« Topics
1234...101102103
Stuart6,513 posts since 13 Oct 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
Jonny posted:
'Problems in the weather studio' meant the CA had to read the 18.15 forecast over a BBC One 'BBC Weather' slide. After he'd finished the slide didn't want to go away; cue Kites breakdown music which rather swishly lead into a now and next menu.

Initially there was a brief glance at the slide from 'Weatherscape XT', then just a channel caption for BBC One Weather.

As if by magic, here they are:

*

*
Nick Harvey5,034 posts since 11 Nov 2001
HTV West Points West
Dunedin posted:
As I've said numerous times, it's a BBC News disgrace that its flagship 24 hour news channel on an average day will broadcast more weather per hour (approximately 5-6 minutes) than serious business journalism. Or indeed often analysis of the top story. And that's twice every hour guaranteed- even if it means cutting away from live breaking news because it would be a complete DISASTER to miss just one of the 48 weather spots everyday on the News Channel.

And now to add insult to this, they've added a specially extended weather bulletin at 8:25 called Weatherview, complete with rubbish geography diagrams to explain the weather. An utter waste of several minutes of primetime news real estate.

Let's keep the science of weather on documentaries and weather forecasts to the bare minimum. I really believe there is no need for more than one summary per hour, and its position should be entirely fluid with the news agenda. It needs no more than 2 minutes and should be easily voiced by the newsreader in the evenings and overnight (thereby cutting costs which can be diverted into real news reporting).

With Bloomberg and CNBC available on most platforms in the UK, but no dedicated weather channel (small w, small c), then I feel the business community are far better served already than those interested in the weather.

I see nothing at all wrong with two weather bulletins an hour; and, as it's a very specific subject, used by many to plan events, then it's essential that they be at fixed and predictable times, and not shunted around the schedule at the whim of a news producer.
Nick Harvey
Carbuncle Corner - The Monstrous Lump on the World Wide Web
peterrocket1,252 posts since 5 Sep 2001
James Vertigan posted:
although interestingly, today's Weatherscape screen had the correct date on it, but no arrow.


What you saw was the output from the output computer when the slideshow is being loaded. The arrow shown during countryfile and the night background shown in today's are 'shaders' i.e. elements that make up the graphics.

Chances are the computer that runs the output couldn't load the 'slideshow' in and stuck loading the elements, hence the problem.
Dunedin1,569 posts since 16 Jan 2003
Nick Harvey posted:
Dunedin posted:
As I've said numerous times, it's a BBC News disgrace that its flagship 24 hour news channel on an average day will broadcast more weather per hour (approximately 5-6 minutes) than serious business journalism. Or indeed often analysis of the top story. And that's twice every hour guaranteed- even if it means cutting away from live breaking news because it would be a complete DISASTER to miss just one of the 48 weather spots everyday on the News Channel.

And now to add insult to this, they've added a specially extended weather bulletin at 8:25 called Weatherview, complete with rubbish geography diagrams to explain the weather. An utter waste of several minutes of primetime news real estate.

Let's keep the science of weather on documentaries and weather forecasts to the bare minimum. I really believe there is no need for more than one summary per hour, and its position should be entirely fluid with the news agenda. It needs no more than 2 minutes and should be easily voiced by the newsreader in the evenings and overnight (thereby cutting costs which can be diverted into real news reporting).

With Bloomberg and CNBC available on most platforms in the UK, but no dedicated weather channel (small w, small c), then I feel the business community are far better served already than those interested in the weather.

I see nothing at all wrong with two weather bulletins an hour; and, as it's a very specific subject, used by many to plan events, then it's essential that they be at fixed and predictable times, and not shunted around the schedule at the whim of a news producer.


I fundamentally disagree. Business news in this country is treated as a niche or specialist subject- hence your direction towards so-called specialist channels. As a result, the British population is one of the most financially naive in the developed world. The lack of understand of global markets, the possibilities of making (and losing) money through investments, developing sound portfolios etc. is shameful. Why should this be treated as too highbrow for the UK mass audience?

The great irony is that many of these people would happily mock the stereotype 'stupid yank', when in reality the business awareness of the US news-watching public is simply miles ahead of the UK.

