The Sky at Night - The End

[Scott]

If this is the case, and I'm hoping it's not, then perhaps BBC have realised the size of the market/interest in astronomy and are going to launch a one hour monthly show with a bigger budget. Fingers crossed.  

let's hope they don't realise the size of the potential market or we'll never see another astro related show again . like it or not, we are a very small minority

[DeepThought]

Maybe they could produce another rural affairs type show instead... Kate Humble could host.

Seriously.. If Countryphile is worth an hour a week on the schedules then S@N has to be worth 20 minutes a month.

Or maybe the producers have circulated this rumour to stop us all moaning every time a new episode comes out.

[lukebl]

Not Kate Humble. Pleeeeeeeease!

[Laurie61]

let's hope they don't realise the size of the potential market or we'll never see another astro related show again . like it or not, we are a very small minority

Yes, you are right. Amateur astronomy will never be a main stream interest, but, at least in the UK, programs like Brian Cox's 'wonders'

series and Star Gazing Live all seem to be well received and shown at prime time. Show's like Horizon also also produce astro related programs, so it just seem's a bit odd to bin S@N    

[andyman]

Sky@night should be renamed Clouds@night that would be more appropriate

On a serious note it would be a great shame to lose the longest running program on tv

Its only a rumour at present so touching wood but if it is axed it will be sadly missed

[Macavity]

Tweet a celebrity scientist? Twitter rumour need not be true!

Though, if you don't enjoy "celebrity immunity", keep it legal?

But aside from Brian Cox, there is now an absolute legion of scientists turned "science journalists", "science bloggers", "professors for public engagement with..." - Many owe initial popularity to the BBC, extol it's virtue as a public service broadcaster etc. One senses they are more likely to have the "ear of the establishment" - A vested shared interest in anything that popularises science.

I too have vague concerns about the general popularity of science. My local astro soc membership,

though prospering, still seems to be mostly (comfortingly? scarily!) people that are... rather like me. 

Not sure "keeping everyone at school until they are 21 - Until they can understand error bars" etc.,

will have a *mass* appeal. And keeping the S@N must be a bit cheaper than BC's (costed!) idea?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/brian-cox-students-continue-education-21_n_3897909.html

[Moonshane]

I completely disagree that amateur astronomy is not mainstream. serious amateur astronomy maybe. almost everyone I know is amazed when they look through a telescope and are enthusiastic while the session lasts. most people walking out on a particularly dark night or while camping to see a clear sky get that 'wow' moment. astronomy has been in the hearts of most people since we started to think like we do today.

on this basis I feel that programmes like S@N whilst I find a little basic (although still very enjoyable) really serve the needs of those a little interested and therefore the current format is actually better suited than the old format to serve this interested but not serious general public. I think they do a good job. hopefully as has always been the case, the programme will enthuse just a few new astro nuts a year and they will then go on their own path.

it would be a shame to see it axed.

[MrFinster]

Yes, you are right. Amateur astronomy will never be a main stream interest, but, at least in the UK, programs like Brian Cox's 'wonders'

series and Star Gazing Live all seem to be well received and shown at prime time. Show's like Horizon also also produce astro related programs, so it just seem's a bit odd to bin S@N    

Sky at night Vs SGL,  I mean....   really?. 

[ronin]

Wonder how much comes down to cost, which is a shame as many BBC programs were done on a shoe-string and had a following. The original Dr Who's cannot be said to be high end programs. S@N is another.

The S@N last month seemed good, basically 2 presenters and kept simple, which is what it had been for some time. That format is not excessive, but in the background there seem to be people wanting to add more and embellish things, must have the latest 3D cgi effect, that means cost. Yes it needs a revamp and this is the time but the simple easy format seems to be the best (to myself anyway).

On the idea of keeping things simple, who would have thought that something like Top Gear would be successful when recorded in a hanger with the audience standing round - no studio, no seats, no real stage. Just a hanger and shove them in. In winter editions there seems no heating either.

I have seen the BBC at Cambridge and at times you do wonder where everyone has come from and what the purpose of so many are. At one event (3 or 4 years ago) they came to do a 3 minute recording, they had 4 large outside broadcast vans, had been present for 8 hours, lost track of the number of people around, then they did the shot in the three minutes allocated and went.

At the last Stargazing Live at Cambridge IoA I promised myself that if the BBC were involved again I would not bother attending. They complicated matters immensly and were best described as incompetent. The IoA do a much better and professional job on their own.

As to S@N having a following, well it seems to be on mostly at some ungodly hour of the day. Saying only N people watched it is fine but at 1:30 AM it doesn't help anyone watch it.

