• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Countryfile Feb 12 (1 Viewer)

Farnboro John

Well-known member
I caught Countryfile for a change, can't be doing with it normally but they were showing the Cairngorms so I thought I'd give it a go.

Unfortunately the BBC chose to use Alf McGregor - I'm sure that's the bloke that took Bill Oddie to look for Capercaillie and told him in advance they wouldn't see them (they didn't). On this occasion he was used to look for Red Squirrels, which they did see, but AM passed a Bank Vole (of which they had footage) off as a mouse, which is inexcusable incompetence from a hired expert let alone from BBC editing.

I was impressed with the photographer who took Ellie Harrison out after Mountain Hares, though: good technique and certainly delivered on close views. However..... the BBC narration described Mountain Hares as one of Scotland's most elusive mammals - what???!! Stop in the Glenshee car park and you can't miss them (indeed the carnage on the roads suggests many people do fail to miss them). I'm sick to death of false jeopardy. It's straightforward rubbish reporting is what it is.

Anyway, back to not watching Countryfile.....

John
 
Totally with you on that. I can't watch countryfile at all ever - it's totally doom and gloom, everything is dying out or under threat- it's simply not!
 
Unfortunately the BBC chose to use Alf McGregor - I'm sure that's the bloke that took Bill Oddie to look for Capercaillie and told him in advance they wouldn't see them (they didn't). On this occasion he was used to look for Red Squirrels, which they did see, but AM passed a Bank Vole (of which they had footage) off as a mouse, which is inexcusable incompetence from a hired expert let alone from BBC editing.


If you're thinking of Bill O and the capercaillie from many years ago, it wasn't Alf McGregor who took him out (in a Landrover?) I know the man who did but it's not appropriate to put his name on here. If your recollection is much more recent then you're probably correct, John.

Sandra
 
I caught Countryfile for a change, can't be doing with it normally but they were showing the Cairngorms so I thought I'd give it a go.

I was impressed with the photographer who took Ellie Harrison out after Mountain Hares, though: good technique and certainly delivered on close views. However..... the BBC narration described Mountain Hares as one of Scotland's most elusive mammals - what???!! Stop in the Glenshee car park and you can't miss them (indeed the carnage on the roads suggests many people do fail to miss them). I'm sick to death of false jeopardy. It's straightforward rubbish reporting is what it is.

Anyway, back to not watching Countryfile.....

John

Yet another feature on Mountain Hares on the Beeb without a whiff of a mention of the controversy concerning their mass slaughter which, in various areas, does seem to have made them very elusive indeed. Ditto the lack of any comment regarding the persecution of Hen Harrier which was featured in the video on Sheppey despite telling us the bird was endangered. Not too worrying as a one-off, perhaps, but the pattern of not mentioning widespread concerns is a concern. (Also Buzzard was misidentified as Marsh Harrier). One might even think they were running scared of a certain powerful lobby group ....
 
Yet another feature on Mountain Hares on the Beeb without a whiff of a mention of the controversy concerning their mass slaughter which, in various areas, does seem to have made them very elusive indeed. Ditto the lack of any comment regarding the persecution of Hen Harrier which was featured in the video on Sheppey despite telling us the bird was endangered. Not too worrying as a one-off, perhaps, but the pattern of not mentioning widespread concerns is a concern. (Also Buzzard was misidentified as Marsh Harrier). One might even think they were running scared of a certain powerful lobby group ....

Complete aside - anyone remember wide games?

This countryside dilemma thing should really be sorted out once and for all with ALL the populations of each side facing off across a vast field ... then blow the whistle ...

... or maybe not, on second thoughts. One side has guns.
 
Maybe he did see a mouse, but whoever edited the section together had used the vole footage by mistake? It definitely jumped out to me as being NOT a mouse. There's nothing to say that people who edit video know anything about the subject matter. Their job is to put the footage together, make sure the audio syncs together. They might be working with lots and lots and lots of small chunks of video and are told to put it together to make a coherent whole.

