Whither The Sky at Night?
According to rumours flying around on Twitter, the BBC has decided to axe the long-running astronomy programme The Sky at Night. There’s been a predictable outcry from fans of the show and a petition has been organized. What I’ve heard is that the series will end in December, but that a new astronomy programme will be launched in April next year.
I’ve long felt it was inevitable that The Sky at Night would cease to be when Patrick Moore died. The programme was so much Patrick’s programme that it would be very difficult to find another presenter to fill the role in the unique way that he did. Moreover, although there’s no doubt that it is an important vehicle for UK astronomy, many feel that the format has become very tired and uninspiring. As for myself, I can’t really comment. I don’t watch television very much at all and in any case, The Sky at Night is on way past my bedtime.
Way back in 1996 I was involved with a show at the NEC in Birmingham called Tomorrow’s World Live. This involved all the regular presenters of Tomorrow’s World, but wasn’t broadcast, but performed in a small theatre with a live audience. My contribution was to talk a little bit about the Hubble Space Telescope and then answer questions from the audience. We did four such shows a day for three days. It was tiring and a bit nerve-wracking, but a lot of fun.
Typically for the BBC the contributors such as myself were paid a negligible fee, but we did get our meals paid for. At dinner one evening I chatted to a well-known TV Producer who was involved with the live event. After a while the conversation turned to The Sky at Night. The person concerned explained that he thought the show was well past its prime and was actually holding back astronomy programming on TV: it was too old-fashioned and had a tiny audience yet while it existed it was impossible to make the case to the Beeb to commission other astro-related shows. On the other hand, while Patrick was still around, and undoubtedly a National Institution, the outcry would be so intense if they cancelled The Sky at Night that nobody had the nerve to do it. Impasse.
Of course now, 17 years later, Patrick Moore has passed away and there’s now a chance to change things. It is promising that that the BBC seems to be going to launch a new programme next year. But any new show will have to tread very carefully. The Sky at Night was followed by thousands of dedicated amateur astronomers who know a great deal about their subject and would not be interested in the simple-minded gee-whizzery that plagues so many so-called Science Programme (e.g. Horizon). These people are very important for UK astronomy, because without them UK astronomy would not have the unique role that it has in our scientific and cultural landscape. We professional astronomers would be funded anything like as well as we are either. On the other hand, there is at least the possibility of coming up with a format that reaches a new audience as well as retaining the interest of those already enthused about astronomy.
But how to ensure that this happens? Answers on a postcard, or through the comments box!
Meanwhile here’s a little poll to gauge the strength of opinion:
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
September 24, 2013 at 10:51 am
I find it very interesting to read the comments by people signing the petition. A lot of physics/astronomy professionals citing it as how they started. Lots of others wanting continuity. An interesting mix of opinions.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-bbc-please-do-not-axe-the-sky-at-night
Click “latest” to see the more recent ones.
September 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm
I’m not convinced of the logic that says that just because this programme inspired previous generations to take up astronomy that it will do the same for the current generation. Times have changed. Sometimes we have to let go of the past.
September 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
The name has some “brand loyalty”. People sort of know what to expect from it. If you name it something different it gives a lot of freedom to the makers, maybe too much – I’m wondering what a “top gear” makeover presented by an attractive presenter with little knowledge would look like – probably not pleasant.
I just think not continuing with it in some form would be a great loss – and once lost may never be recovered. 20 minutes a month on topics of the night seems a small price.
The petition – still growing – shows there is still a lot of love for the show – more than I realised.
September 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“The children of today know more about two things than their teachers do, unfortunately, the dinosaurs are extinct” Quote from the 1970’s by an American Astronaut. My wife and I work with disengaged young adults 16 – 18 year old, who have never been successful in contemporary education establishments. We use Astronomy as a vehicle to teach them English maths and other life skills that prepare them for working life and or further study. I think the logic behind using anything that inspires people as a learning tool can only be beneficial to the learners as its not driven by tables and government targets.
