Can S@N survive the internet age?

[tenbyfifty]

can a programme that's only on once a month really complete with the instant news source which is the internet.

there wasn't anything in the last episode that i couldn't have found out more quickly and in more detail on the net

and also which will be reported more quickly eg the piece about inflation and the big bang was hot news a few weeks ago.

I really think S@N needs some kind of new USP eg why use professional astronomers like CL and MAP just as reporters and presenters. It would be nice to have something about their work in the show. 
When  SPM was alive the whole show seemed more personal to him rather than just another science programme

which is how S@N feels now especially when u have high profile presenters like Iain Stewart suddenly popping up; all of a sudden it felt like his show rather than S@N because he is so well known.

Also does anyone else find that ping-pong style of presentation between CL and MAP kind of annoying.

 ie he says a sentence then she says a sentence, back and for.  it feels totally unnatural .

[AndyWB]

I thought having Iain Steward talking about Mars' geology seemed weird - but having a geologist talking about Martian geology seemed to work pretty well.

As for the ping-pong style - it's pretty much standard on TV. Have you seen breakfast TV? I'm not keen on it, though. Feels unnatural.

[ronin]

I think something like that can survive, it would have to be kept as a bit of a niche program. Also a I suspect that if it were weekly they simply could not fill it. Not sure how many doing astronomy and looking at stars would actually use the internet, I know I wouldn't.

To be honest in it's latest format I cannot see it. SPM had his way and although "quirky" I suspect that made it a bit of a curiosity.

Have said that they seemed to get a good format at the end of the last "series", CL and LG did seem to work, and the latter format seemed to be visit a university for some latest astro aspect and an astro club meant both ends were catrered for. Also an easy format to change by swapping one for something else.

It suited me as I got some information on up to date aspects and an idea of what might be around to look for. It presented universities to would be students and presented astronomy clubs to the public. Seemed to tick a few boxes.

This latest incarnation I am not so sure about. Watched, in a way, last nights and to be honest I didn't actually see it. Nothing in it gripped me enough to take the time to watch and register what they were on about. The next thing I recall was hearing the end music. Spend 80% of the time on the PC doing bits with the occasional glance at the TV.

I wonder if the BBC needs to do more homework. Most of the people here will not be of the internet/facebook/twitter generation, also I am guessing that to get a reasonable scope or two (5), means you are older and likely have some knowledge of the subject - simply keeping the information for the non-informed beginner means the program is aimed at the wrong people.

My scopes are not big and not expensive, but I suppose I hav £4000-5000 of equipment, add another £1000 of eyepieces and that is I suspect typical of many here. So not really the ignorant beginner.

I mention this as I think MAP has a company that is aimed at school children programs and education, and has S@N turned towards this area when it would appear this is not the area where interest/audience really resides.

[jason.p]

I agree it seems a bit it seems to have lost something, but I think I'll stick with it. Even at it's worst, it has got to be better than Eastenders!

[JulianFR]

I'll stick with it, in the same way I stick with Doctor Who (though my loyalty to the venerable Gallifrean has bee stretched to twanging point). But I don't feel the format is right.

I'm probably in a minority but I would like more on actual astronomy - answering the kind of questions and presenting the astronomical features that appear in SGL, for instance.

I don't really want a monthly cosmological science round-up magazine with a tiny feature on the actual sky at night and what to look for. It's not that I don't like cosmology and planetary geology... I love them. But there are lots of other sources for that, plus many Discovery-style documentaries for that level of science. There isn't anything that at least majors on astronomy for amateurs of all levels, from beginner to near professional.

I would like to see more on telescope types for instance, and EPs, and amateur radio astronomy. I would like it to be more like a televisual Sky at Night or Astronomy Now magazine. Perhaps it could focus more on the astronomy community more as well.

I'm not saying can all the cosmology etc ... Just rebalance it in favour of amateur astronomy.

Just my view anyway. It won't happen.

[Astro Imp]

It's very difficult to strike the right balance and decide what the target audience is. 

Historically there has always been coverage of the latest research but as has been said by the time the program airs most of the news has been well discussed on line.

Personally I would rather see more of what us amateurs do and leave the cosmology to more in depth programmes like Horizon. 

Judging by the questions asked here on SGL there should be plenty to keep S@N busy for ages.

I don't like to be too critical as I would hate the Beeb to read our discussions and decide not to bother with it at all. After all something is better than nothing at all.

[NGC 1502]

Hmmm tough question, but hopefully S@N will survive.

I do agree that we can all find out stuff fast on the 'net, but I'd be sorry if S@N discontinued, I do think it provides a valid need.

You could ask the same question about magazines, but a look in my local WH Smith shows a very large array of magazines on every conceivable subject, so I suppose if enough were not sold, they'd die.

