Complaint lodged as follows ...

BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show

The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
real scientific content. While there may be a place for such
talk-shows, that place is not in a science reporting programme such as
'BBC Inside Science'. Please stick to the factual reporting of science,
or at least remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the
programme title.

Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/05/2023 21:08, Java Jive wrote:
> Complaint lodged as follows ...
>
> BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
>
> The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
> recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
> real scientific content. While there may be a place for such
> talk-shows, that place is not in a science reporting programme such as
> 'BBC Inside Science'. Please stick to the factual reporting of science,
> or at least remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the
> programme title.
>
> Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.

You are James Dyson and I claim my £5 (or £5.52 as it is now due to
inflation...):

<https://www.independent.co.uk/business/sir-james-dyson-rishi-sunak-s-science-superpower-ambition-a-political-slogan-b2338029.html>

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/05/2023 21:08, Java Jive wrote:
> > Complaint lodged as follows ...
> >
> > BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
> >
> > The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
> > recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
> > real scientific content. While there may be a place for such
> > talk-shows, that place is not in a science reporting programme such as
> > 'BBC Inside Science'. Please stick to the factual reporting of science,
> > or at least remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the
> > programme title.
> >
> > Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.
>
> You are James Dyson and I claim my £5 (or £5.52 as it is now due to
> inflation...):
>
> <https://www.independent.co.uk/business/sir-james-dyson-rishi-sunak-s-science-superpower-ambition-a-political-slogan-b2338029.html>
>
James Dyson, if anything other than a businessman, is an engineer.

--
Chris Green
·

Yes and mostly on climate change and the environment.
Has Science in Action been axed by the World service that podcast seems to
have been axed as well. Also if you get the podcast of Inside Science its
behind the one on bbc sounds by several weeks.
There does seem to be rudderless ship syndrome at the BBC Scinience
department.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:u3m6cn$1q3gg$1@dont-email.me...
> Complaint lodged as follows ...
>
> BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
>
> The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
> recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
> real scientific content. While there may be a place for such talk-shows,
> that place is not in a science reporting programme such as 'BBC Inside
> Science'. Please stick to the factual reporting of science, or at least
> remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the programme
> title.
>
> Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/05/2023 12:43, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
> Yes and mostly on climate change and the environment.
> Has Science in Action been axed by the World service that podcast seems to
> have been axed as well.

Science In Action on the World Service is still downloading via
iPlayer/Sounds, though I have yet to listen to last Thursday's edition.

> Also if you get the podcast of Inside Science its
> behind the one on bbc sounds by several weeks.

As I don't get the podcast version, I can't comment on that.

> There does seem to be rudderless ship syndrome at the BBC Science
> department.

Yes. Perhaps there aren't on the staff enough actual scientists -
meaning people with genuine scientific, as opposed to broadcasting or
journalistic, qualifications.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/05/2023 12:43, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Yes and mostly on climate change and the environment.
> Has Science in Action been axed by the World service that podcast seems to
> have been axed as well. Also if you get the podcast of Inside Science its
> behind the one on bbc sounds by several weeks.

Four weeks. Same with In Our Time. They said why some time ago, but they
were talking media-speak not English. Science in Action is still
available as a podcast, and probably on steam radio.

--
Max Demian

On 12/05/2023 21:08, Java Jive wrote:
> Complaint lodged as follows ...
>
> BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
>
> The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
> recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
> real scientific content.  While there may be a place for such
> talk-shows, that place is not in a science reporting programme such as
> 'BBC Inside Science'.  Please stick to the factual reporting of science,
> or at least remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the
> programme title.

I've also thought about it, and moaned, but seems they can't.

There has to be a "way in" for folks to gain at least some interest, so
programmes are created to satisfy that 'd' word - diversity. Hence the
absymal "Repair Shop" and the necessary dumbing down of much else to
reality TV and tabloid newspaper standards.
>
> Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.

However, Science is reported daily all over the net at all sorts of
depth. Finding it just takes a search in google or YouTube. Then you
find something worth subscribing to.

I could bore you all and post up my interesting technical YouTube subs
list. I hardly watch broadcast TV.

We in the UK are failing to interest people in engineering and
technician jobs, they are seen as too boring complicated "rocket
science" and folks would rather stack shelves, aspire to be Football
players, and join the Gig economy.

