On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:32:38 +0000, Broadback
wrote:
On 03/12/2014 15:11, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

Is it just me that is irritated by the seemingly mandatory
documentary technique of having several parallel threads running,
in an attempt to keep our attention, then having to remind us
what we have just seen, or reveal what they are about to show us,
but not just yet...

Not just you :-(

It reminds me of the oldfashioned mantra for teachers:

"Tell them what you're going to tell them about. Tell them
about it.
Then tell them what you told them". (If only TV presenters
limited the
repetitions to three...)

Quite effective when teaching infants with no foreknowledge
and a
short attention span, but insufferably patronising to treat
adults like
the remedial end of junior school.

Janet


I have always thought that the "fillers"on BBC was so that when the
programmes were sold having take out the fillers the adverts would
make
up the hour, or whatever,

Programmes should be targeted at licence payers not foreign
commercial stations.

--
martin p

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:00:20 +0100, Martin wrote:


There shouldnl't be any adverts including those for BBC products on BBC.

There is a difference between adverts and announcements.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
news
wrote:
Indeed so.

Interesting to see the garden shots, but as a presenter, I'm
afraid that I find her pretty irritating. I know that they want
cheap TV for daytime broadcast, but I reckon that each episode
could easily be trimmed to 30 minutes or less, without
sacrificing anything of substance.

I'd like to know why you find her "pretty irritating" Is it because of her
northern accent or the way she dresses or what?

Christina Websell wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
news
wrote:
Indeed so.

Interesting to see the garden shots, but as a presenter, I'm
afraid that I find her pretty irritating. I know that they want
cheap TV for daytime broadcast, but I reckon that each episode
could easily be trimmed to 30 minutes or less, without
sacrificing anything of substance.

I'd like to know why you find her "pretty irritating" Is it because of her
northern accent or the way she dresses or what?

Appearance isn't an issue.

Being born in Barnsley myself, the northern accent isn't a
problem, even if she is from the wrong side of the Pennines, it
is more what she is saying. I find it hard to put my finger on it
exactly, but the nearest I can get is to say that I feel like I
am being spoken to, and kept amused, as one might a small child.

I know she is qualified and experienced, and perhaps I should
blame the production team for making a lightweight daytime
programme. It nevertheless contains stuff I want to watch, but it
is sadly diluted by filler

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 05/12/2014 19:11, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Christina Websell wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
news
wrote:
Indeed so.

Interesting to see the garden shots, but as a presenter, I'm
afraid that I find her pretty irritating. I know that they want
cheap TV for daytime broadcast, but I reckon that each episode
could easily be trimmed to 30 minutes or less, without
sacrificing anything of substance.

I'd like to know why you find her "pretty irritating" Is it because of her
northern accent or the way she dresses or what?

Appearance isn't an issue.

Being born in Barnsley myself, the northern accent isn't a
problem, even if she is from the wrong side of the Pennines, it
is more what she is saying. I find it hard to put my finger on it
exactly, but the nearest I can get is to say that I feel like I
am being spoken to, and kept amused, as one might a small child.

I know she is qualified and experienced, and perhaps I should
blame the production team for making a lightweight daytime
programme. It nevertheless contains stuff I want to watch, but it
is sadly diluted by filler

Chris

Chris you can always watch with the sound off!

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I think it sad that there have been so many criticisms of the presenter, I
found the gardens enthralling, and her enthusiasm great. I guess peeps
have been used to presenters with slim or athletic bodies, pretty/handsome
faces and enhanced breasts and lips. I was looking at the gardens, and did
not want to be side tracked by a glamorous presenter. Also it made a
lovely change from people gardening at enormous expense then expecting us
peasants to follow their lead.

Well, we can say that she isn't glamorous for sure, but I really like her
for her knowledge. Is it important to be pretty to be a presenter? I think
not.

On 20/12/2014 23:26, Christina Websell wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I think it sad that there have been so many criticisms of the presenter, I
found the gardens enthralling, and her enthusiasm great. I guess peeps
have been used to presenters with slim or athletic bodies, pretty/handsome
faces and enhanced breasts and lips. I was looking at the gardens, and did
not want to be side tracked by a glamorous presenter. Also it made a
lovely change from people gardening at enormous expense then expecting us
peasants to follow their lead.

Well, we can say that she isn't glamorous for sure, but I really like her
for her knowledge. Is it important to be pretty to be a presenter? I think
not.




It's important not to detract from the subject, either by being gorgeous
or outstandingly ugly. The vast majority of humans are somewhere in the
middle, which is where I expect presenters to be