September 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm
I agree, of course, but is The Sky at Night necessarily the best way to achieve that inspiration?
September 24, 2013 at 2:43 pm
I agree – this may be heretical, but it seems to me that most of the arguments for keeping the show as-is are rooted in the idea that it’s an institution and therefore untouchable. But for me, Patrick Moore *was* The Sky At Night… part of the pleasure of the programme was tuning in to see and listen to him. I think it would be a more respectful tribute to PM to now draw a line, end on a high, and relaunch with a new format and new name. Otherwise there’s the risk that the current format just fizzles out, damaging the brand (and message) as it does so…
September 24, 2013 at 3:07 pm
No, not in its current format. I have said in my other post I do feel it needs re-vamping, however, I do feel it has to be done right. I agree with Phillip in that S@N was Patrick and Patrick was S@N. I don’t think it can continue in its present format without him. I just hope they don’t make the usual mistakes and going down the “Big Brother” or “I’m an Astronomer get me out of here” route..:-)
September 24, 2013 at 11:21 am
I was, like many, devastated to hear about the BBC’s proposal to axe the Sky at Night. Like so many other people, I grew up with the programme and am also in a position to say that I have been watching it for over 45 years.
In that time I have also noticed its disappearance from the screen to where it is now on BBC 4 at Stupid o’clock at night, which is my counter for their argument that viewing figures have fallen, Duh!…. I have read most of the comments on blogs like this, polls and petitions and I also feel it would be a shame to drop S@N altogether, however, I also feel it may be a great opportunity to make some changes or revamp, what ever you want to call it.
I feel that more grassroots Astronomy is required, getting away from the “Celebrity” stardom and “Wizz bang” science that is gracing our screens. Possibly it is an opportunity to involve groups, clubs and societies more. Involving children, and young “Stargazers” is a great way to ignite passions and increase learning as it did with me 40+ years ago.
I was fortunate enough to be at the Brecon Astro-camp this month with the S@N team filming for their October show and I have to say what a privilege it was to be there, not just because of the cameras, but off camera there was so much being done. Astronomy was being put into practice, people where buzzing, the atmosphere at the camp was tremendous for all, both young and old. These types of events need to be shown, they need to advertised on a grand scale, they are fantastic learning opportunities for anyone who is interested in Astronomy be it professional imagers or young children with their parents just starting out in this fantastic hobby. I call it hobby because for me it is, I’m not a professional, however, I appreciate the fact that it is a profession for many. It is those professionals who are helping to inspire young and old, and lets be honest, in today’s society we haven’t got much to inspire our children. S@N is a great platform for this and should continue and I hope it does in some format, lets hope that the BBC get the format right.
September 24, 2013 at 4:47 pm
What do you mean by “Celebrity”. Is it a disparaging remark to Brian Cox by any chance? Either you’re going to have people who speak into a camera “um”-ing and “arr”-ing their way through 5 minutes of television or you have people trained in TV – live or otherwise – heading the program.
The problem is that a space based science program could probably be done 30 minutes every weekday (!). There is so much going on and so much to learn that a monthly program is just an insult.
September 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm
It will be sad to see The Sky At Night go but I agree Patrick is a very hard act to follow as much as i enjoy Pete,Paul,Jon and Lucie its not the same anymore, even the Magazine is not the same without Patrick’s Lunar Column
September 24, 2013 at 10:09 pm
One advantage of the Sky at Night is that it has been a regular, serious, science programme. Dropping it in favour of something else might produce a glossy, dumbed-down, short science series, but there is no guarantee that a replacement would last more than a couple of months. I like the long-term commitment to astronomy that the programme has brought, including serious research and popular, amateur observing.
The Sky at Night, however, does look a bit stale today. It does come over to me as rather middle class and southern English at times.
September 25, 2013 at 11:33 am
That’s the odd thing about the British class system – people who are among the 5-10% most privileged in society, with accents and manners to match, are still called middle class. It’s just the 0.01%-2% of the most privileged who are regarded as being upper class. It’s odd.