The Science Museum has a very good exhibition in London (I've been),
that aims to reverse that and fill vacant jobs. The challenge is to get
parents to get their children through the front door.

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/technicians-david-sainsbury-gallery

--
Adrian C

Also I have had two responses, both auto responders, but I only sent it
once, so why reply twice?
The best show was that short series where they took tech apart. The one on
the Amazon echo being particularly good I thought.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:kc9o59F70gvU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 12/05/2023 21:08, Java Jive wrote:
>> Complaint lodged as follows ...
>>
>> BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
>>
>> The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
>> recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
>> real scientific content. While there may be a place for such talk-shows,
>> that place is not in a science reporting programme such as 'BBC Inside
>> Science'. Please stick to the factual reporting of science, or at least
>> remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the programme
>> title.
>
> I've also thought about it, and moaned, but seems they can't.
>
> There has to be a "way in" for folks to gain at least some interest, so
> programmes are created to satisfy that 'd' word - diversity. Hence the
> absymal "Repair Shop" and the necessary dumbing down of much else to
> reality TV and tabloid newspaper standards.
>>
>> Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.
>
> However, Science is reported daily all over the net at all sorts of depth.
> Finding it just takes a search in google or YouTube. Then you find
> something worth subscribing to.
>
> I could bore you all and post up my interesting technical YouTube subs
> list. I hardly watch broadcast TV.
>
>
> We in the UK are failing to interest people in engineering and technician
> jobs, they are seen as too boring complicated "rocket science" and folks
> would rather stack shelves, aspire to be Football players, and join the
> Gig economy.
>
> The Science Museum has a very good exhibition in London (I've been), that
> aims to reverse that and fill vacant jobs. The challenge is to get parents
> to get their children through the front door.
>
> https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/technicians-david-sainsbury-gallery
>
>
> --
> Adrian C
>

Adrian Caspersz wrote:

>However, Science is reported daily all over the net at all sorts of
>depth. Finding it just takes a search in google or YouTube. Then you
>find something worth subscribing to.
>
>I could bore you all and post up my interesting technical YouTube subs
>list. I hardly watch broadcast TV.

It would be worth seeing.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

The point here though is that one should expect a programme called inside
Science to be about science, not yet another discussion on climate change.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Chris J Dixon" <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:1hu16i1ssmvh2jpkmgmt2b0beqtvpff7ua@4ax.com...
> Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>
>>However, Science is reported daily all over the net at all sorts of
>>depth. Finding it just takes a search in google or YouTube. Then you
>>find something worth subscribing to.
>>
>>I could bore you all and post up my interesting technical YouTube subs
>>list. I hardly watch broadcast TV.
>
> It would be worth seeing.
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
> chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
>
> Plant amazing Acers.

On 15/05/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
> The point here though is that one should expect a programme called inside
> Science to be about science, not yet another discussion on climate change.

Unfortunately the people who decide the budgets want wall to wall claims
about 'climate change'.

On 15/05/2023 19:14, MB wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>> The point here though is that one should expect a programme called inside
>> Science to be about science, not yet another discussion on climate
>> change.
>
> Unfortunately the people who decide the budgets want wall to wall claims
> about 'climate change'.

Brian is mistaken, neither of the talk shows specifically complained
about as being unscientific were actually about Climate Change, but were
on topics where it was relevant, so it got a mention in both. In the
first, a panel of 'experts' were asked to imagine that we were in the
year 2030, I think it was, and what Britain would be like given HMG's
policies - a totally vacuous and pointless programme more about
politics than science. In the second, another panel of experts was
asked if we could prevent natural disasters - again a thoroughly
pointless programme, because the obvious answer is "No! That's what
makes them 'natural'!", although it was correctly pointed out that we
could plan for them and so ameliorate the worst effects of them when
unfortunately they do occur.

However, as Brian correctly pointed out, Climate Change or no, they were
thoroughly unsuitable content for a science reporting programme.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/05/2023 13:58, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 16/05/2023 10:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> but as for preventing natural disasters, we can already divert
>> asteroids from hitting the earth. This has been known for some time
>> and was discussed on yesterday's "The Sky at Night".
>
> Weeeell, 'we can already' is putting it a bit strong  -  I watched the
> Sky At Night last night, and while the principle has been proven in
> practice, that's still a long way from having a system up and running
> that can do it with a useful probability of success.

