[Hawk_Eye]

This is of course a tragic story and I'm very sorry for the family of the woman involved but I'm not sure I understand the concept of a 'tame' leopard...

I agree. No animal can ever be truely tamed. Just look at pets dogs. 99.9999999% of the them are perfectly 'tame' i.e. they're happy to live and work with us but there have been cases of them attacking people. Dogs may not be a great example as they have been part of human society for millenia.
If an animal feels it's life is threatened, the same as us, will defend itself. While they may be capable of basic reasoning they will always behave instinctively.

[Deimos]

I blame reality tv and tv competitions i.e. big brother, x factor et al.

I would agree with you on this. I don't know if it is the fault of the TV companies (providing what "we" want or "our" fault in demanding ever more dramatic viewing. Certainly many TV documentaries these days are far simpler and basic than they used to be. They are more about entertainment than being informative; hence the gradual change to less and less information and more and more entertainment and drama. There are a very few exceptions but almost all TV documentaries are totally "dumbed-down" and the production companies don't even bother to get the presented facts right (e.g. the recent classic in the "Wonders of the Solar System" where the "fact" was clearly stated that meant that we lived on a flat Earth !!). It seems a great shame and quite disappointing that the BBC is also pursuing/driving this trend as well. BBC always used to very strong on informative documentaries but has succumbed to Celebrity culture passive entertainment school of broadcasting.

I don't like it when I get the impression the presenter doesn't really know what he's talking about ... That's Backshall in my opinion (+ Kate Humble another), a thrill seeking self publicist (who may be able to get away with it on kid's TV) but is plainly ignorant of the species he's encountering.

I would agree that what you say regarding about Kate Humble is certainly how she comes across on TV. I don't know how knowledgable she really is but she definitely "adopts the role" (and who knows if it is how she is or how the producers use her in the programs).

I agree. No animal can ever be truely tamed. Just look at pets dogs. 99.9999999% of the them are perfectly 'tame' i.e. they're happy to live and work with us but there have been cases of them attacking people. Dogs may not be a great example as they have been part of human society for millenia.
If an animal feels it's life is threatened, the same as us, will defend itself. While they may be capable of basic reasoning they will always behave instinctively.

I would agree and disagree on this. Of the very few dog attacks that there are, many are due to training issues (where a potentially well behaved domestic dog has been either deliberately or inadvertently trained to show aggressive behaviour, often having its self-preservation behaviour "trained out/down"). Animal aggression is a complex subject and there are loads of issues. For many species they have no knowledge of the risk of attacking a human and have to balance the risk of achieving their own aims (e.g. eating, chasing-off, dominating, etc.) against the risk of injury to itself (which in the wild is a big deal).


And, having just seen this thread and watched the video, what a twat this guy seems. The only explanation I can think of for such stupidity is that he was looking for something anything) dramatic to happen for the cameras. Sorry state for TV documentaries to degenerate into.

Ian

[Hawk_Eye]

Just to go off on a tangent a moment

(e.g. the recent classic in the "Wonders of the Solar System" where the "fact" was clearly stated that meant that we lived on a flat Earth !!).

I can't remember that bit which episode was it in??

[Deimos]

Just to go off on a tangent a moment

(e.g. the recent classic in the "Wonders of the Solar System" where the "fact" was clearly stated that meant that we lived on a flat Earth !!).

I can't remember that bit which episode was it in??

In the "vomit comet" where he said about them following a parabolic path !! (which is only true if the Earth is flat as it takes no account of the fact that as you move, so the direction of the pull of gravity changes because the Earth is in fact spherical'ish - i.e. down at your start point is not parallel to down at your end point then add some maths to establish the actual path ...). Though, in that series there were so many errors as to make it a bit of a "joke" (apparently also in the 1st printing of the book that went with the series, though I heard that most were corrected for the 2nd printing with an apology). Apart from zoology, astronomy is another of my interests.

