Orbit with Kate Humble.

[3narf]

Yes, when she was talking, she had a similar way of talking I thought?

Yeah, she's out of the same 'popular scientist' mould, I suppose...

 

[sheddy]

I always think 'Ostrich'' when I see her on TV !

 

[3narf]

Who is she?
What is she?
Why is she?
That other woman's better and knows her stuff.

Reading out loud is not a talent that should be so rewarded

She probably thinks of herself as a 'broadcaster.' I don't know what the difference is between that lofty title and 'presenter,' personally.

 

[The Brewer]

Have episode one playing now through iplayer....Humble at her flowing golden locks best

 

[ASC1951]

Reading out loud is not a talent that should be so rewarded

Exactly.

Why do those arty farty eejits at the Beeb think we are incapable of digesting anything remotely scientific unless we have some unqualified sleb or 'presenter' to cut it into little pieces for us? It's insulting.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Exactly.

Why do those arty farty eejits at the Beeb think we are incapable of digesting anything remotely scientific unless we have some unqualified sleb or 'presenter' to cut it into little pieces for us? It's insulting.

Agreed.

It's visual wallpaper, science lite for the dumbed-down TV generation. Similarly, I caught 'Empire' last night written and presented by Paxo and we were treated to eternal filler like far too much footage of horse-racing at Happy Valley HK rather than details about the topic. I'd have hoped Paxo would have done better ...
It seems even programs I might be interested in watching are kindergarten at best.

 

[col]

Exactly.

Why do those arty farty eejits at the Beeb think we are incapable of digesting anything remotely scientific unless we have some unqualified sleb or 'presenter' to cut it into little pieces for us? It's insulting.

How else can we be informed, just watching a silent film with no narration isnt going to inform really?

 

[snorri]

Why do those arty farty eejits at the Beeb think we are incapable of digesting anything remotely scientific unless we have some unqualified sleb or 'presenter' to cut it into little pieces for us? It's insulting.

But do they think we are incapable?
They know that what we really want is porn, but as that is not acceptable in polite society they offer mild porn with the sex objects occupying quasi scientific roles.

 

[col]

Sorted!

Is that his hand she has hold of?

 

[snorri]

You were fast Uncle Mort! I edited my first thoughts on this topic.

 

[Red Light]

Exactly.

Why do those arty farty eejits at the Beeb think we are incapable of digesting anything remotely scientific unless we have some unqualified sleb or 'presenter' to cut it into little pieces for us? It's insulting.

I was impressed recently by a news article on the BBC website that was talking about inverse femtobarns.

I believe humble Kate has no scientific qualifications though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mr Phoebus]

Sorted!

Is that his hand she has hold of?

I thought it might have been a bottle of wine he's secreted about his person.

 

[Fab Foodie]

So own up, who had to google it?

What's google?

 

[twowheelsgood]

Meh, Primetime BBC science documentaries these days seem high on CGI content but low on actual science. I learned less from the entire Brian Cox series on the Solar System than from one episode of "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. This series is far, far worse, at least so far.

It's science as entertainment - in one ear and out of the other and talks to people like they are not very bright children. With "cosmos", "Life on Earth" and James Burkes "Connections" the ideas are still in my mind 30 years later. Watch the opening and closing episodes of "connections" (1 and 10) for how science should be done. Challenge the audience, ask questions, give possible answers, make predictions, make it personal, make it universal. Science needs to be done by polymaths, people who understand more than the topic at hand; context, social relevance and history. From boffin professors on one side to fluffy TV presenters on the other, they invariably make awful 1 dimensional science programs.

The only person with the ability to impart information with such intelligence today is Jonathan Meades and these are not really documentaries and are certainly not science, more personal polemics on topics that interest him.

Same story with history programs verging on costume drama.

 

[col]

Meh, Primetime BBC science documentaries these days seem high on CGI content but low on actual science. I learned less from the entire Brian Cox series on the Solar System than from one episode of "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. This series is far, far worse, at least so far.

It's science as entertainment - in one ear and out of the other and talks to people like they are not very bright children. With "cosmos", "Life on Earth" and James Burkes "Connections" the ideas are still in my mind 30 years later. Watch the opening and closing episodes of "connections" (1 and 10) for how science should be done. Challenge the audience, ask questions, give possible answers, make predictions, make it personal, make it universal. Science needs to be done by polymaths, people who understand more than the topic at hand; context, social relevance and history. From boffin professors on one side to fluffy TV presenters on the other, they invariably make awful 1 dimensional science programs.

The only person with the ability to impart information with such intelligence today is Jonathan Meades and these are not really documentaries and are certainly not science, more personal polemics on topics that interest him.

Same story with history programs verging on costume drama.

But if it gets more people interested, who might not have been, thats a good thing isnt it?