Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic

[Java Jive]

Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh

Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...

"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic

This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
quite possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off
within a few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
the end.

Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
the dialog, more difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing
demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
sounding and interesting programme.

Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
'more'."

Comments for and against welcome.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly

Post by Java Jive
irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
sounding and interesting programme.

The BBC's "In the factory" is dumbed down and presented in a
patronizing reality TV manner for day time watching by, I suspect, an
ageing population - but insists on playing pop music that hook into
parts of the script, like an inside joke, for any hip youngsters watching.

Other choices of music in similar programmes are swatches of chilled out
electronic dance music, that really has a place in a trendy club or
radio 1 extra.... They tend to be heavy on bass and dynamic range, and
must be annoying.

Switch it off.

If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

[MB]

Post by Adrian Caspersz
If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

If you don't like it then don't watch it.

I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
by young kids full of their own self-importance.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Post by MB

Post by Adrian Caspersz
If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

If you don't like it then don't watch it.

I don't.

Post by MB
I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
by young kids full of their own self-importance.

Yeah, but not all. Have to be selective.

Lots of options other than aimlessly pressing up and down channel on the
remote control and expecting to be entertained.

I want education, not


BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!
5 lost in Submarine Tragedy. Come see the EXCLUSIVE video, we have
You have to see this
THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!!!!!

:-(

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by MB

Post by Adrian Caspersz
If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

If you don't like it then don't watch it.
I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
by young kids full of their own self-importance.

True, but for me that makes the genuine ones all the more valuable. An
inevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being
chosen as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to
think for yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense
and judge for yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would
judge the validity of what someone says in real life. The better
Youtube channels usually have the absolute minimum of 'production
values' or none at all, sometimes just a simple presentation by a
single individual who knows their stuff. Mainstream media don't even
try to compete on these terms, presumably because it would involve an
admission that much of what they do in the interests of presentation
is pointless and wouldn't justify the money they are paid to do it.

Rod.

[jon]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by MB

Post by Adrian Caspersz
If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

If you don't like it then don't watch it.
I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
by young kids full of their own self-importance.

True, but for me that makes the genuine ones all the more valuable. An
inevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being chosen
as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to think for
yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense and judge for
yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would judge the
validity of what someone says in real life. The better Youtube channels
usually have the absolute minimum of 'production values' or none at all,
sometimes just a simple presentation by a single individual who knows
their stuff. Mainstream media don't even try to compete on these terms,
presumably because it would involve an admission that much of what they
do in the interests of presentation is pointless and wouldn't justify
the money they are paid to do it.
Rod.

I have constantly complained about this, but to no avail.... I started to
watch the BBC documentary on the Neutrino this morning, but the programme
was narrated by a lady with a soft voice supported by unnecessary
interference with incidental music and sound effects. I shut it off

[David Wade]

Post by Java Jive
I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly

Post by Java Jive
irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking
or sounding and interesting programme.

I feel this complaint was first made on the first "points of view"
program back in 1961. People with a technical interest are not important
to the programme maker. They are judged by the quantity of the audience
not the quality. So whilst you are "not alone" you are a small
proportion of the audience. You probably know how to find the
information. Its even possible you can read, so can turn the sound off
to remove the music and read the sub-titles.

Yes its a bummer, but its they way the world is, which is why when I was
asked by a STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Maths) advisor at
the local museum where I volunteer "how would I encourage children to
take STEM subjects", I said I wouldn't, I would tell them to do
something profitable like HR, Marketing or Advertising where they can't
measure success and where they won't be outcasts.....

Dave

[David Woolley]

Post by Adrian Caspersz
They tend to be heavy on bass and dynamic range

I don't understand the reference to dynamic range. To me, one of the
defining characteristics of pop music is summed up by "Everything louder
than everything else". There basically is no dynamic range; everything
is full volume.

The bass I agree with. That is usually an exceedingly repetitive and
boring rhythm track, which is the only thing that survives through walls.

[Brian Gaff]

I agree, I suspect it has more to do with its easy to do these days, so they
do. Mixing as an art seems to be lost. Autoducking can sometimes be heard
very much like DJs used to do it at parties.
I don't hink the producers like silences either. It is happening on radio
as well, where some jaunty music plays while a scientist explains something
as if he or she were dealing with somebody with intellectual level of Noddy
in Toyland.

Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the subtitles
are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the next room or
blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate the question in
voice, why not the answers


There is so much wrong with modern production. Just compare an older radio
drama with a modern one and you will see what I mean.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.

Post by Java Jive
Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn, quite
possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off within a
few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At Night, though I
did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to the end.
Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same formulaic
presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that accomplishes
nothing except make the important parts of the programme, the dialog, more
difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing demographic, and I'm guessing
that I'm not alone in getting increasingly irritated by modern production
values that favour the programme equivalent of make-up rather than
producing a basically good looking or sounding and interesting programme.
Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
'more'."
Comments for and against welcome.
--
Fake news kills!
www.macfh.co.uk

[MB]

Post by Brian Gaff
Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the subtitles
are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the next room or
blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate the question in
voice, why not the answers

I bet there will be as many people wanting to listen to the expert in
his own language and not an interpreter's version.

[MikeS]

Post by Brian Gaff
I agree, I suspect it has more to do with its easy to do these days, so
they do. Mixing as an art seems to be lost. Autoducking can sometimes be
heard very much like DJs used to do it at parties.
I don't hink the producers like silences either. It is happening on
radio as well, where some jaunty music plays while a scientist explains
something as if he or she were dealing with somebody with intellectual
level of Noddy in Toyland.
Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the
subtitles are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the
next room or blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate
the question in voice, why not the answers
There is so much wrong with modern production. Just compare an older
radio drama with a modern one and you will see what I mean.
Brian

All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do there
will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.

[Java Jive]

Post by MikeS
All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do there
will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.

But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which you
need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems, such
as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

[Robin]

Post by Java Jive

Post by MikeS
All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do
there will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.

But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which you
need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems, such
as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for "most
of the people most of the time".

And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,
costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
technology.

[1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on bare
stages
[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

[Java Jive]

Post by Robin

Post by Java Jive
But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems,
such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for "most
of the people most of the time".

I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
for most of the time, I said that you could please most of the people
most of the time by excluding those features which are unnecessary and
the inclusion of which cause problems for some of the people some of the
time. And when I say 'some', as we are living in a society with an
ageing demographic, actually it might even be 'most'.

Post by Robin
And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,
costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
technology.

Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary value
to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night. Perhaps you'd like
to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is supposed to convey?

Post by Robin
[1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on bare
stages

But here we're talking about documentaries whose primary purpose is to
describe and explain the world, not artistic creations whose primary
purpose is to entertain.

Post by Robin
[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

... and was good enough throughout most of my childhood and youth.

I'm all for 'visual aids' and demos where genuinely they aid
understanding rather than mislead, but modern mixing desks are very
powerful, and there seems to be a tendency to press buttons just because
they can be pressed, rather than production staff asking themselves
whether what they are doing is genuinely adding to rather than actually
subtracting from the final result. Increasingly all too often it seems
to be the latter

[Robin]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Robin

Post by Java Jive
But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for
"most of the people most of the time".

I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
for most of the time,

What you wrote boils down to a simple proposition that "X requires Y".
That is:

X: "please most of the people most of the time"

requires

Y: "avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic"

It may be that what you meant was something a bit different - e.g. that
/more/ people would be pleased /more/ of the time by avoiding such
features. Fair enough if so - but my question remains, where's the
evidence?

Post by Java Jive
I said that you could please most of the people
most of the time by excluding those features which are unnecessary and
the inclusion of which cause problems for some of the people some of the
time. >> And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,

Post by Robin
costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
technology.

Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary value
to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night.  Perhaps you'd like
to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is supposed to convey?

I don't accept your premise that the only metric is the information
content. Another metric is the number of people who hear the
information. I can easily imagine that programmes shorn of music would
have a smaller audience.

Post by Java Jive

Post by Robin
[1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on
bare stages

But here we're talking about documentaries whose primary purpose is to
describe and explain the world, not artistic creations whose primary
purpose is to entertain.

But not to describe and explain the world only to people who want a dry
as dust presentation.

[Java Jive]

Post by Robin

Post by Java Jive

Post by Robin

Post by Java Jive
But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for
"most of the people most of the time".