Mentioned only really in the context of what TV documentaries have become. No longer do they strive to be both informative and entertaining but rather seem to just try and catch those who have just voted for the Britain's Got X Factor's Apprentice and don't want to watch the news. It used to be that where a documentary had a presenter who was knowledgeable (and often qualified or with more experience than most) such that the presenter knew the subject rather than just being somebody who left it to some low paid researcher with 101 other things to do. Often they seem more about the presenter him/her self rather than the subject being presented. I can appreciate that there is more pressure on the commercial stations to just "get audience figures" as they sell advertising (though attracting a difference type of audience for a couple of programs a week might given them a different group of advertisers). It is disappointing that the BBC can't do better.

That said, there are fortunately some exceptions. I have been impressed with the Geology series (and one-offs) done by Iain Stewart - although he is clearly the presenter and featured a lot he manages to maintain the viewers focus on the subject.

Were I to analyse it ... it does seem that the TV companies are working to formulae these days. The documentary series based around a presenter are following the David Attenborough "mega series" formula, except that the presenters are not of the same calibre and the more recent programs are more about the presenter than the subject. Similarly with the recent astronomy watch thing (Cox and a couple of comedy celebrities e.g. Jonathan Ross), though I can't remember its name as I only ever managed to watch a brief bit before frustration took over. The "Skywatching-Live" (or whatever) was just the Spring/AutumnWatch formula copied and the formula would never work for astronomy. It is a formula that works for Springwatch but BBC just thought "more of the same" without actually stopping to think what subject they were presenting and what the best way to present it would be - just "Works with Packham/Humble/Oddie" so drag in a few different celebrities and we should get audience figures.

Ian
Ian

[Hawk_Eye]

In the "vomit comet" where he said about them following a parabolic path !! (which is only true if the Earth is flat as it takes no account of the fact that as you move, so the direction of the pull of gravity changes because the Earth is in fact spherical'ish - i.e. down at your start point is not parallel to down at your end point then add some maths to establish the actual path ...).

It's a bit nit-picking but I know what you mean. That series was aimed at the general public so they would have had to take all the technical info and put it into a form that makes something easily understandable. I watched that Star Gazing Live and it was rather standard. Dara O'briain who co-hosted it studied physics and math at university according to google, then went into comedy. That's another thing there are so many people who want fame and fortune that academia is taking a back seat.
I know what you mean about the dumbing down of documentaries plus the lack of them or the shortness if they're a series - BBC really poor on that front. Take the Madagascar series, 3 episodes!!! Perfect opportunity to inform viewers about such a fascinating island and they only make 3 episodes. The beeb should be pushing themselves back to the forefront of documentaries rather than relying on the Sky documentary channels to take up the slack, having said that BBC4 has had some decent stuff - there's a programme on Darwin tonight. Even if they dedicate a couple of hours of proper documentaries on BBC2 each Saturday or Sunday they'll still have plenty of time plus BBC1 for the entertainment rubbish they want to compete ITV with.
Thankfully the BBC does do some really good magazines such as this one.

[tejada]

In my opinion, Steve Backshall has done a tremendous amount in the Deadly 60 programme , to introduce children to wildlife. Yes, he probably is thrill seeking, but having watched it (often!), it is definately less about him and more about the wonderful creatures. My children have learnt an awful lot from his shows...many children are to young to appreciate the gravitas of more adult natural history programmes and I think the show he presents is a great introduction.

[cabbage]

In my opinion, Steve Backshall has done a tremendous amount in the Deadly 60 programme , to introduce children to wildlife. Yes, he probably is thrill seeking, but having watched it (often!), it is definately less about him and more about the wonderful creatures. My children have learnt an awful lot from his shows...many children are to young to appreciate the gravitas of more adult natural history programmes and I think the show he presents is a great introduction.

I must admit I hadn't thought of his presenting style as seen from a child's point of view. I guess if he's sticking to kids programming then I've got no grounds to complain as I'm a long way off from the target audience! If he's getting kids into wildlife then good on him - he's not a patch on Michaela Strachan though - or maybe that was just me

I would say though that if his programmes are aimed at the kids market then its maybe even more important not to be encouraging doing stupid things like looking for caimen with your feet in knee deep water. Also kids are often smarter than we give them credit for, many resent being patronised and the assumption that all their programming has to be laced with 'excitement' to the detriment of actual facts.