0:00:10 > 0:00:13Good afternoon and welcome to Points Of View.
0:00:13 > 0:00:16Saturday nights have now settled in for the winter
0:00:16 > 0:00:20with the fireside pairing of Strictly Come Dancing and Merlin.
0:00:20 > 0:00:23But their appearance has meant the departure of Doctor Who,
0:00:23 > 0:00:26a confusingly early departure for some.
0:01:04 > 0:01:07With many listings magazines
0:01:07 > 0:01:11describing Doctor Who's swift September outing
0:01:11 > 0:01:13as episode one to five of 13,
0:01:13 > 0:01:16some fans were hoodwinked into thinking the Doctor would be making
0:01:16 > 0:01:19weekly house calls right up until the end of November.
0:01:19 > 0:01:22But the Doctor has actually caught the Americanism
0:01:22 > 0:01:25of arriving in seasons.
0:01:25 > 0:01:27So while this block of stories was made in one go,
0:01:27 > 0:01:29it is being shown in short bursts.
0:01:29 > 0:01:34The current run saw plots centre on Amy, angels, cowboys,
0:01:34 > 0:01:38- cubes, Daleks and dinosaurs.- Ooh!
0:01:38 > 0:01:41So that's A to D covered.
0:01:41 > 0:01:42And it would appear to be a case of,
0:01:42 > 0:01:44"Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet."
0:01:44 > 0:01:49The Doctor's absence, though irritating, is only temporary.
0:01:49 > 0:01:52But total confusion surrounded the launch of Merlin.
0:01:52 > 0:01:55A dramatic trailer had the desired effect,
0:01:55 > 0:01:57leading many viewers to make a date in their diary,
0:01:57 > 0:01:58except there wasn't a date.
0:01:58 > 0:02:03Merlin, starts Saturday the 8th of October on BBC One and BBC One HD.
0:02:03 > 0:02:07There is no Saturday the 8th of October until 2016.
0:02:07 > 0:02:10Yesterday was Saturday the 6th of October.
0:02:10 > 0:02:13And we thought the fictional stuff was limited to the programme!
0:02:13 > 0:02:16So it would appear there is somebody at the BBC whose job is to type
0:02:16 > 0:02:20the correct date over the top of a clip from Merlin and they didn't manage it.
0:02:20 > 0:02:25Luckily, the cast and crew have been paying more attention to detail.
0:02:30 > 0:02:36CASTS SPELL IN OLD ENGLISH
0:02:42 > 0:02:45What happened?
0:03:06 > 0:03:09I think those people were definitely rearing their heads in the beginning
0:03:09 > 0:03:13and saying, "This is not how it's supposed to be."
0:03:13 > 0:03:17But then, I think, having given them time to watch the series
0:03:17 > 0:03:19and see what we've done with it,
0:03:19 > 0:03:21I think they actually quite like it now,
0:03:21 > 0:03:24and they've accepted that it's not trying to be historically accurate.
0:03:24 > 0:03:27And after all, it is just a story.
0:03:27 > 0:03:33It's a tale about magic and all that kind of stuff, and sorcery and dragons.
0:03:33 > 0:03:36And so, in a way, I think there is scope to change it up a bit
0:03:36 > 0:03:40and make it more a bit more kind of appeal to a modern audience.
0:03:45 > 0:03:48A lot's changed. Obviously I'm Queen now, which is quite exciting!
0:03:48 > 0:03:51And, yes, some really exciting stories.
0:03:51 > 0:03:56# No-one's going to take me alive... #
0:04:26 > 0:04:29I'll have some fond memories of the show when we finish. And that's...
0:04:29 > 0:04:30I can be proud of them.
0:04:30 > 0:04:31Who?
0:04:33 > 0:04:34We need to rest.
0:04:34 > 0:04:38The challenge is to not let it go stale.
0:04:38 > 0:04:41I think as soon as it does that, you've got to stop.
0:04:48 > 0:04:52So that was history, if a rather whimsical version.
0:04:52 > 0:04:54And next it is double chemistry for you.
0:04:54 > 0:04:57As with many complex academic studies,
0:04:57 > 0:05:00Bluffer's Guides have been issued to help those struggling.
0:05:00 > 0:05:04And Top Gear team-mate James May is delivering the TV equivalent
0:05:04 > 0:05:08of the Bluffer's Guide with his Things You Need To Know series.
0:05:08 > 0:05:13But, sadly, the chemistry episode did not earn him a gold star.
0:05:13 > 0:05:15As a chemistry teacher, I was looking forward to
0:05:15 > 0:05:17James May's Things You Need To Know About Chemistry.
0:05:17 > 0:05:19I was extremely disappointed, however,
0:05:19 > 0:05:21to see a completely incorrect structure for ethanoic acid
0:05:21 > 0:05:23shown in a graphic more than once.
0:05:23 > 0:05:26Carbon should only have four bonds, whereas this clearly shows five.
