Jon Culshaw to join the Sky at Night team

[kirkster501]

I think Jon, a keen amateur, would make a good contribution as long as he leaves the impressions to where they belong - comedy shows. Funny and good as he is, there's a time and a place. Light hearted sure, impressions all the time definitely not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sparkyjon]

I hope Jon joins the forum and hunts all you haters down and sits there doing impressions all day in your house ha ha ha.

seriously though its on once a month and everyone can still get what they want out of it if he was there or not he hardly takes over the presenting.. Things move on and things change either get with the times or dont watch it making it a bit more popular and easier to watch for the younger generation is the way forward you older gens have had it your way for many a year. Sir. Patrick Moore will never be forgotten by me and i doubt any of the old skool astronomers will ...

[fredster]

I sat down and watched the last episode again with my kids. They thoroughly enjoyed it, and i enjoyed it a second time round. But this thread made me scrutinise Jon's appearance on the program and i have to say he was very good indeed. He came out with some funny one liners, only once did the SPM impression for that rather good poem. Rest of the time he was an enthralled as all the others....genuine passion for the hobby. But no he doesn't hold a doctorate or a PHD, but the Sky at Night was never ever about that. It's life long presenter never had any of that either.

But what we are all forgetting is Jon got the double thumbs up from the one person we all hero worship, Sir Patrick. Jon would not have had such an involvement in the programme up to now had SPM not approved of Jon Culshaw.

[Mondlicht13]

Well said Fred

[Macavity]

Finally got to watch the last S@N - Always good, before commenting? Jon Culshaw came across as a nice bloke, genuinely interested in astronomy (thanks for link, OP). No real negatives. The "impressions" were innocuous thru to (almost) LOL-funny? Let's face it, few Ph.D. scientists do comedy well. <G> They are still tying up loose ends re. the legacy of SPM. RIP. Overall I enjoyed the program.

I think BBC things are "settling down" now? Non-scientists tire of "controversial" TV presenting. Many scientists (Astronomers) were never that enthusiastic to begin with? Although frustrating as a youngster, I now think SPM had somewhat the right idea - You had to make an effort to "find" S@N! Idem science? I don't see it as (bad) elitism. No more than (certain!) sportives, guitarists, petrol-heads, DIY-experts?

Aside: Do remember that good "science publicity" is not *entirely* new. Nor inspiring programs, cool TV presenters etc. I gave up wearing Harris Tweed, two weeks into a Manchester Physics course. All that, way back in 1973...

[Kropster]

I also enjoyed Jon Culshaw's appearance on the programme. That is not really a problem as he seems enthusiastic and knowledgable.

What one needs to be watchful of are celebrity presenters without this knowledge being 'parachuted' into the programme to glam it up.

Looks like this isn't happening at the moment, but watch out when the next BBC production shake-up occurs.

To quote Petronius..."we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress "

[Nillchill]

It appears to me that the BBC are putting together the team that SPM would have wanted , with Chris Lintott as the core presenter. The one thing I have missed strangely enough is the relaxed feel of the team sat around discussing astronomy.

I met John a couple of astrofests ago, he was approachable, and knowledgeable. He does not seem the "celebrity" type and he has been on S@N a number of times as an enthusiastic amateur. I guess he is bringing the amateur element to the programme, that's what the raison d'etre of the programme has always been about. with a team that size maybe there is argument for making the show longer.

.

[M4lcs67]

I recorded it last week and watched it last night. Thought it was really good. The content was great and the location, even more so. It was a shame they were clouded out for the two remaining days. Kielder is only about 2 hour drive from my house. I would love to go somewhere like that and experience truly dark skies.

[Ouroboros]

There's popular and there's being naff. I see the BBC are about to broadcast a documentary series on the art or Renaisance Flanders called The High Art of the Low Countries. Will the BBC be employing a buffoon of an impressionist to help popularise this series? No. The series will be presented by the expert in art history, Andrew Graham-Dixon. This presenter will do his best I'm sure to create an interesting and lively series. But if past experience is anything to go by I expect he and the programme makers will aim at an audience assumed to be intelligent, enquiring, quite knowledgable and interested in the subject. The same should go for high quality science programmes in my view.

[sparkyjon]

One of the most arrogant replies ive come across.. I think you've missed the point of the sky at night and everything sir Patrick Moore stood for.. Astronomy is for everyone at every level young or old. Highly intelligent or not..You have all the scientists on sky at night the basis of having someone like Jon culshaw is the point of view from the beginner or amateur star gazer he didn't even do any impressions this week so i think its time to let him carry on and do what he's doing. Could be worse it Could be Jonathan Ross

[Paulus17]

I think the new team all work well together and i assume is what Patrick wanted and i think they all have one thing in common and that is they all really respected/loved Patrick and what he had achieved.JC is great in the show as said for the beginner,and i hope Brian May will make regular appearances in the future.

I wish that the programme was an hour long though?

[Scott]

astronomy for the elite, not my cup of tea..............darjeeling please.