I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
for most of the time,

What you wrote boils down to a simple proposition that "X requires Y".
X: "please most of the people most of the time"
requires
Y: "avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic"

Exactly, so if you're trying to make a programme for a public service
broadcaster, presumably you want it to reach the maximum number of
people, so don't introduce anything unnecessary that gets in the way of
doing that.

Post by Robin
It may be that what you meant was something a bit different - e.g. that
/more/ people would be pleased /more/ of the time by avoiding such
features.  Fair enough if so - but my question remains, where's the
evidence?

How many complaints do the BBC receive demanding more incidental music
compared with those complaining about the incidental music that is
already there? I don't have any figures, but confidently I can predict:
zero.

Post by Robin

Post by Java Jive
Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary
value to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night.  Perhaps
you'd like to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is
supposed to convey?

I don't accept your premise that the only metric is the information
content.  Another metric is the number of people who hear the
information.  I can easily imagine that programmes shorn of music would
have a smaller audience.

LOL! You asked me above for evidence about something that seems to me
to be merely a matter of common sense, while what you're claiming above
is a much less believable claim! So where's your evidence?

Post by Robin
But not to describe and explain the world only to people who want a dry
as dust presentation.

I confidently predict that if such inappropriate incidental music was
dropped from documentary programmes, their audience ratings would not
diminish at all, and may well increase due to the programmes being more
intelligible as a result. Even the replies here suggest this, while
granting that to an extent it's a matter of judgement, but from the tone
of them I make it:
Agree with me: 5
Don't agree: 2

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Robin
[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

Simple props like blackboards, whiteboards and brown paper with
sharpies are still good enough for many presenters on Youtube, e.g.
Michael Penn, 'Blackpenredpen', and some of the presenters on
Numberphile. (You can search for all of these by name).

If the subject matter is sufficiently interesting, the presentation
doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be clear.

Rod.

[NY]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Robin
[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

Simple props like blackboards, whiteboards and brown paper with
sharpies are still good enough for many presenters on Youtube, e.g.
Michael Penn, 'Blackpenredpen', and some of the presenters on
Numberphile. (You can search for all of these by name).
If the subject matter is sufficiently interesting, the presentation
doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be clear.

The problem comes when the presenter writes the "slides" (whether on
blackboard or overhead projector) in real time. That speed is fine when
you are expected (eg in a school classroom) to copy the teacher's words
into your own exercise book, but it is very slow when concepts are being
explained.

There is also the problem of the lecturer who writes more quickly which
then causes his handwriting to suffer. I remember at university one of
the lecturers wrote on an overhead projector in real time, but the
awkward angle of the projector when he was standing beside it and need
for speed meant that his handwriting was *very* poor: shaky and almost
illegible. I think he may also have had very shaky hands.

Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".

If you are delivering the same lectures each year, it makes sense to
have your material prepared in advance rather than re-generate it
on-the-fly each year.


There was another lecturer who gave out specimen answers to the class
exercises a few days after we'd tried them, but he tried to fit
everything onto a single sheet of A4 paper, so there were boxes and
arrows where he ran out of paper in one place and continued in a vacant
bit of paper somewhere else. He also omitted a lot of the logical steps
in progressing from the question to the answer, covered by "clearly"
(which invariably means "this bit is hard, so I'll just gloss over it").

I like to tackle a complicated mathematical problem (eg solving an
equation) in lots of very simple steps, then if I realise I've gone
wrong (or gone up a blind alley and I;m making things progressively
worse) I can back-track and see where I might have gone wrong. So a
model answer which omits that step-by-step reasoning and takes gigantic
"clearly" steps is bugger-all use as a teaching aid :-(

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by NY
The problem comes when the presenter writes the "slides" (whether on
blackboard or overhead projector) in real time. That speed is fine when
you are expected (eg in a school classroom) to copy the teacher's words
into your own exercise book, but it is very slow when concepts are being
explained.
There is also the problem of the lecturer who writes more quickly which
then causes his handwriting to suffer. I remember at university one of
the lecturers wrote on an overhead projector in real time, but the
awkward angle of the projector when he was standing beside it and need
for speed meant that his handwriting was *very* poor: shaky and almost
illegible. I think he may also have had very shaky hands.

Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

Many Youtube presentations use speeded up video or crude jump-cuts to
shorten the boring bits, and nobody cares.

You don't have to start with a blank screen and create the entire
material from scratch in front of the viewers. It's possible to start
with a diagram, equation, or whatever it is, already prepared, or
partially prepared, and for the presenter to add to it. It's simple
and can be very effective. Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
presentations for instance. Better still, watch lots of Youtube
presentations and you'll soon realise there are good teachers and bad
ones, and it's mostly the good ones you keep going back to.

Rod.

[MB]

Post by Roderick Stewart
Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.

[alan_m]

Post by MB

Post by Roderick Stewart
Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.

Quite often the manufactures will provide the information in the user
guide on the equivalent of a sheet of A4. It's after reading that you
have to seek out a Youtube video to gain that extra gem of information
to enable you to get it working.

[MB]

Post by alan_m
Quite often the manufactures will provide the information in the user
guide on the equivalent of a sheet of A4. It's after reading that you
have to seek out a Youtube video to gain that extra gem of information
to enable you to get it working.

Often that has got misplaced over the years so at one time there were
often abbreviated help guides that you print out.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by MB

Post by Roderick Stewart
Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.

+1

I avoid YouTube as much as possible as I can't put up with 20 minutes of
a talking head giving me no additional useful information to a few lines
on a printed sheet!

[Java Jive]

Post by Roderick Stewart
Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
presentations for instance.

No, don't! A mine of misinformation!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

Too much shit to quote individually.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Roderick Stewart
Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
presentations for instance.

No, don't! A mine of misinformation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
Too much shit to quote individually.

So don't quote anything at all? An unusual policy for someone who is
always screaming for 'EVIDENCE!' from anyone else who says anything.

All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially translate
them into plain English for those of us who don't understand all the
medical or statistical terminology. He shows us the documents and
gives links to where we can read them for ourselves if we want to.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive

Post by Roderick Stewart
Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
presentations for instance.

No, don't! A mine of misinformation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
Too much shit to quote individually.

So don't quote anything at all? An unusual policy for someone who is
always screaming for 'EVIDENCE!' from anyone else who says anything.
All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially translate
them into plain English for those of us who don't understand all the
medical or statistical terminology. He shows us the documents and
gives links to where we can read them for ourselves if we want to.

Well, you asked for it, though why you couldn't be arsed to go and read
it for yourself, only you can tell! Whatever the reason, it marks you
out as someone who doesn't fact check their claims properly, even after
mistakes have been pointed out to them.

From the above link:

"""
COVID-19 pandemic
Further information: COVID-19 misinformation

In early 2020 Campbell's YouTube channel started to focus on the
developing COVID-19 pandemic.[11] Until then, his videos had been
receiving an average of several thousand views each, but his channel
began to receive significant traffic after it started running
COVID-related videos.[10] Between February and March 2020, his channel
increased from an average of 500,000 views per month to 9.6 million,
mostly from American viewers.[12] By September 2020, his videos had been
viewed more than 50 million times.[13] In March 2020, he argued that
China's COVID-19 statistics were grossly underestimated and that the US
and UK were doing too little to contain COVID-19.[8] In September 2020,
he argued that more ventilation in pubs, restaurants, and cafes would be
needed in addition to the existing restrictions.[14]

Early in the pandemic, Campbell spoke of the importance of a "calm and
measured approach that is as informed as possible".[15] He said he
wanted to assist people in making informed decisions about their health
in order to counter what he saw as other people on social media
"spreading absolutely bonkers—and sometimes dangerous—information".[12]
In August 2020, UNICEF's regional office for Europe and Central Asia
cited his YouTube channel as an excellent example of how experts might
engage with social media to combat misinformation,[16] citing a March
2020 briefing by Social Science in Humanitarian Action.[17]

In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while
at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable",
he later became a "total COVID-19 crank".[2]
Needle aspiration

