Time and again as I read these pages of differing ‘ideas, and takes’ on various topics, I’m often surprised at the many sometimes scathing remarks passed on the presenters of programs such as ‘Coast’ i.e. Neil Oliver, Time Team’s Tony Robinson… and Sharma etc . My level of knowledge is obviously of a much less lower standard, and so I find them very good. But there are one or two that I find rather hard going and somewhat patronising, or maybe just a bit too high brow.

What is it that is objectionable to these people, and who would you favour as replacements…

That's the problem, Norm, it's almost impossible to please everyone. I'll bet you watch programmes featuring topics about which you know a lot and get quite irritated by either factual errors or oversimplifications.

There's a difference of course between content and presentation style and the latter is entirely subject to personal taste. I find the 'breathless awe in hushed tones' style infuriating and since it appears to be being encouraged by some production teams, there's more and more of it about. What was originally a natural manner of speech by some presenters has become so pronounced as to now be a caricature. Michael Woods and Bettany Hughes are serial offenders.

As to content, I would guess that the complaints that have been expressed here are largely relating to those instances when one interpretation is represented as the only one and that interpretation being more firmly grounded in the evidence than is really the case. Usually they are deriving that explanation from the work of one individual (without any acknowledgement) or from one theoretical stance but omit to reflect any of the counter explanations of which there usually several. Those who propound their personal views and interpretations are fine by me as long as it is clear that that's what they are doing. often they are the most stimulating. I am naturally not even considering the Von Daniken school, they will be consigned to the same circle as Ms Gregory (according to opinions expressed here).

It is however probably unfair to pillory those presenters who are obliged to deliver other peoples' scripts but one could question their integrity if they are genuine historians and archaeologists and are prepared to spout crap for cash.

In the good ol' days of early Tv documentary progs were shown rather like fillum shorts when we saw little or nothing of the narrator. Now we have personality stamping ground documentaries with cameras trained more on the presenter and less on what we could be looking at with voice-over factual content. I really don't care how the presenter feels about something - how I long for this age of emotions hanging out to drag itself painfully away.

I recently met an insipid girl whose ambition it is to be a presenter - Of what, I asked. Apparently it didn't matter; suffice to say she is currently working in a caravan sorting invoices on line. I hope it doesn't happen but who can tell? Her uncle is in 'Event Management.' I decided to ask no more questions.

I can't think when it became the done thing for a documentary to be more about the presenter rather than the content? Was it Shama who introduced it or was it earlier?

Richard Attenborough always does a good doc and places himself secondary to the subject.

I think you mean David… Richard is the actor.

God yes, thanks Norman. I didn't even realise that I had typed the wrong name, too early and another coffee is needed.

Earlier this evening I watched the first of Neil Oliver's new series 'Vikings'. Not at all bad for a general interest programme I thought, at least in terms of content. It's very unusual for programmes here to even acknowledge that there is a Scandinavian pre history despite its richness so it was refreshing to see it mentioned, albeit briefly.

Thanks for that ferval, I shall look out for it.

I note there is a BBC doc from 2001 by Julian Richards called Blood of the Vikings, has anyone seen it and is it worth watching?

It's worth watching - the DNA survey which formed the basis of the series dispelled a few myths regarding Viking numbers and concentrations of population. Post dating identity is a tricky business and often reveals more about modern aspiration and current myth than it does actual history. The series was a good illustration of this.

Thanks Nordmann, I'll download it and have a watch then.

ferval wrote:

I find the 'breathless awe in hushed tones' style infuriating and since it appears to be being encouraged by some production teams, there's more and more of it about. What was originally a natural manner of speech by some presenters has become so pronounced as to now be a caricature. Michael Woods and Bettany Hughes are serial offenders.

Michael Wood was indeed the instigator of this style. He caused a stir over 40 years ago when he presented the series 'In Search of the Dark Ages' in 1979. Record numbers of viewers tuned in to watch the tousle-headed, young historian in tite jeans rambling across Saxon barrows etc relating the stories with infectious enthusiasm. His was a totally new, fresh style in history broadcasting. Not everyone, however, was impressed.

Bettany Hughes seems to be the current standard-bearer of the style. It doesn’t really bother me. My only quibble, perhaps, would be with her rather teenage-like intonation whereby some words go up in tone at the end of a phrase or a sentence in the form of a question – e.g. “My only quibble, perhaps, would be with her rather teenage-like intonation?, whereby some words go up in tone at the end of a phrase or a sentence?, in the form of a question?”. She is, however, perhaps best known for clambering over ruins and tombs, down dungeons and caves, through tunnels and sewers, up ladders and goat tracks, along walls and ramparts and down precipitous cliff paths and steep stairways while all along ensuring that the camera provides the viewers with plenty of shots of her ample cleavage.

So popular is she that she has made programs for all of the UK’s terrestrial television broadcasters – BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. And such is her star status, that with her latest series, her name actually now comes before the subject matter in the title of the program:

Bettany Hughes' Treasures of the World

That said - it’s actually quite good.

As far as Time Team and other TV shows are concerned I have always favoured those who presented evidence rather than themselves.

 My favourite was the, now sadly late, Mick Aston.

 He was always there to say, "are you sure", when the rest were enthusing about something dubious.

 I don't miss his jumpers, though.

I am not quite comfortable with that .What. word in to the title..... but pressing on, an not sure about prresenters either. I recall asking a young gel at a local tech/Uni about her course. She said she wanted to be a presenter. I asked why, and it seems she wanted to meet famous  people.. and that. She made the latter at a guess because she works in a portacabin for Industrial Cleaners in a complex and does invoices. Someone earned good money leading this nice little lady down a blind alley with useless qualifications and, from her notes, third rate lecturing.
So, that bit over, my presenter called himself a broadcaster.... whatever, he was one I tuned into wherever i was in the world to listen to... Alistair Cook presenting his 'Letter from America.' I loved his style and interwoven structure, his juxta position of paradoxes,, oddities and observed truths. Not overtly judgmental in content and delivery, there was subtle hints in his breathing, timing and sometimes  choice of shocking material. A master of journalism, if ever. ... I give you Alistair Cook.