Other than that, yes he could have been mistaken!

I saw/read something many years back about a wildlife filmmaker who didn't really know anything about what he was shooting. He was simply told to go out and get some footage of X. He was probably told where to go and when, given a picture of X. He went out and got the footage and someone wrote a script to go along with the footage.

Many of the cameramen and women we see on big triple-A productions do seem to be knowledgeable, but that's not to say it's true across the board. Some large production companies might have in-house staff who get told what to film. They're good with a camera, but don't really know anything about the subject in front of them.

One additional thing: has Richard Taylor-Jones ever been outside the southeast of England? Whenever he's on Springwatch or Countryfile, it's all he seems to film. Come on man, expand your horizons a bit!
 
Maybe he did see a mouse, but whoever edited the section together had used the vole footage by mistake? It definitely jumped out to me as being NOT a mouse. There's nothing to say that people who edit video know anything about the subject matter. Their job is to put the footage together, make sure the audio syncs together. They might be working with lots and lots and lots of small chunks of video and are told to put it together to make a coherent whole.

Other than that, yes he could have been mistaken!

I saw/read something many years back about a wildlife filmmaker who didn't really know anything about what he was shooting. He was simply told to go out and get some footage of X. He was probably told where to go and when, given a picture of X. He went out and got the footage and someone wrote a script to go along with the footage.

Many of the cameramen and women we see on big triple-A productions do seem to be knowledgeable, but that's not to say it's true across the board. Some large production companies might have in-house staff who get told what to film. They're good with a camera, but don't really know anything about the subject in front of them.

One additional thing: has Richard Taylor-Jones ever been outside the southeast of England? Whenever he's on Springwatch or Countryfile, it's all he seems to film. Come on man, expand your horizons a bit!

This is the BBC... its British public service broadcasting. Its supposed to educate the public. You don't educate by giving people wrong information. It matters. They have a Natural History Unit: are you saying the NHU doesn't have catalogued footage of everything its filmed? I know for sure they have a website where there are pictures of all the British rodents at least, because one of my Field Vole pics heads the relevant page. People who don't know what they are doing shouldn't be in such jobs.

Anyway, focusing on Scottish daylight rodents for a second, I've seen a lot of Bank Voles in Scotland in daylight. In the Cairngorms, even: Loch Garten RSPB is a good place, both by the entrance and at the visitor centre. You tend not to see Wood Mice there because they are more or less nocturnal. Voles are much more daylight creatures. Of course, it might have been a shrew..... but if he saw it badly for a second, the balance of probabilities would be Bank Vole. Which he ought to know, if he's touting himself as a local expert.

Speaking of wildlife film-makers who don't know what they're shooting: Richard Taylor-Jones! Can't tell a Buzzard from a Marsh Harrier, apparently. And given a day like he had on Sheppey, I reckon I could get better footage of everything than he did. Personally I don't care if he never gets out of SE England, or even if he never gets another BBC job. I thought he did a fine job of showing Sheppey as a place to get poor, distant views of raptors. Which it isn't, its amazing.

BTW, if you fancy a good read, Snarl for the Camera by James Gray is a fine expose of wildlife filming, including quite a few "cheat" shots: some of it is also very funny. Bit like birding!

John
 
This is the BBC... its British public service broadcasting. Its supposed to educate the public. You don't educate by giving people wrong information. It matters. They have a Natural History Unit: are you saying the NHU doesn't have catalogued footage of everything its filmed? I know for sure they have a website where there are pictures of all the British rodents at least, because one of my Field Vole pics heads the relevant page. People who don't know what they are doing shouldn't be in such jobs.

BTW, if you fancy a good read, Snarl for the Camera by James Gray is a fine expose of wildlife filming, including quite a few "cheat" shots: some of it is also very funny. Bit like birding!

