Show 3 Evaluation

This week I have been the researcher, so I didn't have a whole lot to do in the studio, but in the end, Keerah controlled the mixing desk and I controlled the laptop.

We where going for a Student Radio station, and from my listening I know that that left us a lot of room, and also the possibility of making a few mistakes (I've not found one Student show without one). It was a good genre to have for our Live Show, our target audience were sitting out side the studio, and there wasn't as much pressure to be perfect as there would have been if we'd had 40 + or Music.

We all worked very well together. There were times where the atmosphere got a bit fraught (These times were usually after a mistake!) but we didn't argue, or fight.
What I though was particularly impressive, was when one of our group forgot to say their line, another member carried on pretty seamlessly, showing real intuitiveness and quick-thinking.

Most student radio shows are available to listen to online, and so as well as the interview with our Student Governor, Carlos Pestana, there was also an interview with Scroobius Pip who is more well-known. We thought that it was important to both have features that personalised the show to Abingdon and Witney College, as well as making it listenable for people online.

Our speech to music ration was about 35:65, but the speech included interviews and vox-pops I think that there was a good mixture, and the audience didn't have to listen to 1 voice for too long. This was also helped by having 3 presenters.


I think it worked really well actually. There were a few mistakes here and there, but as I have learnt from listening to student radio station, there is barely a show without them. I think our show could easily have been on a student station; we chose contemporary music, the presenting style was vibrant and youthful and we had appropriate featues.


We got good feedback, the negative points were that we needed to not panic so much, which I agree with. People also pointed out the mistakes, but as I have said, very few shows are without them.

With regard to my imput,I was more backstage this week. During the weeks leading up to our live show, I wrote the script and t and compiled the running order, and I edited the interview I did with Scroobius Pip. I also co-ordinated the interview with Carlos Pestana, and wrote the questions.

Since my Scroobius Pip interview was done in a very echoey room backstage and I couldn't make it sound any better on Auditions, I made sure that I wrote in the 'Sorry it was in the most echoey room in the world' to make a joke out of it.

I was surprised with the positive feedback I got for my Scroobius Pip package, but people said that 'It sounded like I was actually there, talking to him' (Which I was!), and 'That it sounded really professional'. Personally I thought It sounded messy, but then I suppose that it dad have the ambiance of a backstage room, and so it sounded 'Real'.

Overall, I think our show was excellent. For content it was the best of the three, as it had such a variety and we had worked hard during the week at putting them together and making them sound professional as possible.

However, lack of professionality was also an asset. If we had been aiming for either of the other genres this week I don't think we'd have done very well. There were lots of mistakes, you couldn't hear some of my package and songs were a bit late cuing. And because of this, when i heard it back, I was AMAZED we got a distinction.

But then when I thought back to my listening of student radio shows, and how much dead air there was, and how little thought they put into the jingles I realised why. We tried so hard, and you can hear that. There was a lot of content, the music we chose was contemporary, and therefore suitable to our audience. Our presenting was bubbly, and very student-centric. Our features were suitable to students.

So actually we produced an excellent student show, and although I may have been unlucky with the existing shows I chose to listen too, our student show was better than any I've heard. And I have learnt how important it is to know the style of the show you are doing innately before you even start planning it, so you always know you are on the right lines.

Student Radio -Ramair

I haven't actually listened to any student radio yet, so that needs rectifying.
I'm listening to Ramair, which is the student station forBradford. At the time of writing there is a show called non-stop hits, so there isn't any presenting to comment on but I can talk about the music and jingles.
The tracks are quite varied, a while ago they were playing 'We're in the House' which is dance, and now they are playing opera, which seems quite random. However the tagline for the show is; No yak, just great tunes for all tastes, so it definately does 'What is says on the tin'.
They don't fade songs into each other, which I think makes it sound less professional. What generally happens is :

Track Fades > Sting> Next Track.

On the non-stop hits show, this may be because there are no students around at these times to man the station and it's on some automated system. It just doesn't sound slick though, because quite often you hear a few seconds of dead air which is a big no-no. That is really what diffrentiates Student radio from Professional radio, because the students are still just learning how to work eveything.

The radio station is suitable for students, because there is a variety of music, however apart from the opera (which the more I listen; the more I think might be a mistake) it is all quite young.