The toilet is a wonderful spacetime for stopping to think about the world!

Although only barely consciously at the time I watched the Sky At Night
late last night, I was worried by the phrase "momentum enhancement" used
in the programme, and my unease came sharply into conscious focus today
when I was sitting on the throne. "That's not right!", I thought, "You
can't *create* momentum in a collision like that! Something else is
going on!". So I've just watched the clip again, and consequently do
think it's a very misleading way of describing what is really going on,
which is ...

When the ball is dropped onto the wet sand, nearly all of its momentum
is dissipated in the sand, mostly as heat, some as sound, so little of
it is conserved to be imparted to the container. However, when the ball
is dropped onto the pseudo-regolith, the greater springiness of the
material means that the collision is more elastic, and thus more of the
initial momentum of the ball is conserved and transferred to the
container. Therefore, strictly speaking, momentum has not actually been
'enhanced', just less of it lost!

Prog: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001m027
Clip: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fmsqcy

Discuss in not more than 200 words. You should allow about 10 minutes
for this question.

Go to Exam Question 94 [for the PE readership].

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/05/2023 19:46, Java Jive wrote:
>
> The toilet is a wonderful spacetime for stopping to think about the world!
>
> Although only barely consciously at the time I watched the Sky At Night
> late last night, I was worried by the phrase "momentum enhancement" used
> in the programme, and my unease came sharply into conscious focus today
> when I was sitting on the throne.  "That's not right!", I thought, "You
> can't *create* momentum in a collision like that!  Something else is
> going on!".  So I've just watched the clip again, and consequently do
> think it's a very misleading way of describing what is really going on,
> which is ...
>
> When the ball is dropped onto the wet sand, nearly all of its momentum
> is dissipated in the sand, mostly as heat, some as sound, so little of
> it is conserved to be imparted to the container.  However, when the ball
> is dropped onto the pseudo-regolith, the greater springiness of the
> material means that the collision is more elastic, and thus more of the
> initial momentum of the ball is conserved and transferred to the
> container.  Therefore, strictly speaking, momentum has not actually been
> 'enhanced', just less of it lost!
>
> Prog: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001m027
> Clip: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fmsqcy
>
> Discuss in not more than 200 words.  You should allow about 10 minutes
> for this question.
>
> Go to Exam Question 94 [for the PE readership].

When the ball hit the wet sand it transferred all its momentum to the
bucket, and the bucket moved a bit.

When it hit the gravel all the ball's momentum was transferred, but _in_
_addition_ some of the gravel "splashed" upwards out of the bucket.
There was therefore additional momentum transferred from the bucket to
the gravel that went upwards.

It's a little hard to see of course, because gravity stopped it going up
far, but it's there.

Andy

On 16/05/2023 21:28, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 16/05/2023 19:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> The toilet is a wonderful spacetime for stopping to think about the
>> world!
>>
>> Although only barely consciously at the time I watched the Sky At
>> Night late last night, I was worried by the phrase "momentum
>> enhancement" used in the programme, and my unease came sharply into
>> conscious focus today when I was sitting on the throne.  "That's not
>> right!", I thought, "You can't *create* momentum in a collision like
>> that!  Something else is going on!".  So I've just watched the clip
>> again, and consequently do think it's a very misleading way of
>> describing what is really going on, which is ...
>>
>> When the ball is dropped onto the wet sand, nearly all of its momentum
>> is dissipated in the sand, mostly as heat, some as sound, so little of
>> it is conserved to be imparted to the container.  However, when the
>> ball is dropped onto the pseudo-regolith, the greater springiness of
>> the material means that the collision is more elastic, and thus more
>> of the initial momentum of the ball is conserved and transferred to
>> the container.  Therefore, strictly speaking, momentum has not
>> actually been 'enhanced', just less of it lost!
>>
>> Prog: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001m027
>> Clip: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fmsqcy
>>
>> Discuss in not more than 200 words.  You should allow about 10 minutes
>> for this question.
>>
>> Go to Exam Question 94 [for the PE readership].
>
> When the ball hit the wet sand it transferred all its momentum to the
> bucket, and the bucket moved a bit.
>
> When it hit the gravel all the ball's momentum was transferred, but _in_
> _addition_ some of the gravel "splashed" upwards out of the bucket.
> There was therefore additional momentum transferred from the bucket to
> the gravel that went upwards.
>
> It's a little hard to see of course, because gravity stopped it going up
> far, but it's there.

