“The BBC’s lack of self awareness, or its solid brass neck, is apparent in this piece about one of its new stars Professor Brian Cox….
‘Prof Cox said the BBC had put science centre stage and had been rewarded with high ratings and huge interest. The Wonders of the Universe presenter said public service broadcasting had a “very important” role to play in changing the direction of society.”
Fair enough admission that the BBC has an activist agenda, I would have thought from Prof Cox
Two years ago James Murdoch made the keynote MacTaggart lecture at the festival, describing the BBC’s size and ambitions as “chilling” and accusing it of mounting a “land grab” in a beleaguered media market. During his alternative MacTaggart talk, Prof Cox said: “One of the things that surprises me about the debate about the BBC, here is an institution that is clearly a big global brand, a powerful global brand, recognised as the best in the world in many areas and what the British disease is to even consider damaging that institution.” ‘
The irony….the BBC likes to tell us how powerful Murdoch is and he must be stopped….when we all know it is the BBC which is the world’s most powerful and influential broadcaster. Yep….Murdoch is ‘too powerful’ and must be crushed!…..or is that just the British disease of attacking the successful?
Things can only get dumber
In defence of Cox his interest is promoting science and science is something the BBC have dumbed down.
However, I do feel that Cox is not a great presenter, he’s done a few Horizon’s and I’ve been less than impressed.
“Wonders of the Universe” was a prime example of Beeb “science” programming.
It looked good, had a reasonable presenter, and er, that was it.
The actual science content was pitiful, and trivial aspects were dragged out and apparantly required getting on multiple planes to visit the most exotic locations in the world.
No wonder Cox loves the BBC.
Science (and an awful lot of “nature”) output on the beeb is almost universally woeful and patronising.
Have to agree. The subject matter was trivial – or handled with trivial understanding.
I think another reason he gets so much air time is because a lot of girls love Cox . . . .
Ooh er missus!
The BBC never “officialy” attack the royal family. They simply get the comedians they employ ” who are just being edgy” to do it.
They hate the royals for their long history of being the “public funded” establishment, paid for by tax payers.
They can’t get past their blinkers of seeing that at least the royals bring money into the coffers.
After they get rid of the royals the BBC will be the establishment.
( A reprise from previous ‘Open Thread’):-
Guardian’s Edinburgh TV event is for BBC-NUJ political propaganda.
Mr Brian Cox is the latest propagandist for the BBC-NUJ.
Cox might well have added to his politically myopic, BBC-NUJ servile address:
‘I see my financial career with the BBC-NUJ as important to me. so like censoring Prof Jones,I also accept BBC censorship against climate debate.
‘Although I have no particular knowledge on the issue, I, like the BBC-NUJ, am totally against the Murdochs. Thank you. Is the cheque in the post?’
And now here is Cox’s publicly subsidised political propaganda on BBC -NUJ’s publicly subsidised news website:
“Prof Brian Cox hits out at BBC critics”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14694260
Cox is just another trustie carting books around the prison library there at the Beeb.
That he has a Mancunian accent probably carries more weight with the top brass at the BBC than any spurious “scientific” qualifications he may or may not have.
In truth Cox says what the script tells him…and being Blairs soundtrack piano man just mekas him even better for the BBCs purposes.
Cox?…more a Pippin!
In that post, it was the Beeboid who inserted the reference to James Murdoch delivering the lecture a couple of years ago. At first I took it that it was Brian Cox who alluded to it.
The BBC’s main role in ‘changing the direction of society’ is to make it both more dumbed down and unhealthy.
It has a huge output of audience chasing trash TV, aimed squarely at those vulnerable and impressionable sections of society which the government worries is getting ever fatter and reading fewer books.
While the government funds the BBC to the tune of £3 billion per year a few more taxpayer pounds spent on miserable campaigns to encourage people to get off the couch and exercise or children to read more books are a total waste of time.
It’s a shame we never hear criticism of the government’s role in the in this sorry state of affairs by academics such as Mr Cox. But then most academics are paid by the government, just like the BBC.
Spookily enough, I have recently started a research project, investigating which socialist luvvie charges a conference of state school educators £10,000 for a one hour speech.
Anyone want to bet when we’ll be seeing a BBC Special Investigatin on the scandal of right-on celebutrards being paid huge wodges of taxpayer’s money for vacuous non-jobs?
This is a textbook case on how fascism walks in.
I agree with Brian that the BBC make great documentaries, it’s some of there political reporting that grinds my grapes. It is a shame we cannot have one without the other.
The problem is the BBC just can’t do science now without somehow dumbing it down. For example Cox presented the BBC’s stargazing live week if you remember. Great idea and chance to generate an interest in science and the engineering (like how to build a large telescope or the detection equipment for detecting light from planets etc.) but it was awful. We had that idiot Dara O what’s his name just cracking bad jokes, some bird from Hawaii who seemed to be in a rush all the time and very little science, but a lot about Star Trek.
Contrast that say with the Sky at Night which doesn’t dumb down and which also assumes that the viewer if they don’t know will make the effort to read about the subject or look it up on the net.
People who present the Sky at Night (like Chris Lintott and the excellent Pete Lawrence) with Patrick Moore don’t try to make themselves more important than the show.
The problem with Brian Cox is he’s a big fan of the late Carl Sagan and tries so hard to be like him, but Sagan was an engaging man, having watched the Cosmos series again there was a lot of science in that series and it didn’t dumb down, far too much of what Cox does it dumbed down.
Don’t do that, make people take an interest and look things up.
Personally I find the shows that go out on Discovery or the History channels contain far more science (they often have a narrator and no presenter which stops anyone trying to make the show about them) than the stuff the BBC churns out.
Unfortunately, Discovery Channel are also guilty of dumbing down, at least in some of their documentaries. They’ve never heard of S.I. units – everything is measured in units of “football pitches”, “olympic swimming pools”, “double decker buses” or “Saint Paul’s Cathedral”. Can’t we just be told how big something is in metres? Then there is the “reality” aspect – every building project they document goes through some “crisis” or a point where “one slip and everyone could be killed” etc. I just long for Horizon of the 1970’s and 80’s or even Equinox. Myth Busters is excellent, though, and they do actually do everything in a genuinely scientific way…before blowing something up.
No surprise, then, that BBC America is a joint-venture between Discovery Communications and BBC Worldwide.
I really think that one of the Beeb’s main probs with tech/science is that they have bought into the idea that if you are smart/interested/curious then somehow you are a little ‘elitist’.
I now see no sci/tech progs on the beeb that somehow do not manage to ladle on the drama/human-interest aspect. All science must now have (primarily) the “human” angle pushed (via the Beeb prism, natch).
It’s as though they are compelled to make all “science” output accessible to the Holby-City numbed crowd. At the expense of everyone else.
Their current best science output is called “Wonder-stuff”. Watch and weep for what could/should be shown with their budget.
Oh, for a return to the ’70s Horizon, the ’80s Equinox. Or ITV’s “How”.
Even the BBC did great science shows back in the day. The Ascent of Man, James Burkes Connections and Life on Earth.
Even the kiddie stuff like Think of a Number or Eureka would apear too highbrow today.
Though the Sky at Night is still ace.
Unfortunately when Patrick Moore is no longer able to do the show (he actually doesn’t do that much now due to his health) it will probably go to the wall and get replaced with something more ‘youthful’
I suspect the BBC would like to replace him with that black bird (no not Dianne Abbot but the black woman astronomer who is always speaking rather quickly) or Brian Cox but none of the current presenters would get it for sure.
I kind of got the assumption that Dr Chris Lintott has been groomed for a while to take over from Sir Patrick. It’s just taking longer than they thought for the stalwart of astro-programmery to shuffle off.
And yes, it will all go more glitzy/youthful/patronising in due course.
Due to the unique BBC funding, etc.
Think of a Number or Eureka has now been replaced by “bang goes the theory”.
The Sky At Night while occasionally still interesting still leaves out loads of interesting stuff.
The Beeb assume its audience are little more than idiots, unable to learn, improve or even want to be better than the programme makers imagine (or are themselves).
Far better to make another episode of Wastenders or the intellectual equivalent.
Problem is the BBC only put the SAN on BBC 1 for 20 minutes, they then stick the 30 minute version on BBC 4 I think it is.
Why not stick on the 30 minute version on BBC 1 and why not make the show longer, it’s not as if they are spending millions on production.
It does seem bizarre that the repeat on BBC4 is a longer program than the BBC1 version. It’s not as though the schedule at that late a slot on Sunday is overly busy with new stuff – repeats from the week and News24 coverage. They could just give us the whole version on sunday. There’s no logic to it.
I forgot about “How”! It’s true though, “How” is better than most, if not all, of the current “science” output of the BBC. Is Fred Dinage still available?
if you are smart/interested/curious then somehow you are a little ‘elitist’.
Unless you’re a BME.
Stopped watching even Horizon some 10 years ago, for the reason that the BBC placeman was continuously imposing himself between the viewer and the expert.
Horizon was dumbed down years ago. The content was made trivial, but the pictures though were great – borrowed from NASA of the great nebula etc, with imposing classical music. As to the science content – Rubbish.
“A recent boom in maths and sciences at A-level has been attributed in some quarters to the “Brian Cox effect”.
Which ‘quarters’ would they be then?
The BBC’s PR dept, or Brian Cox’s mum?
JJ
No, it will be in all 5 of them.
Recent receiptent of A+ in mathematics.
Must be an Order of the Brown Nose Award going at the BBC for irrelevant flummery for the BBC in all its wondrous manifestions.
Guessing there`s a graph to be drawn of number of appearances or amount shilled out against unctuous mentions in their speeches/articles or shows.
Cox will have to lick cherry blossom much more before he gets into the same ring(oo er!) as Polly” The Wally” Toynbee.
Still he`s an intriguing new entry…oo er again!
Science?
Lysenkoism specially crafted by the degenerates at the BBC
OK – I had to google it. đŸ™‚
Good word – and so relevant these days.
Horizon did go through a really bad patch a few years ago. It replaced quality voice overs and discourse from scientists with ‘celebrity’ presenters. The subject matter deteriorated from uncompromising science to social science for the media studies generation. In the last couple of years it seems to be steadily returning to the proper science that was once it’s hallmark. Otherwise, there aren’t any REAL science documentary programs on the BBC any more, or anywhere else on the main channels to be honest. The Discovery Channel is now the only place to find quality scientific programming.
The problem comes down to that awful PC mantra of ‘inclusivity’. Every program must now appeal to as many viewers as possible. If it is seen to be too ‘niche’ it will fall foul of the ‘elitist police’. As a result, the subject matter is dumbed down to an extent that those looking for decent science will switch off, and those not interested in science will not tune in anyway, killing off any possible audience. This, I think, is the main reason that there a so few good science programs on mainstream TV these days.
As for The Sky At Night – long may it continue in it’s graveyard slot, tucked away for us enthusiasts only. The moment they move it to a more visible time period will be the beginning of the end for that little gem.
I do enjoy Brian Cox’s programs, I just wish he’d stick to the science. We don’t need any more paid commentators from the BBC, they have more than enough already.