Radio Times

These days it's become par for the course for cultural commentators to get themselves into frightful strops about TV producers "dumbing down" their output and resorting to pumping out lowbrow dreck in order to claw in viewing figures. A good example of this phenomenon was the BBC's decision at the end of 2007 to reduce its in-house factual programme budgets - a move that went down like the proverbial lead balloon and had many broadsheet writers spluttering into their peppermint tea.

But the situation's not quite as bad as all that. True, programmes like BBC3's Me and My Man Breasts don't exactly sound like the sort of thing that Melvyn Bragg would jump at the chance to present, but there's at least one educational institution put out by the Beeb which, to my mind, just gets better and better. I refer, of course, to Horizon.

Like many people in Britain I had a comprehensive education but, coming from the sort of provincial English town destined to provide the nation with its next generation of burger-flippers, my school didn't make much of science. For me, the word "quantum" was just part of the fancy title of an American TV show, a wave was something that a machine generated at the local lido, and I assumed that an electron was a fellow who repaired light switches.

Unfortunately, having left school so ignorant of science meant that whenever I pondered questions like "how did the universe begin?", "what is consciousness?" or "why can't chimpanzees speak English?" I drew a complete blank.

But fortunately for me and lay people everywhere, the makers of Horizon are there to plug the gaps in our knowledge. Horizon is like a sort of surrogate boffin parent who doesn't mind being pestered by wide-eyed and curious children: it takes time to explain all those fascinating mysteries of nature in an entertaining and understandable way, using analogy, metaphor and computer graphics, and relating the headier stuff of science to everyday life.

The last series of the programme opened my eyes to all manner of interesting facts. It explained exactly what to expect should you ever find yourself trapped in a sensory-deprivation tank (you hallucinate like a Woodstock attendee), it revealed the most pleasant way to die (being gassed with pure nitrogen's apparently far more fun than being hanged) and esteemed scientists such as Dr Brian Cox demystified some of the problems faced by modern physics (essentially, how gravity works is a bit of a problem for even the most gargantuan intellects out there).

And the series shows no lack of inspiration for subjects to tackle: everything from the existence of aliens to the odd properties of human memory is fair game for Horizon to dissect over an hour. So while it's a shame that factual programmes, like the panda, are getting increasingly scarce these days, it's a comfort that Horizon shows no signs of flagging, dipping in quality or disappearing from public view. And I know I'm not alone in being hugely thankful for that. Now, where did I put that book about string theory..?

I was most unimpressed with the string yesterday. It just reminded me of why I never to bother watching Horizon these days. I remember years ago when they used to have science on the program, and found it interesting and informative.

Maybe it's just pandering to the general public, who nowadays are assumed to be idiots... and if they watch all the reality TV, then I guess they probably are.

One day there will be nothing worth watching at all.

Like a lot of people with a Science background, I have felt that over the past few years the BBC's treatment of Science is nothing short of appalling. As a child and then later as an adult I was hooked on Horizon. I still have tapes in my loft of interviews with Feynman and other classics like "Earth to Miranda, super conductivity etc. So I was very pleasantly surprised this evening to once again become engaged with Horizon. The theme "How long is a piece of string?" was close to the "How long is Britain's Coastline" issue, but managed to put a new spin on the issue by blending Physics with Maths in the treatment.

As someone with a Physics background I feel Horizon needs to tread the line between engaging people who have never explored a subject, and also making those with a pedestrian experience feel included with some new knowledge, and I think you hit the mark.

My wife, sat on the sofa and chuckled away at Alan Davies, and I kept myself happily nodding along with the Science (most of which is over 30 years old), but loved the bit on Quantum Theory and the nose and plants as I was not aware of that.

So keep it up, let's see more programs aiming at a good balance between popularising Science and diving in a little bit to some of the details.