Regards, Ed.

[gooseholla]

I watched some of the episodes last year and preferred Dr Lucie Green to the new presenter. I also find the one sentence back and forth annoying. I don't think I can continue watching it much longer though. It is something about the new presenter, she is enthusiastic, for sure, but her presenting style - or perhaps the way they have her interact with Chris Lintott, is off putting for me. Also, the music between sections when they show the S@N logo is annoying and out of place.

It has lost something since Sir Patrick died. But then so did Countdown when Richard Whitely died, but after a long time, and under the new presenter, it has something about it again. I suspect it will take time, and for us to see other possibilities and configurations other than Sir PM for 50 + years to settle on something we find satisfactory.

Will it survive? No. I don't believe the BBC have any real commitment to it. It will become another science show I fear, and then cancelled altogether. It is on the lesser watched BBC channel, and not really advertised. I fear it will become less and less about visual amateur astronomy and more and more about the professional, science side of things.

 

[todd8137]

Of course it can it's not really that hard to type mars into the internet and get the latest as you say ,but that said it's the familiar faces that bring it to life and the news is usually a couple a weeks past tense but hey oh who cares a think a lot depend on what your in to,does person A, like to read about news ?,or does person A get excited when he hears the music as the S@N starts the anticipation of what they going to talk about .

A lot is down to like a said reading or watching I like a mix of both but prefer the S@N

Pat

[Davey-T]

As annoying as the ping pong presenting, with their impression of Ant & Dec, is the ping ponging between subjects, It's getting like all those other programs that flit about from one item to another then back to the other one then off to another one then back to the first one. like they think the viewers  haven't got the attention span of an ant.

Getting like Helicopter rescue, Emergency bikers etc, etc.

Dave

[Umbraldot]

The joy of Sir Patrick was he spoke to the audience as his equal. He was honest, forthright and passionate about astronomy and he never dumbed it down, or least he was pretty good at it if he did.

Please S@N do not dumb down. Keep the balance that Sir Pateick achieved of facts explained with an assumed level of intelligence - your audience will keep up. This should not become an astronomy version of Blue Peter and some recent episodes have sailed quite close.

[nebogipfel]

I watched..........the sky .........at night.........last night.........and there was...........something.........really..........irritating about it.

I wonder if.....you can guess........to what I refer?

Aside from that i also hate the ping pong "Blue Peter" presentation. I have loved the programme for years and was perfectly happy with the way it continued after Patrick with his team.

I suspect Chris Lintott feels as if he has fallen into some strange parallel universe.

If they don't fix it fast and turn it back into a serious astronomy programme then I think, internet or not, we are witnessing a slow death!

And that.......my friends .......will be.........a great .........shame.

[tenbyfifty]

Hmmm tough question, but hopefully S@N will survive.

I do agree that we can all find out stuff fast on the 'net, but I'd be sorry if S@N discontinued, I do think it provides a valid need.

You could ask the same question about magazines, but a look in my local WH Smith shows a very large array of magazines on every conceivable subject, so I suppose if enough were not sold, they'd die.

Regards, Ed.

i think magazines are a bit different as the content is much more detailed and after a while they turn into a reference library eg photography or guitar playing magazines  describe useful techniques. TV is a more fickle and fussy market i think.

[Davey-T]

Still look on the bright side the BBC have two new cookery programs starting, just what we needed.     

Dave

[Luke]

Just my two cents, I love how Sky at Night has inspired so many people over the years, young and old, to look up at the night sky. I love the programme, it's essential viewing for me, but I feel like I should support it even if I didn't like it, because I think it helps our wonderful hobby.

[Alien 13]

I think that a lot of the problems would be sorted if the program was an hour long, it would allow the presenters a bit more time to do their job.

Alan

[proflight2000]

I feel that the BBC now just trends on the issue that they are a publicly paid for service and as such they have to do something for everyone, I must admit, since SPM died I have not given it any viewing time, although the lady doing it now is without doubt very intelligent, it is as if the BBC found another version of SPM to keep the tittering effect going. Saying that, when the BBC do the live sky show for 3 days in a year it is superb, it raises awareness etc etc. The S@N is on way too late, we need it when the youngsters are awake to enthrall them and to make them ask questions. The BBC does its best, but sadly they are going to loose the plot with this new set up.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Ive never really watched the show that much over the years. I'll watch it if the main subject is a topic which interests me. In saying this, today  i did buy a copy of the latest issue of the mag and a copy of AN also. I have not bought any astro mags in yrs because everything in them is available online for free.

I bought them just to see if they have changed much over the last few yrs and compare them against each other as i have always believed that AN is a much better publication.