Melvyn Bragg Steps Down From BBC Radio 4's In Our Time After 26 Years 40
After 26 years and over 1,000 episodes, Melvyn Bragg is stepping down as presenter of BBC Radio 4's In Our Time, leaving behind a legacy of intellectual curiosity and broadcasting excellence. While he will no longer host the series, he will remain involved with the BBC and is set to launch a new project in 2026. The BBC reports: Over the last quarter of a century, Melvyn has skilfully led conversations about everything from the age of the Universe to 'Zenobia', Queen of the Palmyrene Empire. He has welcomed the company of the brightest and best academics in their fields, sharing their passion and knowledge with a fascinated audience right around the globe. While he will be much missed on In Our Time, Melvyn will continue to be a friend of Radio 4 with more to come to celebrate his extraordinary career, and a new series in 2026 (details to be announced soon).
Melvyn Bragg says: "For a program with a wholly misleading title which started from scratch with a six-month contract, it's been quite a ride! I have worked with many extremely talented and helpful people inside the BBC as well as some of the greatest academics around the world. It's been a great privilege and pleasure. I much look forward to continuing to work for the BBC on Radio 4. Thank you for listening." [...] In Our Time will be back on Radio 4 with a new presenter who will be announced in due course.
Melvyn Bragg says: "For a program with a wholly misleading title which started from scratch with a six-month contract, it's been quite a ride! I have worked with many extremely talented and helpful people inside the BBC as well as some of the greatest academics around the world. It's been a great privilege and pleasure. I much look forward to continuing to work for the BBC on Radio 4. Thank you for listening." [...] In Our Time will be back on Radio 4 with a new presenter who will be announced in due course.
Pulled against the countervailing tides (Score:5, Insightful)
This program always assumed its audience was clever, capable and curious. It provided a way in to difficult topics without making concessions. You grew by listening to it, rather than shrinking. As such, it was a powerful antidote to the glorification of stupidity that has become so prevalent in so many places.
How do you value that shows like this are free? (Score:5, Insightful)
We underestimate the real prosperity of the world today because we don't value things like this. Impossible 40 years ago, access to this is now part of our life. Yet it is not captured in measures of social well being. For those of us to whom such things are attractive - and there are many equally valuable other things on the net - we live in a golden era. Yes, and in this case, ad free as well, thanks to the generosity of the British TV licence fee payer!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it is fair to call it "generous" when payment is required, rather than voluntary.
The BBC is funded primarily through the license fee [bbc.com].
That's GBP13.35 / month (per household), of which GBP2.09 is for radio (paying for In Our Time).
It's not voluntary, but there is a lot (including In Our Time) that the BBC offers to the rest of the world - perhaps you could say thanks to the "generosity" of UK households.
The programmes have always been of high quality, and historically have often been a vital lifeline to parts of the world facing strife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How do you value that shows like this are free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is fair to call it "generous" when payment is required, rather than voluntary.
The BBC is funded primarily through the license fee [bbc.com].
That's GBP13.35 / month (per household), of which GBP2.09 is for radio (paying for In Our Time).
It's not voluntary, but there is a lot (including In Our Time) that the BBC offers to the rest of the world - perhaps you could say thanks to the "generosity" of UK households.
The programmes have always been of high quality, and historically have often been a vital lifeline to parts of the world facing strife.
The BBC license fee is voluntary, plenty of people get away with not paying for it. Most people pay willingly because as you've pointed out the BBC provides great value for a mere £174.50 for the whole household and I include myself in that.
The BBC produces programmes that would never be made on commercial TV because they're not instantly profitable. The likes of QI or Only Connect would never have gotten off the ground if it weren't for the BBC willing to have a punt on them, as they're far too in
Re: How do you value that shows like this are free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for Top Gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Not required
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/... [tvlicensing.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Payment is only required if you want to watch or record the BBC’s live video. I’ve always considered arguments against this as bad faith bollix, since the people making them routinely pay for other services they receive.
Re: How do you value that shows like this are free (Score:3)
Payment is only required if you want to watch or record the BBCâ(TM)s live video.
Not exactly. You need a licence if you watch television "as it is broadcast" or if you watch the BBCs streaming service "iPlayer". That means if you only watch cable or satellite TV you still need to pay even if you don't watch BBC content. It also means you need a licence if you watch live events on the likes of Netflix. In typical British fashion the licensing rules started out as an adequate system, have been tinkered with over the years as the TV landscape has changed over decades, and now could use som
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I mischaracterised the position. As you say, the key thing people claim to get their knickers in a twist about is having to pay for the Beeb when they don’t watch the Beeb, if they want to watch other channels etc. I think they’re numpties, personally
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? We live in a post-industrial wasteland, and need constant distraction to keep people from noticing.
Bread and circuses (Score:2)
That was the approach of the Roman Empire. Nothing new...
Top Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
This was *the* top quality podcast for many years.
Calm, intelligent explanation of a topic (history, literature, science, ...). Genuine experts invited to go through it with Bragg.
If anyone hasn't heard it before, I thoroughly recommend it. There's a massive podcast archive [bbc.co.uk] of past episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you!
200 Internet points!
Re: (Score:3)
Try the episodes with Simon Schaffer on the history of science. I was taught by him at Cambridge and he was fantastic. And has one of the best voices ever.
Re: (Score:2)
And occasionally disagree with each other. Politely, and with vituperation expressed using long words (TM) to express depths of mutual contempt which short words just cannot plumb.
It's almost as much fun as being invisible at an academic conference.
Not AI Slop (Score:5, Informative)
Elsewhere on Slashdot, there is a thread about "boring history" that is generated by AI.
In Our Time is presented by real people, all of whom are experts in their field. And it is definitely not boring.
He's known about (Score:2)
by the people that matter...
If you're going to be snarki, then so shall I! :)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's Snooki.
Re: (Score:2)
Billy Bragg is a British artist
Ne’er is a British abbreviation
You are not doing a great job of demonstrating your lack of interest in the UK
Guests (Score:3)
Anachronism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Anachronism (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking to Americans (mostly) here, who might struggle with such a challenging attention span.
How about recommending "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue", with complex rule games like "One Song To the Tune of Another", or games with unbelievably simple rule sets such as "Mornington Crescent".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do they thing Stradivarius did after his apprenticeship on violins?
Quirks and Quarks (Score:2)
Is this the British equivalent of the CBC's Quirks and Quarks? Bob McDonald has been hosting that for 33 years after being the host of the TV science show Wonderstruck for 6 years.
Re: Quirks and Quarks (Score:3)
I guess... (Score:2)
Now was the time
The nations least trusted broadcaster/propagandist (Score:2, Troll)
Dont fund lies
Dont fund propaganda
Drop the dead aunty