0:05:26 > 0:05:28The correct structure should be this.
0:05:28 > 0:05:31Errors in chemical formulae were featured throughout the programme.
0:05:31 > 0:05:33In an animation of the periodic table,
0:05:33 > 0:05:36the terms mass number and atomic number were completely confused.
0:05:36 > 0:05:38These are not the same thing.
0:05:38 > 0:05:40Chemistry is an area students find very difficult.
0:05:40 > 0:05:42I feel this programme fed many misconceptions
0:05:42 > 0:05:44that exist in the subject.
0:05:44 > 0:05:46It was absolutely chock-full of errors.
0:05:46 > 0:05:49In the first two minutes I counted at least five,
0:05:49 > 0:05:52the worst of which was probably the structure of vinegar,
0:05:52 > 0:05:54or actually acetic acid, that was shown,
0:05:54 > 0:05:57which appeared to have a carbon with five bonds coming off it.
0:05:57 > 0:06:01Now, this may seem like nitpicking, but any A-level chemistry student
0:06:01 > 0:06:04should know that carbons always have four bonds.
0:06:04 > 0:06:06It's really a fundamental error.
0:06:06 > 0:06:09It's is rather like getting the date of the Battle of Hastings wrong
0:06:09 > 0:06:11in a history programme.
0:06:11 > 0:06:14It's just not acceptable. Really, this could have all been overcome
0:06:14 > 0:06:17if someone had just fact-checked the programme correctly.
0:06:17 > 0:06:21Mark and Kate, you have both got a future in film making
0:06:21 > 0:06:26if the chemistry career evaporates. But what of this carbon clanger?
0:06:26 > 0:06:29We had a consultant who was a chemistry professor,
0:06:29 > 0:06:31who was going over all of the scripts
0:06:31 > 0:06:35and also supplied those formulas and those visuals to the animators.
0:06:35 > 0:06:37But as you suggested, the animators themselves
0:06:37 > 0:06:40didn't quite concentrate as hard as they should have done
0:06:40 > 0:06:43on absolutely rendering accurately the images that they'd been given.
0:06:43 > 0:06:45And what we didn't do is we didn't get the consultant
0:06:45 > 0:06:49to double-check the pictures once the programme had been completed.
0:06:49 > 0:06:52A real mistake, and something we'll make sure doesn't happen again.
0:06:52 > 0:06:55But I should say that in that context, it's really important for us
0:06:55 > 0:06:59to be getting things right. But on the other hand, it might sound odd,
0:06:59 > 0:07:00but actually we're really grateful
0:07:00 > 0:07:03to all of the people who wrote in and pointed out the errors to us,
0:07:03 > 0:07:06because we're always wanting to get things right
0:07:06 > 0:07:08and we always welcome everything that the audience as to say.
0:07:08 > 0:07:10If they've got any comments or criticisms,
0:07:10 > 0:07:13they should really understand that we're listening and we'll do
0:07:13 > 0:07:15whatever we can to correct anything that comes up.
0:07:15 > 0:07:17So don't use James May's carbon emissions
0:07:17 > 0:07:20to bluff your way in chemistry - they might blow up in your face.
0:07:20 > 0:07:22Oh, and regarding fact-checking,
0:07:22 > 0:07:26the shop floor costume drama The Paradise
0:07:26 > 0:07:29has given one of our viewers a very un-heavenly feeling.
0:07:29 > 0:07:31Watch closely here
0:07:31 > 0:07:34and see if you can guess what the complaint is about.
0:07:38 > 0:07:41Oh, so many temptations. I can't make up my mind.
0:07:41 > 0:07:44Miss Audrey, where's the girl who helped me last time I was here?
0:07:44 > 0:07:47Ah, Denise. Denise, make yourself visible.
0:07:47 > 0:07:52- You MUST have her, Jocelyn. She is quite something. - How may I help you, ladies?
0:07:52 > 0:07:54I feel I could purchase everything I lay my eyes on.
0:07:54 > 0:07:57Isn't it wonderful?
0:08:16 > 0:08:18That's a very good spot, Dee,
0:08:18 > 0:08:20but perhaps it's a more understandable oversight
0:08:20 > 0:08:22than the chemistry clanger.
0:08:22 > 0:08:25Unless, of course, you are a professional archivist
0:08:25 > 0:08:29or genealogist, like the experts on Who Do You Think You Are?
0:08:29 > 0:08:33They stand accused of working part-time this series
0:08:33 > 0:08:35and only researching back for one generation.
0:08:57 > 0:09:01So have the Who Do team thrown away their really big long shovels
0:09:01 > 0:09:05and swapped them with tiny trowels? Are they not digging deep enough?
0:09:07 > 0:09:08It's unfortunate that both stories
0:09:08 > 0:09:10that featured World War II
0:09:10 > 0:09:13were transmitted fairly close together in this series,
0:09:13 > 0:09:16but what you'll find is for the rest of the run,
0:09:16 > 0:09:20we've got stories that go back three or four, five generations into the 19th century
0:09:20 > 0:09:24and, in fact, one story set virtually in the 17th century.