No, that's the description that they gave, but it's incorrect - I said
'misleading' before, but, having thought about it some more, now I'm
saying that actually it's incorrect. You should be able to convince
yourself of this by conducting a simple thought experiment: suppose the
ball was dropped instead onto a hard elastic target such as a lump of
metal, all its momentum would then be converted into displacement of the
container holding the target and thus the displacement of the latter
would be much greater than for either of the demos in the SaN clip.

The error is that the law of conservation of momentum only applies with
'perfectly' elastic collisions, which we don't have here, on the
contrary, neither medium is either 'perfectly' elastic or 'perfectly'
inelastic, and moreover there is a significant difference in elasticity
between them, and this is what really explains the differing results.

Because conservation of momentum does not apply, to understand what's
really going on, you have to understand what's happening to the kinetic
energy of the impact. In both cases, while some of it is transmitted
through the medium into downwards momentum of its container, a
significant proportion of it is also lost as heat, sound, and distortion
of the medium surface, but the crucial point is that, because the two
mediums have different elasticities, different amounts of it is being so
transmitted and lost in the two cases.

The first collision with wet sand was with an almost entirely inelastic
medium, so correspondingly little of the energy was transmitted through
the medium and almost all of it was lost within it. In the second
collision, the pseudo-regolith was a much more elastic medium, so while
nevertheless some of the energy was so lost, much more of it was stored
briefly as distortions of the individual particles of the medium which
then rebounded back to their original shapes, thus releasing that energy
back out, some of it pushing down on the container, some of it lifting
some of the particles of the medium off the surface. Thus, in the
second test, the greater transmission of the energy through the medium
to displace the container, and the lifting of more of particles from the
surface, are both EFFECTS of the greater elasticity of the medium, and
therefore it is incorrect to say that either one of these two effects is
the cause of the other.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> The error is that the law of conservation of momentum only applies with
> 'perfectly' elastic collisions, ...

Assuming translational invariance, conservation of momentum always
applies (although sometimes momentum can hide in odd places).

If a 1kg mass travelling at 2m/s hits and sticks to a stationary 1kg
mass; the resulting 2kg combined mass will travel at 1m/s, conserving
momentum. (I have assume all in-line motion). Because the sticky collision
is inelastic, we can lose kinetic energy (which might end up as heat
or sound, or some other type of energy).

However, in an elastic collision, an impactor mass (with some positive
momentum) might bounce *backwards* off the stationary mass, and so end
up with a negative momentum. This means that the impacted mass then
needs a positive momentum *greater* than than the pre-collision
momentum of the impactor. The sums are less easy, however, since you
need to satisfy conservation of energy as well.

Momentum is a vector, and is proportinal to velocity. Kinetic energy
is a scalar, and proportional to velocity squared, and so is always
positive.

#Paul

On 18/05/2023 12:55, #Paul wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The error is that the law of conservation of momentum only applies with
>> 'perfectly' elastic collisions, ...
>
> Assuming translational invariance, conservation of momentum always
> applies (although sometimes momentum can hide in odd places).

Yes, my mistake, it's kinetic energy that is not conserved - Applied
Maths & Physics A-Levels were a very long time ago.

However, I think my description of what was happening in the video clips
is still correct, and I note that, so far at least, you haven't
questioned that.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/05/2023 21:08, Java Jive wrote:
> Complaint lodged as follows ...
>
> BBC Inside Science Degenerating Into A Talk-Show
>
> The last two episodes of BBC Inside Science in particular, and other
> recent episodes more generally, have been talk-shows with little or no
> real scientific content.  While there may be a place for such
> talk-shows, that place is not in a science reporting programme such as
> 'BBC Inside Science'.  Please stick to the factual reporting of science,
> or at least remove the increasingly misleading word 'Science' from the
> programme title.
>
> Discuss ... or not, as the mood takes you.

Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.

Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice of
subject?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv

The Royal Society is the oldest scientific academy in the world. Since
being established in 1660, it has painstakingly archived thousands of
papers, letters, manuscripts and illustrations from some of science’s
most enquiring minds.