I have just seen the "Horizon" on black holes and thought ita extremely good;the only criticism is that it seems to have lost its opening theme tune which I rather liked (I have a similar criticisim of "Newsnight Review"

When Horizon ceased to address scientific issues seriously, I wrote to complain. The editor wrote back to defend the new series against the charge of dumbing down - astonishing that he couldn't see it. I do accept that television needs to explore new formats in search of new audiences, but it is very disappointing that they didn't come up with a new title to avoid tainting the reputation of the old series. The chasm between the standard of new and old programmes is huge, and sadly it's impossible to tell if a random episode from the Horizon back catalogue will be informative or pointless.

horizaon used to be my favourite tv program, it used to be a channel for the newest scientific discoveries to be presented to the public, that is longer the case, its a shame the science has lost such a great asset, if fermats last theorm was solved this year, would horizon ever do a program on it? i think not it would involve some low brow comedian who vaguley tackles a scientific issue.

horizon used to be a platform to reveal the lastest advancements in theoritical physics and astonromny in recent years fanstastic discoveries have been made and massive questions rasied which would have made great programming and whould have been documented by horizon in the past.

There are, very occasionally nowadays, informative Horizon programmes. In the main, they pander to maintaining audience figures to justify the license fee. It's easier to offer stunning pictures of stunning nature than to work out how to get concepts across. Add the assumption that the average viewer must have the attention span demanded by Eastenders, and out pops your modern-day Horizon script.

I'm quite amazed that you all seem to be experts in subject or topic covered by the Horizon team - perhaps you could collaborate on a blog for each other and discuss these issues at the deeper level you require.

Regardless, the brilliant Dr Cox is back on tonight talking Nuclear Fusion, so that should appease some of you for the time being.

Agree with all the negative comments. What is particularly irritating is the leaden pace these programmes have - ponderously lumbering towards some crushingly banal conclusion. I think it was Basil Fawlty who described Sybil as Professor of the Bleedin Obvious - a sobriquet that would fit Horizon quite nicely.

Horizon has progressivley dumbed down over the years to the point where its unwatchable patronising rubbish. They also seem intent on trying to make scientists appear somehow edgy and cool. Pleeesssee can we just have the science without all this bull-pucky. Oopps sorry its the BBC we are talking about so thats just not possible

'Tonight, Danny Wallace tackles one of science's most reliably entertaining subjects - robotics. Consumed by a desire to find "the perfect robot companion", he goes on a tour of the world's hottest science labs.'

The prosecution rests.

I was getting bored of Horizon. I was beginning to agree with many of the comments here - that Horizon was dumbed down and repetitive. However, the episode on time - I believe it was on last week - was fantastic! A whirlwind tour of everything from quantum time to general relativity in an hour. The presenter got the level just right I'd say. He made it accessible to everyone but didnt dumb down at all (apart from losing the headache inducing maths of course). Cheers Horizon!

Thank goodness for that - other people who agree with me that Horizon is banal and purile. I remember watching it as a kid in the 70 and early 80's and it was interesting. Perhaps it's more to do with me than the programme but I find it stupifying now. It has lost its morals and been thoroughly dummed down. They have some great subjects but the content is repetitive and simplistic. Where are the great science programmes for the non-X factor generation. The ones that actually have content that doesn't have to repeat itself four times and have soooooo many glossy graphics?

I feel I have to stand up for Horizon here. Admittedly I have only been a viewer for the past 4 years or so - maybe this is because I am from the 'dummed-down' generation (I have a facebook account and list Horizon as one of my favourite TV Shows!) - but in general, the programme offers a variety of subject matter, at an entertaining and thought provoking level.

Take Brian Cox's episode on time - now I'm no dummy, but trying to get my head around string theory and branes at the same time as watching the hugely interesting programme was enough for me. I'm not a physicist and if I feel the need to go into more detail on any particular subject, I'll buy a book.

In my opinion, episodes such as the "top 10 drugs" and "Am I mad" ones are not of the ilk I like to see on Horizon, I'm more a pure scientist than a social scientist, but can see they are all equally suitable topics. Perhaps there could be a pure and social science horizon programme in the future!

