Did you go back to work yesterday? Or maybe today?
One of the aspects of being self-employed is that there is less of a hard line between work and play and so I was working over some of the mid-winter break and did a little bit of ‘work’ on almost every day of the last couple of weeks.
But a good Christmas break for me is spending time with friends and family (did that – very nice too), backing the winner of the King George and Christmas Hurdle (did that this year), going for some walks and seeing some wildlife (yes, the weather helped with that) and dozing in front of the TV and a log fire at various times.
Over Christmas I didn’t watch much TV – the log fire was more of an attraction – but I did notice quite a lot of nature programmes on obscure channels. At various times I have watched Planet Earth 2 (rewatched some of it), seen Chris Packham enthusing over an Orkney Vole, seen lots of Grizzly Bears eating Salmon and Polar Bears eating seals, watched Bison, Musk Ox, Wolves and Orcas, and even rewatched some of the original Planet Earth series. All good stuff and easy viewing.
And last night, I really enjoyed Yellowstone: the Wildest Winter and will be watching again this evening. Weren’t the Great Grey Owls amazing? And all that talk about different kinds of snow and ice was good too.
Did you see the quotes from Martin Hughes-Games about Planet Earth 2 and wildlife shows in the Guardian the other day? What he seemed really to have said seems less dramatic than the headlines and the reports. Yes, we need programmes that celebrate nature, but we also need ones which spell out what needs to be done to save some of it. I agree.
But I would also look at programmes such as the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 every morning. This programme, the go-to programme for the educated middle classes (or at least I like to think so), now neglects wildlife and nature conservation very badly. Programmes such as Today both follow and set the agenda and for nature to be so absent from their programming puts it, nature, at a great disadvantage.
I am repeating myself but I really wonder why we need large chunks of the programme to talk about ‘business’ and the stock market when most of it is completely unintelligible to me – maybe you understand it all. And whereas I am a sports fan, the slot on Today is out of date and very weak these days. There is almost no-one interested in sport who needs this radio programme to tell them the results of last night’s matches – they are by then old hat and have been chewed over on the internet or on Radio 5 Live and we’ve all moved on. And amusing though they are, we don’t need racing tips of such terrible quality either.
Today has slightly lost its way over the years. I’ll be listening to it each morning but with more irritation than in the past. There are too many adverts for other BBC programmes; too much finding something for Jim Naughtie to do; too much rushing of interviews to fit in the adverts, or fit in the stock market and sports slots; and not enough hard interviewing. And not enough environmental news or comment.
[registration_form]
Did you notice the same footage appearing in more than one BBC programme? The Grey Owl footage in Yellowstone also appeared in Gordon Buchanans Snow programme, as it footage of the bears, wolves, and voles. The BBC is implying, by having different camera men, including Gordon, in the before and after shots, but either both teams were there at the same time, or they’ve just changed the presenters.
Blythe – I wondered that. i wasn’t sure – maybe I was looking at the fire at one moment.
I’m not sure why that would be a problem. It no doubt costs a lot of money to put these film crews out in the field so if they manage to get two programmes for the price of one then surely that is just being efficient with the licence-payers’ money?
This morning they had Owen Patrerson. Why him? who is he speaking on behalf of?, why did he visitt BASF?, is he in the pay of some chemical interests?
We need to watch this man.
Chris – yes indeed, we had the NFU and OPatz on the CAP and wildlife. And both were largely unchallenged on their views. Just another example of the weakness of Today on the environment these days.
I wonder how today’s Environmental Audit Committee report will be covered…
Summed up perfectly by today’s programme, Mark – I share your frustration. If you take a look at the webpage of the Environmental Audit Committee, the headline paragraph states:
‘MPs are warning the Government that environmental protections must not be weakened during the process of leaving the EU or afterwards. The Environmental Audit Committee is calling on the Government to introduce a new Environmental Protection Act during Article 50 negotiations to maintain the UK’s strong environmental standards.’
Today’s response to this report was John Humphreys interviewing Owen Paterson and Minette Batters, deputy president of the NFU. They discussed the impact on farmers of losing EU subsidies and Owen Paterson (unchallenged) talked about the opportunity to get rid of legislation restricting the use of pesticides.