[tenbyfifty]

i thought pete lawrence was the natural successor to SPM being an amateur astronomer and very tv friendly with a calm, neutral broadcasting voice, although why the bbc feels the need to blue peter'ise every programme with a team of presenters these days is beyond me; makes programme making/editing more flexible i guess.

am i the only person who misses SPM's cosy study come studio with the crappy low tech demonstrations?

[ronin]

He still sounds as if he is impersonating Tony Blair. :grin:

Very off putting.

[Ouroboros]

One of the most arrogant replies ive come across.. I think you've missed the point of the sky at night and everything sir Patrick Moore stood for.. Astronomy is for everyone at every level young or old. Highly intelligent or not..You have all the scientists on sky at night the basis of having someone like Jon culshaw is the point of view from the beginner or amateur star gazer he didn't even do any impressions this week so i think its time to let him carry on and do what he's doing. Could be worse it Could be Jonathan Ross

Why arrogant? I'm saying the audience is intelligent, enquiring, informed and interested. This fact is assumed to be the case for arts, history, politics etc. programmes so why not science? I suspect it's because programme makers are on the whole scientifically challenged, or at least wrongly assume the audience is .... hence the dumming down.

As it happens the one S@N I've seen since Sir Patrick's death, the one made at Greenwich, was I thought absolutely at the right level. I like the fact they're using several young astronomers with scientific careers and active research interests to present the programme. If they keep that up I won't have much to complain about.

[Cath]

He still sounds as if he is impersonating Tony Blair. :grin:

Very off putting.

He doesn't doesn't he, it sounds as if he's always talking with someone else's voice rather than his own, which is a little strange when trying to ignore it and concentrate on what he's actually saying.

[Cath]

astronomy for the elite

ke ?

[JamesF]

He doesn't doesn't he, it sounds as if he's always talking with someone else's voice rather than his own, which is a little strange when trying to ignore it and concentrate on what he's actually saying.

I find this very distracting. I'm not suggesting that it's even intentional, but sometimes I just get the feeling that he's forgotten how to "be himself".

James

[Paul M]

I'm not a regular watcher of S@N and I'm neutral about the appearances of John Culshaw. To be honest, from what I've seen, he's growing into the role reasonably well.

I remember him from his days on local radio. His voice wasn't always "stuck" in a semi-permanent impression mode as it seems to be now.

Hopefully, other than an occasional bit of fun he'll crack on with astronomy and grasp the opportunity to do some serious broadcasting.

[Russty]

[Hawksmoor]

When the 'media' decides to introduce either a 'technical expert' to a light entertainment show or a 'comedian' to a science program, I always feel slightly uncomfortable. It may be that I'm a little insecure and feel patronized or am just phased by the apparent unease of the introduced interloper. I've no real problem with either Dara or Jon and quite possibly both know more about physics and astronomy than I do but I still feel uncomfortable when I watch them perform on Star Gazing Live or the Sky at Night. Possibly the key to my unease is the fact that their primary function is to 'perform and entertain' rather than inform. The absolute joy of people like David Attenborough and Sir PM is that their performance is and was fully integrated with their innate ability to inform and educate. A real joy to watch! Broadcasters of their calibre are rare and indeed it took time for them to develop their considerable talents. Anyway, I'm prepared to give Mr Culshaw time to develop a useful amateur astronomer role within the Sky at Night Team. At least the BBC have not decided to remove 'The Sky at Night' from its schedules. Lets hope it survives the latest BBC review.

[sparkyjon]

Why arrogant? I'm saying the audience is intelligent, enquiring, informed and interested. This fact is assumed to be the case for arts, history, politics etc. programmes so why not science? I suspect it's because programme makers are on the whole scientifically challenged, or at least wrongly assume the audience is .... hence the dumming down.

As it happens the one S@N I've seen since Sir Patrick's death, the one made at Greenwich, was I thought absolutely at the right level. I like the fact they're using several young astronomers with scientific careers and active research interests to present the programme. If they keep that up I won't have much to complain about.

sorry as with all forums it read differently to me, it did seemed as if you were saying they wouldnt do it with arts so why should they do it with science/astronomy,

to me astronomy can be as complicated or simple as you want it to be £1000's of pounds worth of gear or just your eyes, thats the feeling i always get off s@n , but one of the issues i have noticed is that the professional astronomers,even Sir,Patrick Moore, as he always said he was an amateur, used to talk as if we all were as clued up as them , my missus watches it and hardly understands anything being said,

Now Jon Culshaw is doing the asking and it's helping her , if one person gets into and understands it all a little bit more by adding Jon then how can it be a bad thing...

[redfox1971]

The program did seem a little rushed to get everything in on Sunday night,A little earlier would help as I was trying stay awake all way through the 20mins lol,can't be leave the technology show click gets 30 min shows it may be on early but it's on sat repeated sun then straight on I player.

[Scosmico]

I am very happy with the news. A amateur atronomer without Dr.

[Scott]

ke ?

it means i don't think astronomy programs should assume the audience is intelligent and knowledgeable. is it not possible that interested people watch s@n to become informed and not because they are informed.