In September 2021, Campbell said in a video that he believed that most
people in the United Kingdom and United States were "giving the vaccines
wrongly". Referencing a study on mice, he said that myocarditis could be
caused if the person injecting the vaccine does not perform aspiration
(checking that the needle does not hit a blood vessel by initially
drawing back the plunger). Aspiration is a common technique but is not
without disadvantages, so it has not been recommended by many
countries.[18] The video was referenced by American comedian Jimmy Dore
on his YouTube talk show to make the misleading claim that a failure to
aspirate was causing myocarditis.[19]
Ivermectin
Further information: Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic

In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin—an
antiparasitic drug—might have been responsible for a sudden decline in
COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially
authorised for such use in the country; its use was merely promoted by
the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo and it has
no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[20] Meaghan Kall, the
lead COVID-19 epidemiologist at the British Health Security Agency, said
that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation and that there was
no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan, rather
that his claims appeared to be "based on anecdata on social media
driving wildly damaging misinformation".[20]

In March 2022, Campbell posted another ivermectin video, in which he
misrepresented a conference abstract to make the claim that it
"unequivocally" showed ivermectin to be effective at reducing COVID-19
deaths, and that ivermectin was going to be a "huge scandal" because
information about it had been suppressed. The authors of the abstract
refuted such misrepresentations of their paper, with one writing on
Twitter, "People like John Campbell are calling this a 'great thought
out study' when in reality it's an abstract with preliminary data. We
have randomized controlled trials, why are we still interested in
retrospective cohort data abstracts?"[21]
Vaccines

In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed standalone
journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might
increase the risk of heart attack, and said that this might be
"incredibly significant".[4] This video was viewed over 2 million times
within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support
for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination causes heart
attacks.[4] According to a FactCheck.org review, although Campbell had
drawn attention to the abstract's typos and its lack of methodology and
data, he did not mention the expression of concern that had been issued
against it.[4]

In March 2022, Campbell posted a misleading video about the Pfizer
COVID-19 vaccine, claiming that a Pfizer document admitted that the
vaccine was associated with over 1,000 deaths. The video was viewed over
750,000 times and shared widely on social media. In reality, the
document explicitly discredited any connection between vaccinations and
reported deaths.[3]

In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article
published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed
that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much
greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The
video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that
COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting
seriously ill from COVID-19.[22]

In December 2022 Campbell posted a video in which he made selective use
of statistics to make the misleading claim that COVID-19 vaccines were
so harmful that they should be withdrawn. The paper he used was in
reality only considering hospitalisations from COVID-19 in a short time
window, and not the overall vaccine risk/benefit balance. David
Spiegelhalter, chair of Cambridge University's Winton Centre for Risk
and Evidence Communication, said that such use of the data seemed
"entirely inappropriate".[23]

In February 2023, nanomedicine specialist Susan Oliver published a
Youtube video debunking false information Campbell has posted about
vaccine brain injury. Within six hours Oliver's video was removed,
apparently because of the content in clips included from Campbell's
video, while Campbell’s entire original remained online. Oliver
speculated this may have been as a result of coordinated complaints made
by Campbell’s Youtube followers, or that Youtube favoured high-traffic,
highly profitable accounts; a Youtube spokesman said the number of
complaints received did not affect decisions to remove content.[24]
Death count

A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths
have been over-reported.[5] In January 2022, Campbell posted a video in
which he cited figures from the British Office of National Statistics
(ONS) and suggested that they showed deaths from COVID-19 were "much
lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". He
concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates showing only
COVID-19 as the cause of death. Within a few days, the video had been
viewed over 1.5 million times.[25] It was shared by Conservative Party
politician David Davis, who called it "excellent" and said that it was
"disentangling the statistics",[5] while American comedian Jimmy Dore
used it to claim that COVID-19 deaths had been over-reported and that
the figures proved that the public had been victims of a "scaremongering
campaign".[26] The ONS responded by debunking the claims as spurious and
wrong.[27] An ONS spokesman said suggesting that the 17,000 figure
"represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually
incorrect and highly misleading".[26] The official figure for
COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 at the
time; in 140,000 of those cases, the underlying cause of death was
listed as COVID-19.[5][28]
Monkeypox parallels

In July 2022, Campbell posted a video in which he promoted the
misleading idea that "parallels" could be drawn between the SARS-CoV-2
virus which causes COVID-19 and the 2022 monkeypox outbreak because
"both pathogens were being studied in laboratories" prior to an
outbreak. The misinformation was embraced by American comedian Jimmy
Dore and achieved wide circulation on social media, marking the third
time Dore had used a Campbell video to spread COVID-19 misinformation.[29]
"""

[Bob Latham]

Post by Roderick Stewart
All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
ourselves if we want to.

Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Roderick Stewart
All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
ourselves if we want to.

Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Roderick Stewart
All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
ourselves if we want to.

Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.

Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
article.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.

Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
article.

How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
data from the government's own website?

Rod.

[Java Jive]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive
Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
article.

How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
data from the government's own website?

In potentially selective quoting and misinterpretation of what data to
read. For example, data from the yellow-card scheme, for reporting side
effects of medical treatments, is official government data, but has been
widely misrepresented in public quotes claiming that vaccines are
killing huge numbers of people, which simply isn't true - what is
actually happening is that people are dying all the time from a wide
variety of natural or accidental causes, so x numbers of people dying
shortly after having y vaccination means nothing at all on its own, what
matters is if x is *SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER* than the ongoing background
rate of death for that time of year, yet the fact that government
statistics show x people are known to have died after having y
vaccination is widely touted by vaccine denialists, a notable example
being the MP A n d r e w B r i d g e n who was suspended from the
Commons for attempting to mislead The House in this manner:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/11/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-loses-whip-over-covid-vaccine-comments

Do not forget also, as I've pointed out before, misinformation is a nice
little earner:

https://www.savethestudent.org/make-money/how-to-make-money-youtube.html

"As a benchmark, you can expect to make around $3 – $5 per 1,000 views
(about *£2.50 – £4.10 per 1,000 views*, at the time of writing). This
means that one million views equals $3,000 – $5,000... or *between
£2,500 – £4,100* to us British folk.

However, more popular channels and videos can earn closer to *£6 or £7
per 1,000* *views*. It quite literally pays to be popular."

[Bob Latham]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream
media should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't
quite right about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link
given.

Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a
different story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from
government statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on
your guard that maybe something isn't quite right about the
mainstream media.

Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the
Wikipedia article.

How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
data from the government's own website?

In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act which
will inevitably attract the mob determined to protect their deceit.


Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act which
will inevitably attract the mob determined to protect their deceit.

You are Vladimir Putin and I claim my £5!

[Bob Latham]

Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube presentations for instance.

Yes indeed, I learnt a lot from his videos. Seems to be very fair and
balanced and tells it how it really is.

Main stream media is largely corrupt and ignores inconvenient items
like excess deaths and vaccine damage in order to continue to
gaslight the public with the controlled narrative. This doctor goes
into detail and shows you what is happening.

He also attracts malevolent, wicked people who don't like the truth.
History is never on the side of censorship.

Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham

Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube presentations for instance.

Yes indeed, I learnt a lot from his videos. Seems to be very fair and
balanced and tells it how it really is.

See the many example of misinformation given by Campbell in the link in
reply to Rod. He misleads dumbasses like you on a regular basis, and
seems to make a decent living by doing so. Either he's a misguided fool
who is hopelessly unaware of his own limitations in knowledge, or else
he's a cynical liar.

Post by Bob Latham
Main stream media is largely corrupt and ignores inconvenient items
like excess deaths and vaccine damage in order to continue to
gaslight the public with the controlled narrative. This doctor goes
into detail and shows you what is happening.
He also attracts malevolent, wicked people who don't like the truth.
History is never on the side of censorship.

Puerile paranoia left in for everyone to laugh at.

[MB]

Post by NY
Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".

We had one lecturer, also maths, whose writing was illegible and he had
astrong accept - we never worked out if he was Scottish or East European
or what?

Many stopped going to his lectures because you did not learn anything
then one day, part way into his lecture someone got up and walked out.
There a murmur around the lecture theatre and first one, then two .....
got up and walked out.

It was very impressive show of what a waste of time his lectures were
but what no one realised was the first person had arranged to leave
early for an appointment somewhere.

We also had a professor who talked fast and made no attempt to check
people understood. When they had the mock exams, it was obvious that no
one had understood him and he had to repeat the course - our fault or
course!

[NY]

Post by MB

Post by NY
Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".