0:09:24 > 0:09:28What we try and do is pick the most compelling and interesting stories to tell
0:09:28 > 0:09:29from that person's family tree.
0:09:29 > 0:09:33So Who Do You Think You Are will be investigating family trees
0:09:33 > 0:09:35beyond the World Wars in future, then.
0:09:35 > 0:09:38But it seems much of the rest of the BBC is still caught up
0:09:38 > 0:09:41in something of a wartime obsession.
0:10:04 > 0:10:05That was a comprehensive list, Jack,
0:10:05 > 0:10:08but you've actually missed out BBC Four's offerings -
0:10:08 > 0:10:11The Nazis: A Warning From History and Surviving Hitler.
0:10:11 > 0:10:13Still, I take your point.
0:10:13 > 0:10:18Some subjects are revisited time and again by programme makers.
0:10:18 > 0:10:20Not only that, viewers often tell us
0:10:20 > 0:10:24they see the same faces presenting those programs time and again
0:10:24 > 0:10:26and maybe there could be some fresh thinking there?
0:10:26 > 0:10:30I was out with my friend and we were thinking about presenting,
0:10:30 > 0:10:32both radio and TV,
0:10:32 > 0:10:35and we were asking why we don't see new people on
0:10:35 > 0:10:38and we wondered whether that was pay or whether it was experience,
0:10:38 > 0:10:40or whether the audience didn't know them,
0:10:40 > 0:10:44and we wanted to find out if there was something that could be done about that.
0:10:44 > 0:10:50Our strategy in Knowledge is to maintain a really vibrant mix
0:10:50 > 0:10:54of established and new talent all the time.
0:10:54 > 0:10:57What we try and do is deliver to audiences
0:10:57 > 0:11:01people that they love and know and respect and have cherished,
0:11:01 > 0:11:06but also introduce new takes, new insights,
0:11:06 > 0:11:08new knowledge, I suppose.
0:11:08 > 0:11:11There was a recent BBC Four programme over the summer
0:11:11 > 0:11:14and it included a man called Dr James Fox,
0:11:14 > 0:11:18who gave a presentation about blue, white and gold in terms of art
0:11:18 > 0:11:20and he was really enthusiastic,
0:11:20 > 0:11:24clearly very knowledgeable, and it was a great programme.
0:11:24 > 0:11:29The unique thing about blue is that it is all around us
0:11:29 > 0:11:33and yet somehow it feels for ever out of reach.
0:11:33 > 0:11:38He first came to our notice through his students, actually.
0:11:38 > 0:11:42He's a Cambridge art historian and his students wrote in and said
0:11:42 > 0:11:44what a fabulous TV presenter they thought he would be.
0:11:44 > 0:11:48So you can really understand why people loved this substance so much.
0:11:48 > 0:11:53I do recognise that not every expert is particularly good in front of the camera.
0:11:53 > 0:11:56Licence fee payers' money should be used on bringing on new talent,
0:11:56 > 0:11:59it shouldn't be about exorbitantly paying people
0:11:59 > 0:12:02who think they're famous enough to charge for it or demand it.
0:12:02 > 0:12:05It's really easy for budding presenters to send us
0:12:05 > 0:12:09a bit of tape or go on to the commissioning website
0:12:09 > 0:12:12and send us a link with something they've shot themselves.
0:12:12 > 0:12:17It's quite a big ask, being good at being both passionate
0:12:17 > 0:12:22and having something genuinely new and different to say,
0:12:22 > 0:12:26and so I think combining that approach, which we're very open to,
0:12:26 > 0:12:32with some of the more expert views held here in Knowledge Commissioning
0:12:32 > 0:12:34about what works in terms of television presenting,
0:12:34 > 0:12:38I think that probably provides quite a good balance for the audience.
0:12:38 > 0:12:42And active hunt for new presenters in some programme areas, then.
0:12:42 > 0:12:43Get your show reels in!
0:12:43 > 0:12:47But if you'd rather it was just your comments that appear on the air, write to us.
0:12:51 > 0:12:55You're also more than welcome to email. Here's the address for that.
0:12:57 > 0:13:02Or you can jump on the message board, which is at...
0:13:02 > 0:13:03And you could phone us too.
0:13:03 > 0:13:06The number is charged as a local rate call from a landline.
0:13:10 > 0:13:14Now, many of you wrote some weeks ago at the news of the death
0:13:14 > 0:13:17of the antiques expert David Barby from Bargain Hunt,
0:13:17 > 0:13:21complaining that the BBC hadn't really aired any form of tribute programme
0:13:21 > 0:13:26and contacted us again this week when your calls were heard
0:13:26 > 0:13:30and a touching celebration of his work was broadcast.
0:13:39 > 0:13:45David Barby, no longer with us but still loved. Goodbye.
0:13:45 > 0:13:48Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd