Neil Oliver lidless

[Jdsk]

This?

"Making Sense of Cancer with Hannah Fry":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017wzq

Thanks

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

Yes, that's the one.

[simonineaston]

Shall we draw up a list?

I recall a friend of mine who worked as a researcher for the BBC, here in Bristol. He commented that (I paraphrase...) there's a reason you see these people on the telly (ie the well-known presenters) and that's because they have clawed their way, tooth and nail, often over the dead bodies * of the competition, up to the top of the heap.
* that's a metaphore, of course!

[al_yrpal]

Heres my list of preferred presenters...

Steve Davis
Father Stone (Father Ted programme)
Chris Packam
Kier Starmer

Al

[Nearholmer]

My strange answer to J’s question is that I don’t know, because they communicate without leaving an indelible impression of themselves on the brain.

I listen to Radio 4 far, far more than I watch TV, and they deliver some very good programmes on complex topics, good-quality explanation and analysis, but I don’t think I could name a single presenter of their ‘deeper’ programmes. As random examples: one recently about price inflation in food supply, where most of the talking was from a farmer and senior bod in the flour-milling industry, with the presenter asking good questions to elicit the picture; a couple where they’ve looked in depth at healthcare provision and cost in different countries etc.

Just because TV has pictures, the presenter doesn’t have to hog the camera, they can choose to elicit, or voice-over, and give most of the picture-time to others, or the subject matter - pictures can, after all, speak a thousand words.

Some things, and dealing with cancer is one, need different styles for different purposes. A programme designed to help those experiencing it will be different from a “purely science” one about understanding it, and the technical aspects of treatment.

[Jdsk]

... I was wondering what you thought about Prof. Fry's recent programme about her own experience of cancer?

"Making Sense of Cancer with Hannah Fry":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017wzq

Just watched it for the first time.

I had no strong views about her style beforehand.

Good:
Openness about her personal story. Showing what current care looks like. Adult discussion of reproductive organs (see the saddle threads in this forum). David Spiegelhalter. Margaret McCartney. The difficult statistics. The use of headcount diagrams.

Not so good:
Trying to get four stories into one programme: hers, the difficult statistics, screening programmes, the man who had decided he didn't want further interventions. Poor infographics. No discussion about how we decide which national screening programmes we should provide and which we shouldn't. No discussion of HPV vaccination.

Recommended.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

My strange answer to J’s question is that I don’t know, because they communicate without leaving an indelible impression of themselves on the brain.

I can understand that preference. But I don't share it, and I will watch, listen or read things because I know that a particular presenter adds something for me.

I listen to Radio 4 far, far more than I watch TV, and they deliver some very good programmes on complex topics, good-quality explanation and analysis, but I don’t think I could name a single presenter of their ‘deeper’ programmes. As random examples: one recently about price inflation in food supply, where most of the talking was from a farmer and senior bod in the flour-milling industry, with the presenter asking good questions to elicit the picture; a couple where they’ve looked in depth at healthcare provision and cost in different countries etc.

Yes, they're often excellent. And it's very reassuring that the documentaries and those prepared programmes on current affairs haven't deteriorated in the same way as the BBC's headline news coverage and the three daily programmes on Radio 4.

Jonathan

[DaveReading]

Speaking as a maths teacher, both HF's broadcasts and books on the subject are very well done IMHO.

[thirdcrank]

How much editorial input does a presenter of a TV programme have?

[Bonefishblues]

... I was wondering what you thought about Prof. Fry's recent programme about her own experience of cancer?

"Making Sense of Cancer with Hannah Fry":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017wzq

Just watched it for the first time.

I had no strong views about her style beforehand.

Good:
Openness about her personal story. Showing what current care looks like. Adult discussion of reproductive organs (see the saddle threads in this forum). David Spiegelhalter. Margaret McCartney. The difficult statistics. The use of headcount diagrams.

Not so good:
Trying to get four stories into one programme: hers, the difficult statistics, screening programmes, the man who had decided he didn't want further interventions. Poor infographics. No discussion about how we decide which national screening programmes we should provide and which we shouldn't. No discussion of HPV vaccination.

Recommended.

Jonathan

Thanks for a second opinion. It left me wanting more in terms of answering, or attempting to answer, the "Which means that..." questions that inevitably accrue, but I came out of it with a different perspective on treatment and 'the numbers'.

I found the piece where she sat in with the lady in her late 60s truly shocking in terms of how a relatively simple message simply hadn't transmitted - at all. Surely that alone would be a takeaway for the NHS, if nothing else.

[Jdsk]

How much editorial input does a presenter of a TV programme have?

It varies enormously. The credits can give a hint, look out for the presenter's name reappearing towards the end...

And for those of us who have or had regular jobs it's worth remembering that these are at the other extreme: you may never get another offer, so walking away on principle is very difficult.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

I found the piece where she sat in with the lady in her late 60s truly shocking in terms of how a relatively simple message simply hadn't transmitted - at all. Surely that alone would be a takeaway for the NHS, if nothing else.

This comes up quite often in this forum, and I always try to remember to advise writing down questions beforehand so that you don't forget to ask them in the stress of consultation and having a route of communication after the consultation as subsequent questions arise.

Jonathan

PS: [hobbyhorse] I don't think that there's anything special about the NHS in this regard. It's a takeaway for all healthcare professionals working in all sorts of systems... [/hobbyhorse]

[Psamathe]

As a fellow grumpy-old-bloke I would propose to add professor Brian Cox to the list of most pointlessly show-offy presenters.

+1
I saw some of his [Cox's] 1st TV series when 1st broadcast and some of the errors were "unforgivable". Even though probably not noticed by many you'd hope a science documentary presented by a professor with a team of researchers would get it right - even to the last minute check when the words come out of professor's mouth he should be stopping and saying "that's wrong" (from his supposed knowledge of the subject).

Ian

[al_yrpal]

My pet hate is 'celebrity' presenters who clearly have little or no knowledge of the subject. Only occasionally do they shine. I like Joanna Lumley's travel programmes, her lively personality shines through. However Susan Calman gets swiftly turned off and never revisited!

Why does every man and his dog want to make their version of Devon and Cornwall?

Al

[Bonefishblues]

I found the piece where she sat in with the lady in her late 60s truly shocking in terms of how a relatively simple message simply hadn't transmitted - at all. Surely that alone would be a takeaway for the NHS, if nothing else.

This comes up quite often in this forum, and I always try to remember to advise writing down questions beforehand so that you don't forget to ask them in the stress of consultation and having a route of communication after the consultation as subsequent questions arise.

Jonathan

PS: [hobbyhorse] I don't think that there's anything special about the NHS in this regard. It's a takeaway for all healthcare professionals working in all sorts of systems... [/hobbyhorse]

NHS only because ubiquitous Jonathan