We had one lecturer, also maths, whose writing was illegible and he had
astrong accept - we never worked out if he was Scottish or East European
or what?
Many stopped going to his lectures because you did not learn anything
then one day, part way into his lecture someone got up and walked out.
There a murmur around the lecture theatre and first one, then two .....
got up and walked out.
It was very impressive show of what a waste of time his lectures were
but what no one realised was the first person had arranged to leave
early for an appointment somewhere.
We also had a professor who talked fast and made no attempt to check
people understood.  When they had the mock exams, it was obvious that no
one had understood him and he had to repeat the course - our fault or
course!

I was unlucky and failed my second year university BEng exams and the
retakes, so I left (*) and did an HND at the poly in the same city. The
difference in the teaching style was staggering.

The university style of teaching was "I'm so much cleverer than you mere
undergraduates will ever be. I'm demeaning myself by teaching you when
I'd much rather be researching, but it's part of my contract." It was
very much a one-way broadcast, with no checking that people were
understanding - and if you didn't understand it was "obviously" your
fault. One lecturer was particularly poor and scored very badly in the
end-of-course feedback, so he called a few of us and asked us to go away
and come back with our comments. So we did what seemed blindingly
obvious: we talked to everyone in our class and gave him a digest of
everyone's comments, trying to be as positive as possible - as well as
saying what we didn't like, suggesting how he might improve. He went
ballistic when he realised that we were presenting *everyone's*
opinions; it became apparent that he only wanted our own comments - and
I suspect he carefully chose the students who he thought would be least
likely to rock the boat. So his consultation was a sham: he wanted
yes-men, not real comments.

The dean of the faculty was a bit of a loose cannon. When I went in to
get the results of my retakes, my own tutor was not available so I
sought out one of the other lecturers. I was just asking "How did I do?"
when the dean walked past. "Oh, don't worry, laddie. You'll have done
fine." And he walked off, leaving the very embarrassed lecturer to break
the news that I hadn't done "fine" and had actually failed several of
the subjects that I'd passed the first time round, even though I'd
passed one subject at the second attempt that I'd failed first time. He
apologised profusely for the dean's crass over-confidence.


The poly style of teaching had much more feedback as we went along.
Several of the lecturers said "These are the facts and the skills that
you need to know by the end of the course. If you don't know them by the
end, that's as much our fault as lecturers as it is yours as students."
There was much more opportunity to stop a lecturer and say "Hang on. I
don't understand that bit. Can you go over it again?" And the lecturer
would do so, usually trying to explain in a different way rather than
just repeating what we'd misunderstood the first time. In other words,
the sort of teaching that you find a) at A level at school and b) on
training courses in industry.

I ended up doing a lot better, getting distinctions in most of the
subjects. A lot more of the final result was based on course work -
assignments that I could complete open-book in unlimited time, rather
than struggling to remember in a time-limited, closed-book exams. I knew
I'd passed each course even before the exams. based on the marks for the
assignments: the exams were just the decider between pass, merit or
distinction.

My final-year project report at the poly got me my first job. I'd been
using an analogue-circuit-simulation package to model the behaviour of
induction motors. My job interview was going moderately well, until they
asked about my project, and I produced the report. The interviewers took
a quick look, exchanged glances and one of them brought in someone else
and asked him to go away, take a look at the report and give his verdict
by the end of the interview. Turns out that the job involved using
computers to simulate the logic and timing of digital circuits, so
unwittingly my report was very relevant. The verdict seemed to be "we
want this guy", and a job was offered there and then.



(*) I was allowed to retake the exams again the following summer, but
they said that several of the courses would have a new syllabus - and,
no, I couldn't attend the revised lectures. So it wasn't much of a
concession :-(

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive
Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music  -  probably
royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
quite possibly computer-generated  -  which forced me to turn it off
within a few minutes.  Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
the end.
Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
the dialog, more difficult to discern?  The UK has an ageing
demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
sounding and interesting programme.
Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
'more'."
Comments for and against welcome.

Received the usual bland reply today, I include it anonymised below:

Reference xxxx-etc

Hi xxxx

Many thanks for taking the time to contact though with regrets for the
'circumstances' and your dislike of the background music and sound
effects in some of our programmes (in this instance The Discovery
episode 'Seeing More').