John

I agree about their public broadcasting responsibility, but it is produced by an in-house, multidisciplinary team that has been subject to a lot of job losses, not by the NHU, so they're probably not experts on the subject matter and I very much doubt they ever use the NHU's library of content unless they're looking for older footage to fill a gap in their narrative. I was trying to play a bit of devil's advocate in terms of reasons for it being factually incorrect (caused by poor editing) but yes it's more likely that the guy was simply in error. As I say, it was obviously a vole to me too - I've seen them many times myself.

I generally don't watch the programme either - it's often too fluffy, portraying an incorrect vision of what rural areas are like without really addressing the serious issues like persecution of raptors or landscape degradation.

I'll have a look out for that book, cheers.
 
I agree about their public broadcasting responsibility, but it is produced by an in-house, multidisciplinary team that has been subject to a lot of job losses, not by the NHU, so they're probably not experts on the subject matter and I very much doubt they ever use the NHU's library of content unless they're looking for older footage to fill a gap in their narrative. I was trying to play a bit of devil's advocate in terms of reasons for it being factually incorrect (caused by poor editing) but yes it's more likely that the guy was simply in error. As I say, it was obviously a vole to me too - I've seen them many times myself.

I generally don't watch the programme either - it's often too fluffy, portraying an incorrect vision of what rural areas are like without really addressing the serious issues like persecution of raptors or landscape degradation.

I'll have a look out for that book, cheers.

The other problem I have with avoidable mistakes like this one, is that if, every time I watch a programme, the bits I know anything about are wrong, I rather assume that all the bits I don't know about must also be wrong: this does not make for the enjoyable learning experience that I assume the team is aiming at!

I'm amazed if, in an old-established and supposedly trustworthy organisation like the BBC, it is not customary for departments to consult the subject matter experts to ensure quality of content. That is simply good governance: I would also say it is an inescapable editorial responsibility anywhere other than tabloid hell. And if you have no editorial standards, you have no standards.

John
 
The other problem I have with avoidable mistakes like this one, is that if, every time I watch a programme, the bits I know anything about are wrong, I rather assume that all the bits I don't know about must also be wrong: this does not make for the enjoyable learning experience that I assume the team is aiming at!

I'm amazed if, in an old-established and supposedly trustworthy organisation like the BBC, it is not customary for departments to consult the subject matter experts to ensure quality of content. That is simply good governance: I would also say it is an inescapable editorial responsibility anywhere other than tabloid hell. And if you have no editorial standards, you have no standards.

John

We're talking about the modern world here, organisations very rarely follow best practice. Happy to be wrong in this case about the BBC, but I doubt they're any different from most organisations. People will simply be too busy, departments too understaffed and underfunded, teams will work in isolated silos doing their own thing and deadlines too short for people to get proper verification of their work.

re. your first point. I agree - coming across one factual error does make you doubt the validity of it. A person in my work knows lots of archaeologists who were saying the recent BBC2 series on Orkney was full of nonsense, with little evidence for many of the claims being put forward.
 
We're talking about the modern world here, organisations very rarely follow best practice. Happy to be wrong in this case about the BBC, but I doubt they're any different from most organisations. People will simply be too busy, departments too understaffed and underfunded, teams will work in isolated silos doing their own thing and deadlines too short for people to get proper verification of their work.

re. your first point. I agree - coming across one factual error does make you doubt the validity of it. A person in my work knows lots of archaeologists who were saying the recent BBC2 series on Orkney was full of nonsense, with little evidence for many of the claims being put forward.

We have the silo problem to an extent where I work, but most of the time the regular movement of personnel between departments results in an unofficial but efficient cross-pollination process: everybody knows somebody somewhere.... I understand what you are saying but don't propose to find it acceptable.

I do think the progressive breaking-up of the BBC by turning it from a producing to a commissioning organisation will lead to less rather than more competence in "factual" programming.

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top