The GM Food Fight was fascinating if somewhat flawed.

http://natureheads.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/gm-food-fight/

What strikes me is that time since the big bang is SO short. 13.7 billion years was the figure quoted by Brian Cox. Let me give two everyday examples that show how easy it is to grasp this "mind boggling" amount of time.

1. A 20 gig hard disk drive - which is easy to fill by a human being - has more units of data than the entire history of the universe in years. It just sits on my desk and says 13.7 billion - 13.7 schmillion!

Even more easy for humns to understand is this . . .

2. There are about 7 billion people on the earth today. If each person simply took two sheets of paper, and wrote ONE event that happened in their life this year plus one event from last year, we could bind these history of events into a 14 billion year volume.

The time from the big bang till now just doesn't seem that long ... doesn't seem long enough for all this stuff to happen.

What strikes me is that time since the big bang is SO short. 13.7 billion years was the figure quoted by Brian Cox. Let me give two everyday examples that show how easy it is to grasp this "mind boggling" amount of time.

1. A 20 gig hard disk drive - which is easy to fill by a human being - has more units of data than the entire history of the universe in years. It just sits on my desk and says 13.7 billion - 13.7 schmillion!

Even more easy for humns to understand is this . . .

2. There are about 7 billion people on the earth today. If each person simply took two sheets of paper, and wrote ONE event that happened in their life this year plus one event from last year, we could bind these history of events into a 14 billion year volume.

The time from the big bang till now just doesn't seem that long ... doesn't seem long enough for all this stuff to happen.

First, let's not bow to nostalgia. Tomorrow's World was rubbish, even with Phillipa Forrester.

Second, "detritus of banality"? Good grief, it's still Horizon, not Jackass for God's sake. At least it's inspiring some enthusiasm for its subject, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Long may it continue, complete with silly sound effects and plugin abuse.

Given that Horizon's website is currently stuck in limbo, if you would like to see the trailer for "what time is it?" plus come behind-the-scenes films, then do please have a look at http://uk.youtube.com/user/bongoreef

Having read the comments, might I suggest watching the Horizon on Tuesday December 2nd BBC2 2100hrs. It is called 'Do you know what time it is?'. I believe it covers some challenging and in some respects complicated hard science stuff, yet it is delivered in an interesting manner, not patronising but still for a wide audience. It does have some camera trickery in there, but they are there as visual metaphors (always good for pan dimensional hyperspace narratives), and it is presented by that Prof Brian Cox, who has a good way with words. Would love to know what you all think.

Jim, your healthy cynicism probably comes much closer to the truth than any amount of positive hyperbole on my part!

But in all seriousness, the examples I highlighted in my blog were genuinely new to me. The Michael Portillo-fronted edition of the show about humane execution methods, for instance, was a real eye opener as I'd always assumed that hanging was, all things considered, a relatively pain-free way to go, and I'd never even imagined that nitrogen could be used as both a narcotic and a gassy guillotine.

Sorry to come over all morbid there. But yes, some of the documentaries of yesteryear are fantastic, although completely unbroadcastable today. Bryan Magee's series The Great Philosophers was made up of several hour-long programmes consisting of nothing more than two elderly gentlemen sat on sofas, discussing philosophy. Me? I loved it, but I can see why others might yearn for Fearne Cotton, a Razorlight soundtrack and a lot of jump cuts.

Like most of you who've commented here, I'm not that chuffed with the state of TV today but I genuinely think that there are a few programmes which rise above the usual sort of dross we're served up, and one of these is Horizon.

And for the really disgruntled: y'know, Carl Sagan's Cosmos is readily available on Google Video...

I applaud the fact that Tom has checked out some of the older programs and I am sure that even if he did have the attention span of a gnat (which I am sure he doesn't), he would have learned things from those old programs, which caused him to ponder the subject himself, rather than just listening to it. I do not think the new style does this and I find it difficult to believe he learned anything from the recent programs, which he did not already know.

However, one thing that just occurred to me is that we are all judging the current Horizon against those great programs of yesteryear and we are assuming the presentation and content has changed because the producers want to appeal to a wider audience.