The (appropriate) use of background music and sound effects is an issue
across the whole of the broadcasting industry, including obviously
radio, and one the BBC is very aware of. We even published a best
practice guide based on a study we conducted (though admittedly TV
focused) which is available on the BBC Academy’s College of Production
website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112136134

[Note: You need to be able to log in to see this. I haven't tried
further, so don't know whether the same login as you'd use to watch a
programme would work, or whether you'd need something like a staff login.]

The decision to use background noise, music and/or effects is a creative
one which producers take, to clearly mark out distinct segments of a
programme, highlight moods and atmosphere or convey emotion, and for
many listeners, if not most, these add to the overall feel of a show,
rather than taking away from it.

[Note: No supporting evidence given for this claim.]

However, we recognise that for some listeners background music et al can
make a programme difficult to listen to and/or unappealing. So there’s a
balance to be struck between differing needs and preferences. At
present, despite the above linked best practice guide, there are no hard
rules in this regard. Our approach is to offer a range of content
produced in different styles in the hope and conviction that we strike
the correct balance most of the time.

Apart from that, I can say that there is concern that some programmes
are becoming overloaded with effects and there is an internal debate in
that context in the World Service. Your feedback, which I have shared
with senior editors in the World Service, will hopefully further
enlighten that debate.

I hope that the above has at least some explanatory value and that,
despite your objections in this regard, you will continue listening to
our programmes in the future .

Best regards,
xxxx xxxx
BBC News

[MB]

How many letters / EMails do you think the BBC receive every day?

How much would it cost to answer every one individually?

There would be no money left to make any programmes.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by MB
How many letters / EMails do you think the BBC receive every day?
How much would it cost to answer every one individually?
There would be no money left to make any programmes.

In that case there would be no complaints (or at most very few), so it
sounds like an excellent idea to me. Surely someone can take this
forward and "make it happen"?

[Robin]

Post by Java Jive
Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the
first minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music  -
probably royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless
churn, quite possibly computer-generated  -  which forced me to turn
it off within a few minutes.  Ditto, the most recent edition of the
Sky At Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one
through to the end.
Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic
that accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the
programme, the dialog, more difficult to discern?  The UK has an
ageing demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting
increasingly irritated by modern production values that favour the
programme equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good
looking or sounding and interesting programme.
Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less'
means 'more'."
Comments for and against welcome.

That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
day'" then that's life.

My only criticism is that the link requires a BBC login which is for
employees. But I think the research it covers was that which was
reported widely at the time (2011?).

[Brian Gaff]

Silly billies. I notice that the recent spy in the ocean series is
relatively quiet, but I do find the accent and intonation gets on ones wick
after a while. It does not, in the main tell you much you did not probably
know so although it was also audio described, I do feel it may be that
visual viewers get the most out of it, and its rather leaning toward the
cute animal side of wildlife, rather than education of the viewer, something
often David A used to do almost without you realising it.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.

Post by Java Jive
Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
quite possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off
within a few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
the end.
Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
the dialog, more difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing demographic,
and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly irritated by
modern production values that favour the programme equivalent of make-up
rather than producing a basically good looking or sounding and
interesting programme.
Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
'more'."
Comments for and against welcome.

That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your specific
point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and action on, the
issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and the DG has
ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this day'" then
that's life.
My only criticism is that the link requires a BBC login which is for
employees. But I think the research it covers was that which was reported
widely at the time (2011?).
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[MB]

Post by Robin
That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
day'" then that's life.

It is not just the number of letters, EMail they get every day. The
majority will be basically stupid questions but they still have deal
with them.

They seem to work like most other larger organisations, scan through the
letter for keywords and dig out the appropriate pre-prepared response.

At least that might have been done by a human in the past but will be
the dreaded AI now.

[charles]

Post by MB

Post by Robin
That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
day'" then that's life.

It is not just the number of letters, EMail they get every day. The
majority will be basically stupid questions but they still have deal
with them.
They seem to work like most other larger organisations, scan through the
letter for keywords and dig out the appropriate pre-prepared response.
At least that might have been done by a human in the past but will be
the dreaded AI now.

and there are the phone calls !

[MB]

Post by charles
and there are the phone calls !

Do they still answer the phone?