« Topics
123456...353637
m_in_m1,697 posts since 22 Apr 2006
Anglia (East) Look East
I guess it's the 'mobile phone' issue. People are used to seeing the time as 3 or 4 digit numbers.
Hour hand, minute hand, sweep seconds arranged in a circle? #mindblown.

It's the same reason I blame the wholesale reduction of accurately phrased timechecks on radio these days.

Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.

I've heard 41 minutes past 1 on BBC Local Radio in the past as well. That is just criminal.

I though BBC radio studio clocks had the time displayed as it should be said?
XX o'clock.
XX minutes past (hour)
Half past (hour)
XX minutes to (hour)

I’ve seen that for the Today programme but I don’t know if that is used on all programmes. I don’t believe they use it on TV bulletins - perhaps the Today programme audience are very vocal with time mistakes.
Custard56 (previously Jay Lee) 647 posts since 7 Apr 2015
London
Its a shame we don't seen analogue clocks any more on TV in the UK. Telemation proves that they can integrate with the graphics without taking up an obscene amount of screen space, and of course they were common in the 1980s what with Breakfast Time and TV-am having them, though sadly they seemed to fall out of favour by the time the 90s came along. I think by 1992 it was only TV-am who were still using an analogue clock (but of course by that stage the clock wasn't the only thing they still holding onto!)


Someone will correct me but I'm pretty sure the analogue clock on BBC Breakfast News lasted throughout both its original look (1989-1993) and its corporate blue virtual reality era, 1993-1997. It was only in June 1997 (?) when Breakfast News was revamped away from the virtual reality look that the clock went "digital" and converted to numbers.
3
itsrobert and tightrope78 gave kudos
Jon8,252 posts since 11 Apr 2005 Recently warned
Central (West) Midlands Today
If I heard 27 minutes to 4 on the radio my brain would automatically convert that 14:33. To me only past quarter to should it be said in the way you suggest as that’s when you’d start using it in normal conversation apart from 25 to and 20 to.

Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.
2
marshmallow and scottishtv gave kudos
Inspector Sands14,287 posts since 25 Aug 2004

If I heard 27 minutes to 4 on the radio my brain would automatically convert that 14:33.

Yes, me too. I'm not sure at what stage I mentally flip from thinking 'past' to thinking 'to' though

Quote:
Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.

But then that depends on the person, some of us don't need a couple of seconds of processing time to work out the time on a clock
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 27 July 2019 8:50am
1
Jon gave kudos
Neil Jones5,971 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Quote:
Analogue clocks on TV again are less useful and when you look at the TV you want to be able to read the time accurately without a couple of seconds of processing time, this is best achieved by using a digital clock.

But then that depends on the person, some of us don't need a couple of seconds of processing time to work out the time on a clock


It may be in one's upbringing as the ability to instantly look at an analogue clock and be able to see it's twenty five to nine. Considering we had them all over school when I was at primary school, my parents had (and still do have) copious analogue clocks all over the place (in fact anything that's "digital" clock wise only exists if its on an oven, a Windows taskbar or the default Android lock screen). Thus it sort of becomes second nature to myself anyway to read them quickly.

I'm sure CBeebies used to use analogue clocks at some point on their trailers?
1
watchingtv gave kudos
Inspector Sands14,287 posts since 25 Aug 2004

I'm sure CBeebies used to use analogue clocks at some point on their trailers?

Yes I think they still do. Channel 4 did too when they had their circles logo.


Talking about primary school and growing up, I still base my thinking of the 24 hour clock on 4pm being 1600 because of seeing it on our only 24 hour clock - on our video recorder while watching TV after school so it was the first 24 clock time I knew
WW Update5,031 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?
1
Brekkie gave kudos
Rolling News1,011 posts since 27 Dec 2015
Central (East) East Midlands Today
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?

No but she wouldn't really say it's 33 minutes past 3 either. She'd most likely say "just gone half three" or maybe "nearly twenty five to four".
3
chevron, scottishtv and itsrobert gave kudos
JamesWorldNews8,650 posts since 22 Aug 2004
STV Central BBC World News
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".
@JamesWorldNews | Formerly BBC WORLD
WW Update5,031 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".


I understand the rounding issue, but Hatton Cross wrote that he perceived "33 minutes past three" (and presumably "three-33") as incorrect, which surprised me.
dvboy9,970 posts since 11 Jan 2003
Central (West) Midlands Today
Mentioning no names - Nihal on Five Live - when you go to the bottom of the hour news headlines late again.
The time is not 33 minutes past 3 as you keep refering to it on air.
It's 27 minutes to 4.


Maybe this is a British thing, but if you stopped a stranger on the street and asked her for the time, would she really say "It's 27 minutes to 4"?


We'd round it up to "three thirty-five" or "twenty-five to four".

"Just gone half 3" more likely


Shaun Keaveney used to mock timechecks on his 6 music breakfast show with things like "22 minutes to 3 minutes past 8"
Watch it and find out.