I have looked at the running order and no further interviews are planned. As you say, the Today programme isn’t doing its job. Incidentally, I’d argue that the business and stock market coverage is to economics the equivalent of interviewing grouse moor owners and leaders of the CA on the state of our uplands.
I missed the Today programme yesterday and this morning but am shocked to read that Owen Paterson and the NFU have been interviewed twice on consecutive days with no counter speaker to challenge their views.
If we want a change in the programme’s coverage we have to tell them though so I hope that people will contact today to highlight this imbalance – [email protected] and on twitter @BBCR4Today.
OK so we put Mark forward as guest editor for next Christmas- NY
Re Stock Market price; They have not read the investment advice that stocks and shares should be a long term investment and not a daily gamble.
May be the problem is that we are very slow bringing in the new blood. Where are the Chris Packhams of tomorrow? Why always the curly haired women from yesteryear! The new guy was not what you called ‘young’ and certainly not dramatic. If only the bear had rushed out of that hole and made the programme more alive!!
They are all on the downlistings channel, you know the channels everyone skips over when scrolling down through the tv guide.
You are much too kind to the Today programme. It’s awful and neither you nor I should be listening to it. The BBC is no longer (if it ever was) a source of unbiased news and reporting…and John Humphries should stick to Mastermind!
“now neglects wildlife and nature conservation”
Did it ever do otherwise?
Only listen to the Today programme if you are OK about being propagandized. An interesting book to read on the BBC in general is:
The BBC The Myth of a Public Service
It has a whole chapter on how there came to be so much business/finance coverage on BBC.
There is no way that this programme is going to give nature conservation a fair hearing unless some faction of the elite wants it, which they do not. I worry that even the Labour party, on the evidence of the grouse shooting debate, gives it no support. This does not bode well for if they return to office and hold the BBC’s purse strings.
Jonathan’s right, we should complain – and keep complaining. It’s lazy of the BBC to keep wheeling out Owen Patterson as an interviewee, and a failure of balance to allow him to go unchallenged.
Today is dire these days and I don’t bother with it now in the mornings. Downloading the lot and listening later means that you can screen out all the rubbish in search of the minute or two that is worth catching up with (sometimes).
The BBC’s coverage of conservation, nature etc. certainly needs re-invention. I think it’s problems have a lot to do with the structure and geography of the organisation. The Natural History Unit in Bristol does its thing, while Birmingham was always Countryfile, The Archers and the radio farming programme. In London the high-ups were/are able to tick boxes, and move on to what they think is important (opera, Wimbledon, endless cricket coverage during which men talk about cake, Royal Ascot…).
For me, the mix of topics selected for the Today programme reflects the interests and understanding of the people who work on the programme. Scrap it, and start over.
I think the BBC coverage of nature is worse than just its geography and structure. There has always been an element of the nanny about them. Telling us what is good, how we should feel about things,skating over what is bad, Countryfile being a prime example.The state has the best interests of us all in mind, when it is really an example of cultural hegemony, whats good for the landowners and the most well off is good for us all.
The Today programme and to a lesser extent Newsnight will always trot out the Owen Pattersons with a token Mark(no insult intended) to add “balance”
Today’s journalistic efforts on the environment usually result in them asking FoE what they reckon. They may have to revise that now.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-will-stop-spreading-fracking-scare-stories-say-eco-warriors-j03s65kz7
Post-truth in Action! Invest in Popcorn Futures!
Today has become a tad boring, lacks edge and the Beeb are generally giving more air space and time to Farage than seems reasonable, fitting and tasteful. He keeps popping up. Whereas the owl (even if it had been shown before) was spectacular.
I used to go on the Today programme regularly as did my boss. We were on every news programme and in every paper very regularly. We did it because we wanted to push our agenda (pandas, rhinos, elephants and in my case, snow leopards). We were successful because we were consistent. If they needed someone to talk about nature they knew they could ring us and we would usually do it. I don’t see NGO’s (including the one I worked for) doing that these days. NGO’s need to keep pushing and keep delivering good content that the media can use. It is not difficult.
Callum – same here. but nobody is on these days and that makes it feel more like a change in the editorial policy to me.
I agree with Mark and no offence to Callum but saving wildlife over there is not the same as a threat to corporate and private profit by protecting wildlife over here.