[MrFinster]

I completely disagree that amateur astronomy is not mainstream. serious amateur astronomy maybe. almost everyone I know is amazed when they look through a telescope and are enthusiastic while the session lasts. most people walking out on a particularly dark night or while camping to see a clear sky get that 'wow' moment. astronomy has been in the hearts of most people since we started to think like we do today.

on this basis I feel that programmes like S@N whilst I find a little basic (although still very enjoyable) really serve the needs of those a little interested and therefore the current format is actually better suited than the old format to serve this interested but not serious general public. I think they do a good job. hopefully as has always been the case, the programme will enthuse just a few new astro nuts a year and they will then go on their own path.

it would be a shame to see it axed.

The few times I have had my scope out and been seen setting up by other members of the public just out for a walk has always resulted in lots of questions about getting started," what do i need to get started, does it require learning huge amounts of science stuff, how much does it cost" etc. etc.   All without exception would probably start observing or progress from "occaisionally have a look through binoculars" if there was a regular mass media information show that wasn't completely for idiots hosted by an amiable well paid buffoon and a household name scientist to put a sliver of a shadow of depth on it.

It takes the satisfaction of initial and well meant interest to start to motivate people to be a little more serious about getting involved.

I bought my goto scope on an alt/az mount because (and i quote,) "I want to see some cool stuff. "  I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm not a cosmologist, I'm a keen beginner amateur astronomer, but the more I see, the more I'm building up the motivation to go a little deeper and start to do some imaging and am saving every penny i can to start to amass a basic imaging setup.

There are so many people who want to get into the hobby but dont know how and are deterred by lack of opportunity and information.  If i earned a pound for the number of times these last 3 months I've referred people to this forum through people asking me questions at work or in the pub or when I'm setting up, I'd be looking at a free Telrad and 4" extender.

For me, S@N was just about starting to get the balance right to engage the general public (as science is becoming a little more sexy these days) and SGL is just utterly lame when it comes to promoting the hobby, it just entertains and nothing more.

[DeepThought]

I think it's fair to say that astronomy is a more accessible hobby now than it was back in 1957 when the first show was broadcast. Certainly somebody on my salary (inflation adjusted) couldn't have possibly owned an optically decent telescope the way almost anyone can today.

The only thing that makes this thread plausible to me is the way the BBC (and to be honest TV in general) seems to have completely abandoned anyone over 30 in order to attract a younger audience. Have you tried watching BBC Three lately? Half the shows seem to be presented by puppets.

[Treeden]

If in fact there is any truth to this rumour, and I stress IF, it may well be down to the fact that production team/ researchers have spent time on sgl and saw the countless posts pertaining to the fact that " the new format is rubbish" or "i'm fed up with impersonators" and have decided it's easier to can the show than change the format. 

This just in.....

"The BBC is axing their longest running tv programme, 'The Sky At Night' because of criticism of its new format by some members of an online forum" 

Joking aside auspom, I think that if we had that much influence the programme would already be extended to a full one hour and would be broadcast closer to the peak viewing times.     

On the other hand, the programme can't expect to survive just because of SPM's wonderful legacy.  It has to earn it's place on the schedules, it has to adapt to the changes in BBC TV commissioning.  The senior commissioning editors are following new policies that fit in with the corporation's vision for where the BBC is now, and where it needs to be in the future.

If you look at the guides they publish on their commissioning pages (links below), you can see that they are moving to more one-off type programmes, or annual events like Stargazing Live, rather than rely on series-based delivery.

Science & Natural History on BBC One

Science & Natural History on BBC Two

Science & Natural History on BBC Four

It looks like S@N just doesn't fit into these new priorities and requirements.  That doesn't mean they're right of course, but (rightly or wrongly) things do change.  It's easy to get sentimental about something that has been with us for most of our lives, but that isn't a justification in itself.  The new policies are aimed at larger audiences and it also seems to me that to keep these larger audiences 'on-board', they feel it is necessary to reduce the technical aspect of the content and make it more generalised and easier to follow.  In that respect it seems that S@N doesn't appear to fit the bill.

[scarp15]

Perhaps the programme ought to be renamed 'Strictly Come Stargazing'. This would fit in nicely with what appears to be the BBC's main agenda focus, broadcasting 'wide appeal' light entertainment programes and bland dramas  / soaps, preoccupied in competition with ITV.  At least  occasionally there is something worth watching on BBC4 or 2.

Seriously though, as others have said, access to participate in this hobby in considerable depth, as well as affordabilty, choice and diversity of approach, reaching more people,  has never had so much potential, therefore a quality programme should be a regular feature.

[scarp15]

Just read the announcement after my post, even less incentive for  the TV l;icence.

