The 'Victoria Derbyshire' Programme

In that case if there's less rolling news to feed then the reporters have more time to work on their lunchtime packages

No, Billy Asko, far from it. You think you're saying one thing, but actually it comes across quite differently.

You talk about anticipating dead air. But that's not something you actually do. You don't spend time making a plan to anticipate dead air. You make back up plans for various technical problems, which might cause dead air, if they happen at the wrong split second. But, if you manage to be lucky enough to be able to implement one of your back up plans before the problem affects what's on the air, then dead air doesn't happen.

When dead air does happen, in a situation where the unexpected happens, or your live link goes down whilst it's going out live on air, you can't get ahead of that, you have to be responsive to it.

But I really have to tell you that your assertion about radio being more forgiving on dead air is completely mistaken, and your logic for your statement is completely off-kilter and here's why.

Radio is a medium of one sense only, sound. That is all you have. Close your eyes, and just listen to absolute silence for a little while. I guarantee you that you won't be able to do it for very long before you have to open your eyes, without falling asleep, because the lack of visual input, makes the silence all the more stark, almost more silent actually, as daft as that sounds.

But it is a lot easier to sit in a silent room with your eyes open, because the visual input makes the silence more bearable.

That's where television has the advantage, there's always a picture of some kind, even if it's not something that we'd normally refer to as a picture. People will forgive 15 seconds or more of television technical malfunction, because of the visual, but they won't put up with 15 seconds of dead air on radio. That's why radio stations will have back up tapes of some kind at the transmitter, which kick in after 10 seconds of silence. And those back up systems are why the two minute silence on radio is actually filled with birdsong or nature sound, in order to prevent those back up systems kicking in.

You might think it's far easier to fill dead air seemlessly on radio, again, you'd actually be wrong on this. Remember, television shows are a team effort, and there are a lot of people working behind the scenes. Unless you are on a BBC national station, radio shows these days are primarily a one person operation, and if you've happen to gone to the toilet, you might not know that something has gone wrong and you won't be able to respond quickly, even if you know someting's gone wrong.

All of that part of the post is needless argument over semantics. You're just wilfully misinterpreting my usage of the word "anticipate".



People can't do that for long because it requires conscious effort to close one's eyes - it's not really relevant to the discussion.


I am well aware of the technical side - however, you've not really made a relevant comparison. Which is more acceptable to an audience - a presenter filling in for fifteen seconds, frantically shuffling papers, clicking their mouse, and generally looking flustered, or a presenter filling in on radio, the audience completely unaware of what they may be doing otherwise?


Again, you've ignored anything but technical problems. And of course you're not going to be able to fill in if you're on the loo, but you're not going to care much mid-****.

If it is a morning show and will be on World News then what show would it replace - or is it just simply rolling news on World News at that point?

Yes. From 8 am to 12pm UK time, it's just rolling news on BBC WN.
Right now during the 8 am hour, it starts with news and at 8:45 am, World Business Report.

Anticipate: regard as probable, expect or predict; act as a forerunner or precursor of.

Well, only one of those definitions applies to what we're talking about, so I don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation from my side.

And semantics? Far from it. This is not about 2 phrases that have the same meaning. What I'm talking about is what people like me ACTUALLY DO. What you talked about in "preventing dead air", is a whole world away from what we actually think about when we are preparing. You're thinking about the effect, we are always working on the cause. So, very very far from semantics.



Where did you learn that from, the Fox News School of Science???

Everything we do except sleep, takes conscious effort. Your argument against is pretty much the stupidest post of the year already.



If a presenter on either television OR radio is "filling in", then they are speaking, and it is NOT DEAD AIR!

I'm talking about dead air, silence. Silence is more powerful on radio, because sound is the only thing radio has. Television has pictures of some kind, and the pictures will always take the edge off the silence. Remember, at one time, all movies were silent. Only a live performer on a piano created any kind of soundtrack, and that couldn't cover things like people's mouths opening and closing on screen.



Then you know nothing about broadcast people. They will STILL care about it, even if they can't do anything about it.

But, Mr Billy Asko, if you think you're so smart and so clever, why don't you just educate us on what other ways dead air can happen, that are non technical, and that satisfy that definition of anticipate, somthing that can be regarded as probable, expected or predictable, and that actually DO cause dead air.

I don't think you can, because you sound like Bill O'Reilly or Megan Kelly trying to dress down General Wesley Clark on Fox News. But go ahead, try and prove me wrong.

I do like the irony in this quote:




It would certainly explain a lot if beating your heart; breathing; flinching from danger; digestion; and, indeed, keeping your eyes open, took conscious effort from you.

For goodness sake, can't you possibly accept that your take on the broadcasting industry, from doing community radio, isn't the definitive one? At least don't try and define your way out of an argument, especially when all this came about because of your (strange) interpretation of Noggin's post.

By the way - "anticipate" and "expect" are largely interchangeable. One meaning, therefore, is "to be ready for". That is the meaning I was using.

EDIT: I missed this part



Dead air can come about because someone stops speaking. It could come about if a live event ends early. You can be prepared for such silences on radio. It's entirely probable that those things could happen, and they could cause dead air.

I can kind of see what you're saying Billy, that in self op radio if something goes wrong the presenter can (broadly speaking) move on to another item much more quickly then in TV because in TV you would need to pad until the Director tells you which item you need to throw to, and (in the old days) wait for the VT to get up to speed. Especially fun if you are
Autocue dependent and there is a delay in getting to the right but of script.

But it's a big generalisation. In self op radio when things go wrong you instinctively play a record, and invariably play the whole thing (unless it's a live commentary that has gone down) even if it only took 60 seconds to get the ob back. So in certain respects it can be less slick in radio than in TV.

This is all rather boring now, continue to PM each other on the issue if you want but no more of it here please. Ta.

Any more news on what's happening to Simon McCoy? If George Alagiah isn't coming back, perhaps he'll get the One with Sophie moving to Six?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme and reason to who presents the one anyway... Maybe he'll just be absorbed into that rotation.

Does anybody have any actual news on George Alagiah as it has been a while now?

Really hope he is doing ok, as I want to see him back on the BBC News at 6.