' were forged in WWII and he, and any of his generation, should
Re: (Score:3)