Nobody can force a channel to cover a difficult or unsexy subject, but as the public service broadcaster, I really do believe that the BBC has a responsibility to teach and inform on business and the activity of the financial sector- one of the most important aspects of our economy and lives.

But no- we're British, so let's talk about the weather. Again. And Again.
Dunedin1,569 posts since 16 Jan 2003
By the way, there was another classically inappropriate weather juxtaposition on the News Channel an hour or so ago.

"Breaking News in from Reuters of Indonesia triggering its tsunami early warning detection system after an earthquake of 7.7 on the Richter scale struck...."

---on come breaking news graphics, ticker etc. for all of 30 seconds....

"...and now lets pause for the weather with..."

and off go all graphics indicating a potentially massive story (thankfully it appears to be not as serious as it could have been), because to even cover up the bottom 5% of a weather forecast we've been showing every 28 minutes would be a disaster.

After all, it's not like people tune in fresh to the news channel at xx:27 and xx:57 do they? It's only when programmes finish on virtually every other channel and people start flicking channels.

Ah, the good old weather.
Moz4,961 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Wales Today
Dunedin posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
Dunedin posted:
As I've said numerous times, it's a BBC News disgrace that its flagship 24 hour news channel on an average day will broadcast more weather per hour (approximately 5-6 minutes) than serious business journalism. Or indeed often analysis of the top story. And that's twice every hour guaranteed- even if it means cutting away from live breaking news because it would be a complete DISASTER to miss just one of the 48 weather spots everyday on the News Channel.

And now to add insult to this, they've added a specially extended weather bulletin at 8:25 called Weatherview, complete with rubbish geography diagrams to explain the weather. An utter waste of several minutes of primetime news real estate.

Let's keep the science of weather on documentaries and weather forecasts to the bare minimum. I really believe there is no need for more than one summary per hour, and its position should be entirely fluid with the news agenda. It needs no more than 2 minutes and should be easily voiced by the newsreader in the evenings and overnight (thereby cutting costs which can be diverted into real news reporting).

With Bloomberg and CNBC available on most platforms in the UK, but no dedicated weather channel (small w, small c), then I feel the business community are far better served already than those interested in the weather.

I see nothing at all wrong with two weather bulletins an hour; and, as it's a very specific subject, used by many to plan events, then it's essential that they be at fixed and predictable times, and not shunted around the schedule at the whim of a news producer.


I fundamentally disagree. Business news in this country is treated as a niche or specialist subject- hence your direction towards so-called specialist channels. As a result, the British population is one of the most financially naive in the developed world. The lack of understand of global markets, the possibilities of making (and losing) money through investments, developing sound portfolios etc. is shameful. Why should this be treated as too highbrow for the UK mass audience?

The great irony is that many of these people would happily mock the stereotype 'stupid yank', when in reality the business awareness of the US news-watching public is simply miles ahead of the UK.

Nobody can force a channel to cover a difficult or unsexy subject, but as the public service broadcaster, I really do believe that the BBC has a responsibility to teach and inform on business and the activity of the financial sector- one of the most important aspects of our economy and lives.

But no- we're British, so let's talk about the weather. Again. And Again.

Mate, I think you (probably joined by Jeremy Paxman) are in the vast minority here. Most of us far prefer to hear what the weather is than business news. I glaze over when they start talking about business as I don't understand it at all, and while what they're talking about probably effects me a lot, what they tell me doesn't help me to do anything about it. The weather also effects me, and but I can put a coat on if they tell me it's going to rain.

I don't, and never will have, shares, or investments, as I find the whole idea a bit distasteful, so am really not interested whether the FTSE is up or down. I've got the Stocks app on my iPhone, but only coz of the pretty graphs it makes, and that it's fun to see them crash up and down! No idea what it means though.
#betterprepared
Philip Cobbold910 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Central (West) Midlands Today
But they do cancel the weather when a major story is on going. What was probably the case on this occasion is that they had no further information other than what they read out as the breaking news, and so it would be pointless to cancel the weather if nothing else could be added to the story at that time.