[DeepThought]

Just read the announcement after my post, even less incentive for the TV l;icence.

Announcement?

[MrFinster]

It looks like S@N just doesn't fit into these new priorities and requirements.  That doesn't mean they're right of course, but (rightly or wrongly) things do change.  It's easy to get sentimental about something that has been with us for most of our lives, but that isn't a justification in itself.  The new policies are aimed at larger audiences and it also seems to me that to keep these larger audiences 'on-board', they feel it is necessary to reduce the technical aspect of the content and make it more generalised and easier to follow.  In that respect it seems that S@N doesn't appear to fit the bill.

So let me see.....      In order to help do something to stop the trend of increasing ignorance of technical detail through a broad spectrum of well balanced and educationally interesting programming, they are reducing the level of technical detail in order to provide entertainment and escapist soma to couch potatoes who's interest in technical detail is minimal due to growing up with decreasingly educational television programming.

At this rate, all of the BBC's programming will be for children and (as previously noted by DeepThought) people who like puppets. 

[Ouroboros]

I'm thinking that even if it were axed, the programme could continue on line - possibly part funded and produced by the BBC and the team that produce the Sky At Night magazine.

[Ouroboros]

McFinster - sounds typical of the bbc. Reduce the technical content so that the real enthusiasts stop watching, and it becomes so naff no one else watches it either.

Is it because most TV people are art and media trained? We have arts/history/documentary programmes that require people to have a brain to watch, so why not science programmes?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Wonder how much comes down to cost

That's a very valid point. I would imagine the cost of producing the show now has gone up quite a bit since they no longer use SPM's house as the main studio and its mainly now all outside broadcast and on location. That surely has to be more expensive?. Another factor may be that viewing numbers has gone down?.

[palebluedot]

The Sky at Night is silly cheap to produce in comparison to the current popular science programmes produced for BBC2, and aired at a time that other minded people don't care about. From what I have heard, viewing numbers have not dropped since Sir PM passed away, and in my opinion it could be a format that can built on, not cast away!

[Grammar change]

[Baselessum]

well 55 years cant be bad for a TV program that hasn't been recognised for the last 10 by the host station. It seems the wrangling between the format for the BBC would if the rumours are true put the final nail in the coffin for a program that was hosted by a enthusiast with so much to give to the world of astronomy, even after his death the program carries on with the same vigour just not the iconic figure head, well I know which way I would choose if the rumour is true       

[Ouroboros]

Being devil's advocate for a moment, from the point of view of programme makers why should astronomy be one of the few specialist interests that gets its own programme? Why not fishing, or crochet, or cycling, or car mechanics, or DIY, or gardening ..... oh, there's Gardeners' World isn't there? But I've heard that even Gardeners' World they'd love to chop it if they could. And there are far more gardeners than astronomers.

[Davey-T]

I think we're on to a good idea here, if we slag off all the rubbish programs perhaps they'll scrap them,  as our opinion is so important to them

On another subject why does a half hour program with a couple of presenters need six producers all with assistant producers and assistant producers assistants ?

Dave

[DeepThought]

Being devil's advocate for a moment, from the point of view of programme makers why should astronomy be one of the few specialist interests that gets its own programme? Why not fishing, or crochet, or cycling, or car mechanics, or DIY, or gardening ..... oh, there's Gardeners' World isn't there? But I've heard that even Gardeners' World they'd love to chop it if they could. And there are far more gardeners than astronomers.

I hear your point, but if you only cater for the masses then you'll end up with nothing but mindless dross like Strictly and the X factor on every day. That's not what the BBC is all about.

I'd be more than happy for 20-30 minutes per month dedicated to fishing, cross-stitch, Ham radio and pigeon fancying if people wanted it.

I think the thing about S@N has always been that it's been entertaining to both astronomers and just those with a casual interest alike. A bit like Go Fishing with John Wilson, loads of non-fishermen watched that because the enthusiasm of the presenter made it entertaining. Anyway that's probably a bad example because it was cancelled years ago.

[Adrian Condon]

Hi,

Kate Humble has gone to the Dogs!!

The S&N magazine plus other BBC publications were sold to Immediate Media in 2011.

They could replace the S&N programme with another cooking show, these shows would bring more "chefs" to our screens and

the BBC could be shown to create competition. These shows are cheap and display a good degree of arrogance.

The Countryfile programme is taking over stargazing, by showing us how to do star lapse photography (22 September 2013).

Maybe the BBC would like to attend SGL 9 next April and discuss the whole subject of Astronomy and TV.

Maybe we could have a collection and give them a free Hog Roast meal......

Cheers

Adrian