In this episode, Victoria Gill takes a trip to the society to pore over
some of the most intriguing artefacts within its vaults. While there,
she finds out more about the formation of the Royal Society and how
science has been shaped over the centuries. Along the way, she considers
the role of women in science, and asks whether their contributions have
been historically overlooked.

She is joined by the Royal Society’s Louisiane Ferlier and Keith Moore,
along with Prof Uta Frith, a Royal Society Fellow and psychologist, and
Dr Stephen Webster, a senior lecturer in science communication at
Imperial College London.

As part of its Science in the Making project, the Royal Society is
currently digitising all of its collections, for everyone to browse
through and enjoy. You can find out more on the Royal Society website.

On 19/05/2023 08:42, MB wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.
>
> Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice of
> subject?
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv

It was certainly science related, and might have been acceptable as a
single item in the 'traditional' format of the programme as a collection
of reports - IIRC, this was how it was reported in last week's Science
In Action - but it wasn't reporting on current science. We've had
three weeks on the trot now with absolutely no reporting of current
science at all.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/05/2023 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 08:42, MB wrote:
>> On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.
>>
>> Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice
>> of subject?
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv
>
> It was certainly science related, and might have been acceptable as a
> single item in the 'traditional' format of the programme as a collection
> of reports  -  IIRC, this was how it was reported in last week's Science
> In Action  -  but it wasn't reporting on current science.  We've had
> three weeks on the trot now with absolutely no reporting of current
> science at all.

That's what Science in Action (World Service) and 5 Live Science are for.

--
Max Demian

On 19/05/2023 17:39, Max Demian wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 19/05/2023 08:42, MB wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.
>>>
>>> Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice
>>> of subject?
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv
>>
>> It was certainly science related, and might have been acceptable as a
>> single item in the 'traditional' format of the programme as a
>> collection of reports  -  IIRC, this was how it was reported in last
>> week's Science In Action  -  but it wasn't reporting on current
>> science.  We've had three weeks on the trot now with absolutely no
>> reporting of current science at all.
>
> That's what Science in Action (World Service) and 5 Live Science are for.

It used to be what BBC Inside Science (Radio 4) was for.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/05/2023 18:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 17:39, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 19/05/2023 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2023 08:42, MB wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice
>>>> of subject?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv
>>>
>>> It was certainly science related, and might have been acceptable as a
>>> single item in the 'traditional' format of the programme as a
>>> collection of reports  -  IIRC, this was how it was reported in last
>>> week's Science In Action  -  but it wasn't reporting on current
>>> science.  We've had three weeks on the trot now with absolutely no
>>> reporting of current science at all.
>>
>> That's what Science in Action (World Service) and 5 Live Science are for.
>
> It used to be what BBC Inside Science (Radio 4) was for.

There is always a certain amount of triplication between the networks.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2023 18:10, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 19/05/2023 17:39, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2023 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/2023 08:42, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 18/05/2023 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another talk show this week, completely devoid of any current science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the programme summary, it seems quite a reasonable choice
>>>>> of subject?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lywv
>>>>
>>>> It was certainly science related, and might have been acceptable as a
>>>> single item in the 'traditional' format of the programme as a
>>>> collection of reports  -  IIRC, this was how it was reported in last
>>>> week's Science In Action  -  but it wasn't reporting on current
>>>> science.  We've had three weeks on the trot now with absolutely no
>>>> reporting of current science at all.
>>>
>>> That's what Science in Action (World Service) and 5 Live Science are for.
>>
>> It used to be what BBC Inside Science (Radio 4) was for.
>
> There is always a certain amount of triplication between the networks.
>

The cracks are showing all over the BBC. It’s what you get when funding is
reduced by inflation over multiple years.

In article <u4a3pe$11g1v$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The cracks are showing all over the BBC. It's what you get when funding
> is reduced by inflation over multiple years.

What I've noticed is that control over sound levels on BBC Radio progs
seems to have evaporated. Particularly obvious when you listen to an
iPlayer item that has been 'topped' and/or 'tailed' with puffs for some
other programme. Leaps to the volume control often needed.

No real engineers involved.

Also seems to be the case that many of the people I used to get info from
wrt engineering quality now seem to have left the BBC.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html