Another anomally in the station is the news. I should imagine they shared the feed with their local station, as it is vastly unsuitable for students - it is slowpaced, and has nothing in it to do with students. And again it was suceeded by dead air (silence).

Stephen Nolan- Panic Attack

Stephan Nolan is an overweight, Northern Irish presenter, who hosts daytime BBC game show Panic Attack.

He has a very broad, friendly Northern Irish accent, and I think because of this, when he is talking to the contestants he comes across as being interested and personable. However he also has the variety in tone that game show presenters need; to be able to go from happy and joking when they are asking the contestants about themselves, to going more serious and tense as the game progresses.

He doesn't use a lot of catchphrases- he calls the seat where the player sits 'The Seat of Power', and he periodically reminds contestants ' Don't Panic' as if to remind the audience why the game is called Panic Attack. Nolan also says 'Alrighty Then', a lot which is a transitional phrase; a eay to keep the game moving.

He does a lot of gesturing but only with one hand, as he needs the other hand to hold his card. As a result of this limited movements sometimes he look like he is pointing, which can get a bit irritating.

At particualarly important parts of the game he moves back and forth between legs a lot, like he needs the toilet. This gives the impression that he is excited, and really cares about what is going to happen, even when he might actually not. He is quickens his pace, another way of expressing excitement.

He wears a suit, with quite an eccentric shirts, with the button open and no tie. I think this is mainly to do with the time-slot; 1pm on a weekday afternoon doesn't usually call for black tie, and most of the target audience are probably students, who don't really care how smartly he is dressed. However he is made an effort, which is important, and he is smartly dressed enough that you can distinguish him from the contestant.

In essence, Stephen Nolan is good at presenting because he has an excited tone, he has a fast enough pace to keep you interested, and he acts as though his show is the best show in the world. All presenters, need to be able to convince the audience that their show is the best, and have that infectious enthusiasm, because their ultimate aim is that you don't turn over.

He also has to relate to the studio audience, and use leading questions like 'Don't we want ... to do well?'... to get them to respond. When an audience are just sitting watching someone for hours, unless they are entertained, they will get bored and restless, and so it is the presenters job to entertain them.

I think that Stephen Nolan is a good presenter, because he draws the audience in. I like him because he sounds interested in the contestants, and makes what is a pretty boring format very watchable with his hand gestures, and entertaing facial expressions.

However he can be very irritating, because he has the sort of relentless cheeriness that grates after a while and his sense of humour is rather butlins-esque (cheesy and verging on embarrasing). I think he will be stuck in an average game show rut, because he is too jovial for serious programmes like the News , Crime Watch and documentaries but he is not funny enough for more humourous shows like Have I Got News For You, or Never Mind The Buzzcocks.

Basically he is funny and entertaing enough for the slot at 1pm, where the audience of students and housewives just want something to watch in the background. However he is't quick witted enough for more primetime programmes.

Louis Theroux

Louis Theroux presents his documentaries with a captivating mixture of wide-eyed innocence and canny interviewing, and it makes them compelling viewing.

Louis uses his fish-out-of-water factor to draw the audience into alien worlds. His naivete makes his documentary subjects relax a little, and makes it a more interesting interview than if he just went in confrontationally, which makes people put their guard up.

He is a very tall man, which makes him stand out, but almost to make up for this he wears very ordinary clothes. What he wears depends on what kind of climate he is in but mainly it is just a T-shirt or Jumper, over jeans or lightweight trousers. This helps the audience relate to him; Louis is the audiences guide too this new world and by wearing the same kind of clothes an ordinary man would way, he helps you to feel you are there.

He speaks quite softly in an almost childlike manner, which again I think is to illicit a different kind of reaction from his subjects. And whoever he's talking to, he treats them the same, and interviews them the same- whether they are a prostitute or a neo-Nazi. He is very rarely confrontational; he asks just the right questions to let the person he speaks to undermine themselves.

His latest documentary, The City Addicted To Crystal Meth, was the fourth most popular programme on BBC 2 that week, earning an audience of 2.69 million. This shows how popular he is, mainly because of the reasons I have mentioned, but also as his documentaries aren't on every week, so when they are on people make more of an effort to watch them.

