In article , Martin
writes
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:33:56 +0100, news
wrote:

In article , Martin
writes
It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science.

Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC
bashing.

Especially if you snip the context.

I saw no context that would explain why it should be 'typical BBC dumbed
down science' as opposed to 'typical TV dumbed down science'


[little snip]

The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't
constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been
said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very
irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining.

It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile -
and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume.

Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between
people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as
dumbed down.

Dedicated science programmes do not have to be for everybody.

But Countryfile does

Anyway, I was intending to refer to 'close to' peak time, often
science-based documentaries. Their presentation can run a gamut from
highly technical, the details of which may well be beyond the average
reasonably intelligent person - to technical that is presented in such a
way as to inform that same person. I've seen both.

Some programmes are made that do neither - although probably fewer of
them on BBC than elsewhere. Some programmes that ostensibly include
scientific explanations are dreadful, completely failing to set the
scene or address any reasonable doubts as to the conclusions. I think
they are more often bad programmes rather than dumbed down - and again,
I think you'll find more of them not on the BBC.

But it looks like we're not likely to agree on this.


Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed
down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and
moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes.

There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need
high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and
income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows.

Only in a very superfical way. If it doesn't get the viewers, it has
problems justifying the funding. And its usually under the sort of
pressure from BBC haters that means its damned whether it does or it
doesn't.

The BBC used to set
standards.

And what if you set the standards but everyone chooses to ignore them?
Would you still get the funding?

It is not obliged to target those with the lowest
intelligence or poor education.

I don't think it necessarily does but there are horses for courses.
Countryfile is a peaktime Sunday slot with a magazine style covering a
wide range of items. It might not get everything right, but what always
does?

80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats.
They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes.
Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping
what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken
much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of
course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides
is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the
facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which
was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March

I don't deny that there is dumbed down science. But I do dispute the
impression given that it is the BBC that needs to be blamed for typical
dumbed down science.

--
regards andyw