(And I’m not from the ranks of the privileged myself.)
September 24, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Totally agree with Bryn Jones – with all its faults, ‘Sky at Night’ was a genuine science programme and also supported those of us actually trying to observe at whatever level. I can see the point of reformatting but I too fear that shiny graphics and shouty celebrities will be substituted for serious information.
(And yes, I’m another one who was inspired to a lifelong interest …)
September 25, 2013 at 9:57 am
I think the argument that Sky at Night stops other astronomy programmes from happening is clearly wrong. In the last few years, at the same time that Sky at Night has been running, we’ve had Stargazing Live, Wonders of the Universe, and I believe The One Show has its own astronomer appearing regularly.
At the same time Sky at Night has continued, on a graveyard shift on a poorly watched channel with a low budget and it still gets audiences of about 250000 – not bad, I’m told, for such a low budget show.
WHy is this? I think it’s because content is the key on Sky at Night, so that those who are interested in the subject, rather than whizz-bang visuals, star presenters, or exotic locations, are served elsewhere.
Cox, Stargazing Live & the rest are the entry drugs. Sky at Night is for the hardened users, some of whom will become professionals, and who more generally are the bedrock of support for astronomy in the UK. Messing with the format risks losing astronomy, and astronomers, as the core of the programme.
September 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Over dinner with Patrick in a restaurant in Selsey I asked him about the longevity of the Sky at Night, among other things. He attributed it to the fact that the Sky at Night didn’t become the enemy of any other programme. It was willing to be shunted around the schedules and fit in wherever it could. Had it battled for a particular spot it would have won, for a while, but inevitably the day would come when it would lose, and the programme would be cancelled.
It has come close before. I was in a meeting many years ago when Alan Yentob said the Sky at Night should be cancelled, and there was some agreement. But others said you can’t cancel it because it would devastate Patrick. It stayed.
The recent phase of the programme, with joint presenters, was a recognition of Patrick’s age. It had long ceased to be the programme that I remember of the 70s say, when Patrick could talk to the camera for 20 minutes about a single constellation in just one take. In those days the programme was also about spaceflight, a subject it has lost touch with. He was a truly outstanding broadcaster. I was told that the producer went through a great many suggestions for co-presenters all of whom Patrick didn’t want to work with. Then they came up with one.
For me the joint presentation does not work. Bland and dull – the biggest sin in TV. It was inevitable that after Patrick’s death it would be reviewed after a respectful interval.
But beware sequels in any form. Years ago there was a programme called “The Final Frontier” made by the BBC and the Open University. It spent two series finding its feet and got very good figures. But then came a ‘review’ and the third series brought in a new production team and new presenters. After the first episode it was realised that it was a disaster, and the original makers put on standby to rescue it. But the damage had been done and it was impossible to revive the show.
So, in my view, if an astronomy programme does start in April it should not be called the Sky at Night. That show was Patrick’s…alone.
September 26, 2013 at 11:18 am
I really enjoyed “The Final Frontier” when Paul Roche was presenting it. It was the perfect example of an ‘updated’ “The Sky at Night” without being dumbed down. I hope the BBC does the right thing here and doesn’t just follow the assumption that “Stargazing Live” provides all the astronomy programming they need to offer.
September 26, 2013 at 4:46 pm
The sky at night had zero impact on me personally, but I think it should stay as it is – as something directed primarily at amateur astronomers who are interested in digging into the details. With a gazillion cable channels around, there’s surely space for a little bit of specialist programming? If they don’t get some ‘celebrity’ to front it, the cost must be very modest.
So what we should be focusing on is the need for a programme on astronomy that appeals to a less expert audience, and yet avoids the utter shallowness that has infected Horizon. Now there is a programme that did inspire me as a schoolkid: it’s very sad to see what has become of a once-great institution. This is the programme the BBC needs to axe and relaunch.