In fact it could be because they want to appeal to an even wider audience than we think. I would assume that they are now making the program in the hope they can fob us off with a lower standard, but produce something frothy enough to be sold to other TV channels around the world. This would explain why the output now resembles the documentary type programs we see coming out of the USA. Therefore I conclude that Horizon is probably now aimed at the export market, rather than the home one.

However, even though some would justify this as a way for the BBC to make money, I would rather thay gave the people in this country a decent return on their license fee, rather than use this cash to produce programs aimed at the export market.

Well hush my mouth, do I ever feel like a moron...

Folks, thanks to the magic of YouTube I've been able to watch quite a few documentaries from yesteryear and I concur: things were done much more thoroughly back in the day. But most people of my generation are blessed with attention spans so flighty they'd make a Ritalin-wolfing gnat blush, and besides, what with the multitude of easily-accessed and astounding entertainment on the 'net and on digital TV, I can see why Auntie feels compelled to make documentaries like Horizon that bit more palatable to a broader audience.

And, like I said in the blog, for some people this is going to be their first exposure to some of these areas of enquiry. Alas, many of us have to blunder through life without a subscription to Nature or a Royal Society membership. In fact I know very few people who've been through a bog-standard double-award GCSE science course who've either learned or retained anything beyond the best method of settling light to gas-taps. Still, that's what you get for hanging around with humanities students and roustabouts I suppose...

Is Horizon patronising? Perhaps, at times, but what isn't patronising on TV these days? And I can understand why it might be galling to see low-level celebs like Danny Wallace presenting programmes while there are any number of overlooked academics left grumbling and rubbing their leather patches up and down the country, but I stand by my opinion. Horizon and series such as Atom on BBC4 are about as good as you're likely to get.

Oh, and I take umbrage with your elitism, JaneAndMike! While I'm sure I may seem a half-educated dolt (and, yep, I've painted myself as such in the blog), I wrote this piece to underscore the point that people like me, who might not have been as well educated as we might have liked, are given accessible primers to otherwise esoteric subjects through programmes like Horizon. You might object to your licence fee being splurged for the benefit of the ignorant and unhosed like me, but then again I'm not too thrilled about mine being spent on things like Strictly Come Dancing. Life's so unfair isn't it?

There is absolutely no doubt that Horizon has become a mockery of its former glorious self. All the actual serious science has been completed removed from the programme. It's patronising. It treats its audience as if they were all teenagers with the attention span of a gnat. It no longer educates people about science, nor leaves them with that thrill of having actually learned something interesting and new, which the "old" Horizon never failed to do. The show is an embarrassment which the BBC should be ashamed of. But they won't be of course, because the BBC never makes mistakes of course. Well, BBC, fine. If you want to reduce what was once the world's best science programme into a science-free gameshow, that's your prerogative. But you really should stop calling the programme "Horizon", because that's an insult to the memory of past excellence. And it's obvious that the BBC knows little about *that* these days.

Between us we have spent about 90 years working in Science and Technology and we are both still working. You can now work out our ages.

When we first met, our common interests were ***, Science, History, and the Natural World.

The TV programmes representing these interests were Horizon, Tomorrow's World, TimeWatch, and several Natural History programmes. Only the Natural History programmes have come through unscathed (not because of the presentation, but because of the photography).

As far as science and history are concerned, the decision has been taken that 'Science and History must be made popular'.

The awful thing is that this decision has been taken by people who are not interested in either subject.

The very worst thing that television can do in to talk down to people. By this, we do not mean telling the viewers that 2 + 2 = 4 (that's a fact), but that the scientists/biologists/engineers/historians/etc were surprised/shocked/amazed/etc by some results or other. This, combined with the awful photographic methods (panning in/panning out/switching views), has become more important than the content.

Recently, in a pole of friends, in spite of such presentation, none were interested in such scientific/historic programmes (we're the only ones involved in science) Our conclusion is that the BBC has three choices, forget about science altogether, panda to the TomColes (as you are doing) or give us decent progammes. The middle way is the worst thing to do - the BBC must say that science is important or that science is unimportant, you can't have it both ways. Do not try to make science interesting to those who are not interested, or ask those interested in science to accept drivel.

We now we put the BBC output in science and technology on a par with EastEnders (which we have never watched).

Neither of us is a scientific snob; we love to tell others, (of all ages) how fascinating science is, but we know we are fighting a losing battle. If the BBC has decided that science is for second raters, who are we to disagree.

I am all in favour of good scientific programmes. But the camera tricks that were used in Horizon "Just because they can" give me a headache. If you want a good example of how to do it properly grab a copy of Earth: Climate Wars with Dr Iain Stewart. He presented with enthusiasm and clarity, with only a few annoying special effects.

Horizon - please avoid the gimmicks

I must agree with Jim and Nick. I also have stopped watching Horizon due to the over patronising style. I keep looking in hope they may cover an interesting subject that would make me tune in again.

I would like to see a change in bias from social and medical problems, that seem to dominate these days, to more technology, chemistry and physics subjects. Not that social and medical subjects are wrong in any way.

I used to love the shows of the seventies and I would love to see them re-visit a few subjects to show how things have changed. E.g. computer graphics, electronics, mobile phone technology and many more.

I loved tomorrows world too...

i think james burke and his Connections series (series 1 in 1979) was pitched just about right (and the old version of Horizon). Progs like this are very patronising now, agreed.

Horizon used to be my favourite program on the BBC. It covered a wide spectrum of interesting subjects in great depth, offering an unbiased view and encouraging people to think about the subject matter rather than simply accepting it.

Unfortunately, it seems that someone took the decision several series ago that the viewers would no longer be able to understand even simple scientific concepts or would no longer watch the program unless it was 'brought up to date'. This re-born Horizon is much more 'hip' with bizarre sound effects, annoying camera tricks and endlessly repeated 'reconstructions'. There is very little real science left, in fact it seems to offer a similar level of detail on the subjects being covered as you would find in one of our more popular tabloids.

It has become so bad I did not even bother watching much of the last series. I decided to give the new series a go this week and was not very surprised to see it had turned into a 'spot the mad person' game show. This particular program gave no information about the types of discorder the 'contestants' suffered from (except that some had to wash their hands a lot) and managed to get through the entire program without telling me anything that I did not already know.

Surely people want to watch a program like this to learn and understand a topic in more detail. They want the subject explained and presented to them in an adult way rather than the patronising, childlike presentation currently being offered. Nick has hit the nail on the head, if you want to create an 'entry-level' science/gameshow program, by all means do this and put it out before the watershed if necessary to reach the appropriate target audience. If you can't bring back the old Horizon then I would rather you get rid of it altogether. I will not waste my time watching the rest of this series as I can already see where it is going. Please try and see that the program will never appeal to a mass audience and go back to educating those of us who would like to be enlightened rather than simply entertained.

I can hardly watch the programme without feeling completely patronised. I was just fine with talking heads and disembodied voice-overs, I don't require historical renactments or d-list celebrities to present information to me.

If the BBC require entry-level science programmes (not something I have a problem with and I apologise for the terminology) then why not make a new programme rather than bastardise an old one? It's like taking the hate and violence out of Eastenders or the mentally deluded contestants out of The X-Factor. If the BBC aren't careful then people will end up reading books instead! Heaven forbid.

I concur Tom - popular science when it is well done, in my view, is the last bastion of civilisation. Without it, us lay-folk have no way of keeping abreast of the latest thinking in why the world is the way that it is.

It's hard to dip in quality when you're already crawling in the rotting detritus of banality that Horizon has become in recent times.

It is typical of what happens to inspiring and educational programmes once castrated of the ingredients that made them great in the first place, in an effort to appeal to the new 'youth' audience. Heaven forbid that we should expect the youth to have to think with any degree of maturity.

No, far better that we give them Danny Wallace and ponder the important issue of "Chimps are people too". Ridiculous!

Tom you are very correct...Horizon is absolutely ace. Huzzah!

Yeh but...

what about Tomorrow's World? Now that was a classic. Especially the lovely Philippa Forrester....