I think he is a fantastic presenter, he is very intelligent and non-confrontational. He uses a wide range of vocabulary to help give the audience the background information on his subject, and never patronises the audience. He talks across to them rather than down. He makes subjects like black nationalism fascinating by choosing different people to talk to, and asking fascinating questions.
The only thing I don't like about him is sometimes he ignores entire angles. For example in his episode about Thai Brides, he ignored what I thought was the main point - Why do Thai Women not think very much of Thai Men. When he misses out what seems like obvious angles it is a bit frustrating.
I think he is a very versatile presenter, as he is intelligents, but also has a lot of wit, and so he could easily fit on a range of shows.

Adrian Chiles

In the last few years Adrian Chiles has been all over the TV, presenting everything from The Apprentice: Your Fired, Match of the Day 2 and The One Show.

The reason for his popularity in my opinion his simple. He is very ordinary. And I mean that as a highest compliment. He has bucketloads of charm, and is very, very funny but in essence is a very ordinary man.

The One Show is on every weekday at 7'oclock and you don't want somone in a top hat and tails when you are relaxing after work. He wears clothes to relate to the target audience, which of the one show is very wide and not particularly upmarket. Sometimes he wears a jumper over a shirt, other times he wears a jacket over a shirt; but always the top button is undone and he doesn't wear a tie.

He speaks with a Birmingham accent which again helps reinforce his ordinaryness, Birmingham historically being a rather working-class place, he is very symbollic of the new stage of BBC TV Presenters, who no longer need to speak the Queen's English or dress really smartly.

Chiles doesn't gesture a whole lot; he tends to 'steeple his hands, and mirror his co-presenter, Christine Bleakley. This is because he doesn't really need to get excited about a whole lot on the show, and so there isn't a lot of course for wild gesturing.

However sometimes, when a topic grabs his fancy, he does become more illuminated and he doesn't gesture more. When he is more excited his pace quickens and his tone gets a little bit higher. It's also particularly amusing as he is famous for his rather curmudgeonly style, so when he gets excited about something seemingly as random as gymnastics, it makes everybody laugh.

The audience for The One Show is vast, but mainly 40+, people who have just got back from work. Adrian can relate to the workers because he projects the feeling he is one, and that makes him likeable. He also has quite a calm tone, which as one viewer on the TV Club Channel 4 website 'Is the perfect way to wind down after work'.

The One Show hovers around 14 -17 on the Barb top 30. The ratings very as to who the special guest is. I think the reason the ratings are quite high is because it's a very watchable programme, presented by Adrian and Christian a little tongue in cheek. This is because it's a running joke how random the One Show is - one minute they are talking about birds, and the next it's inflation! Adrian in particular realises this, and so he presents jokily, although the show is not a joke.

I really enjoy Adrian Chiles's presenting. Some people find him dry, and boring, but I think he just has a more subtle humour. As he is on air everyday, the viewer forms a relationship with him, and gets to know his humour, which is again why the ratings are so high - the established loyal viewers will watch every day, giving them a base.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with him. I enjoy his style, I like his accent, he makes me laugh; everything you want in a presenter. However I do understand why people don't like him, as his voice is sometimes monotonous and he isn't as cheerful as most presenters, but that's just his style. It's interesting, at the moment there is a lot of talk about Chris Evans taking over his job, and I think that would be awful. The reason the one show works is because Christine is the cheerful one and Adrian is more grumpy, so they complement each other like Yin and Yang. Chris Evans, who has a cheerful tone and general demeanor would make The One Show insufferably cheery and at tea time that's not what you want.

Show 2

In detail write about the activities you have done so far and how you thought they went?

On Thursday we came in early to do a script (After last time, we knew needed one) and a running order. We had made some brief notes the day before about how we oculd improve the show, so we included a competition and several phone-ins, we also need to trail the things we have coming up.
On Monday Nathan, Marta and I came in early to record Nathan and My vocals. We went so much quicker because of the script, and ithink meand Nathan make a good presenting team (although i'm not looking forward to hearing it back). When we had finsihed that we found some really good bed music

• How well did your group perform today?

We've learnt now that Keerah just doesn't come in early, which is fair enough, so we've worked around that by not making her presenter this week so we can record the presenting when we want. Our group works really well together, we don't argue and we work to each of our stengths.

• What tasks did you finish?
We've finshed all the pre-show prep and recording our link.

• What tasks have you still got to complete?

The phone-ins and the competition.

• How well did you perform individually?

My presenting sounds a little exciteable and it's going to be very cringe-worthy listening back to it. I think I heard last week the some people had a problem with sound disinterested, but I went too far the other way!

• What reading or research have you done for your radio show?

I've been listening to radio 1 more htan usual this week as this is where we see our show going.

• How is your radio show going?

It's going to be a bit tense tomorrow geting the finishing touches done but hopefully we are on track,

• What improvements are needed?

Finshing touches, changing the voulumes on certain things.

• What have you learnt from today’s experience?

To ask for more time if the show will benefit, to calm downa bit before presenting, and - it's just occurred to me- we'll have to find bed music before we do the live show.

TV Presenters: Top Gear

I LOVE Top Gear. And as much as I like to delude myself it's because I have an appreciation of good cars and have the foggiest clue what 1000 horsepower and V8 means, that isn't why. I'm not the only one who doesn't have much of a clue about cars, so to avoid having a really niche audience Top Gear relies on it's presenters:
Jeremy Clarkson: Very much the Chris Moyles of the Television. He is brash, opinionated and totally unapologetic, and TG viewers (again I hate to generalise but mainly men) love him for it. He typically wears a suit jacket over jeans; showing a kind of rebellion against the typical smart BBC TV presenter, as well his man of the people persona.
He is the Alpha-male of the group, and his voice reflects that. He is well-spoken, but not in a posh way, his voice booms and his main 'catchphrase is 'power', which totally reflects his personality. Sometimes he sounds very nasal, like he has a cold, but he works that into his speech making it sound intentional. His speaking styles is often parodied- brilliantly by Michael Mcintrye in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaExvMy8n9c . One of the more noticeable aspects of his speaking is wear his voice deepens in the last two words of a sentence, which is often used to introduce a VT.
When he is describing cars he uses a lot of similes and metaphors= "I'm now doing 100 miles an hour and it sounds like I'm in church!","Those LED fairy lights make it look like a council house at Christmas", "Driving most Supercars, is like trying to manhandle a cow up a back staircase". This type of illustrative language really helps to convey to the viewer the experience of driving cars most people will never get to drive. From the above metaphors you can tell that that car is quiet, and handles well but has rubbish lights, but in language that is much more interesting.
Another feature of Jeremy Clarkson' presenting is hand gestures. I never really noticed it before, but when I set out to look for it he does it all the time, even when he is driving which can not be entirely safe!

Richard Hammond:Is more laid back. He generally wears a leather jacket over jeans, to look fashionable .
He has a softer voice, and a slightly softer personality, which is a lot to do with him being smaller than his co-presenters, and getting taken the mick out of because of it. 'Hamster' (A play on his last name and his height) is very much the beta-male to Jeremy's alpha, you can imagine if they all went out together he would be the one quietly apologising for something offensive Jeremy might have said.
The producers at Top Gear use his charm and vulnerability in lots of dangerous situation, because as a viewer you are instinctively more worried for his safety,even more so post-crash.

James May: Is a big ol' geek. He has hair like a mad scientist and he often wears more eccentric shirts over jeans. He always does the scientific parts in the challenges. His catchphrase is 'Oh Cock'.
He is the one most picked on by the others, and as a result his postures his slightly hunched; almost apologetic. He speaks in quite a slow paced fashion, that suits his more modest presenting style.

Top Gear does sensationally well on the ratings, new series are almost always the most viewed show on the BBC, and the many repeats during the week are always in the top 30 most viewed. This, in my opinion, is because of the chemistry between the presenters. They work so well together, and they are all very funny. Jeremy is cocky, but entertainingly so, James is boffin like but has a great sense of humour and Richard is very personable. The three presenters interacting is what I like the best, I like when they joke with each other.

There are two things that I don't like about Top Gear. Ever since I've found out that it's scripted it's ruined the illusion of spontaneity which is one of the things that make it so funny.

Also, sometimes I think they go overboard with their bullying of James May, and it makes for slightly awkward viewing. However, the target audience is mainly 40 + men, and they interact with each other differntly to how I interact with my friends. This brings me on to my last point.

Top Gear is essentially a programme aimed at 40 + men. It's three middle age men talking about cars = 40 + men. However, they have transcended the target audience to become one of the most popular shows on TV because of the presenting. They are all very strong on their own; which is why they all have solo projects. However the magical combination of all of them is intoxicating to watch. They are just bounce off one another so well that they could be talking about different types of worm, whatever programme they present they would be able to make people watch and be entertained. And that, my friend, is presenting.