Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uv2vqb$4bh3$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:39 on Tue, 9 Apr
> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 09/04/2024 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uv1he3$3mkvn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:03 on Mon, 8 Apr
>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uv0d0a$3dkpe$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:22:18 on Mon, 8 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <uuipfv$3o4nl$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:29:35 on Wed, 3 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/04/2024 03:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <uuh4r9$38bgu$7@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:05 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 2 Apr
>>>>>>>>>>> 2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/04/2024 18:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So without access to that, you are speculating about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The woman doing the Baltimore reports for the first couple
>>>>>>>>>>>> was  definitely an American.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  I don't think that was ever in dispute. What we were
>>>>>>>>>>> discussing as whether she was being paid by the BBC as a
>>>>>>>>>>> secondment from some un-named affiliate, with some
>>>>>>>>>>> undisclosed agreement with the BBC to provide reciprocal reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should the details be disclosed to the likes of you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should it not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does it make any difference to the reporting?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also the BBC's American affiliate is well known.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And who is that? The same organisation in Baltimore and across
>>>>>>>>> the nation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strangely enough the Excited States does have national broadcasters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the affiliate network does get mentioned on the BBC from time
>>>>>>> to time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same one all the time (if so, you must know what it is) or a
>>>>>> different one depending on the location).
>>>>>
>>>>> It would take you less time to find the answer for yourself than to keep
>>>>> demanding answers here. It took me about 10 seconds. It's been the same
>>>>> affiliate for almost seven years.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it might be more complicated than that.  The one that
>>>> I’ve found named in a 2017 press release isn’t the one that
>>>> I’ve most recently heard mentioned.  There are online references
>>>> mentioning other partners too.  It may be there are multiple
>>>> affiliates and/or partners for different contexts.
>
>>> That would be my guess too. The way broadcasting works in the USA is
>>> that while there are *some* national networks like CNN, the majority
>>> of reporting is done by diverse stations local to each metropolitan
>>> area.
>
>>> It's just too big a country for someone like CNN to have staff
>>> reporters in 200 metro areas in 50 states.
>>
>> That's because CNN has always done things on the cheap.
>
> It's nothing to do with that. Such considerations are the graveyard for
> numerous UK companies wanting to set up distribution in the USA. In
> England you can get away with opening say a dozen shops in the biggest
> retail-destination cities, but in the USA that might just do one big
> metropolitan area. So you need a rather different business model.
>
> The same was true of early wireless telecoms, where you could set up a
> network somewhere like Dallas (population ~7million) and make a decent
> living. You didn't need to make it compatible with a network in Los
> Angeles, because very few people in Dallas would ever visit Los Angeles,
> nor expect their radio modem to work there.
>
> Compare and contrast with such a network in the UK, where if one
> installed in London didn't work in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester (or
> vice versa), people would regard you as insane.
>
> I lived in Atlanta (population ~6m) for a short time, and my next door
> neighbour was the news anchor-man on the local TV station. And a former
> Miss-Georgia lived across the road. Her ambition was to become an
> actress!

So she asked the anchor-man to get her a job?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:45:33 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uv2vmv$4bh3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:53:51 on Tue, 9 Apr
>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 09/04/2024 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> To convey a story (or the weather forecast) to the viewers, requires
>>>> quite different [presentation] skills to those of journalists who
>>>> research and write the script (or study meteorology as a day-job).
>>>
>>> The on-screen weather forecasters for the BBC were
>>
>> Once upon a time (things have changed now)
>
>It occurred to me that there didn't seem to have been a wholesale
>replacement of BBC weather presenters when MeteoGroup took over the
>forecasting, and, sure enough, it seems the previous on-screen team stayed
>on. It looks like they were actually BBC employees, even if they were
>originally trained by the Met Office. Most do have an appropriate
>scientific education, but probably were never hard-core weather modellers.
>
>So I think we were probably wrong to think of them as professional weather
>forecasters provided by the Met Office; they were always weather
>presenters, chosen for their presentation skills, trained by the Met
>Office, but employed by the BBC. Some did have a background as professional
>Met Office weather forecasters, but it looks like most did not.

Suzanne Charlton was at one time a Senior Forecaster at the Met.
Office. Her Wiki article says she joined the BBC weather team at a
certain point but it's unclear who was then Herr employer. But there
was certainly a time when she was presenting while still at the Met
Office because I remember her title being given when she was
interviewed on meteorological matters on, for example, the Today
programme.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uv1mo4$3ntiv$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:14:44 on Mon, 8 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uv1g2v$3maq4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:21:03 on Mon, 8 Apr
>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <uv0d9n$3dmb6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:19 on Mon, 8 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <lvgi0jlveu6ck55oafq5q1724alk8gv93t@4ax.com>, at 12:09:16 on
>>>>>>>> Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I disagree with you about the skills required (which are
>>>>>>>>>> usually inate, and disjoint from training and qualifications)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you don't know that professional actors have three or more years
>>>>>>>>> of training?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.lamda.ac.uk/all-courses/acting-directing-courses/ba-hons-
>>>>>>>>> professional-acting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rada.ac.uk/courses/ba-hons-acting/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only in your world where "actor" is a protected word and only people who
>>>>>>>> have qualified at Rada can claim it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's not what I said, as this post proves. Lamda is not Rada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An actor is someone who has earned their living as an actor. In
>>>>>>> most cases they will have undertaken lengthy training courses,
>>>>>>> but it's not a requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIUC (or used to) a professional actor also needs to be a member of
>>>>>> Equity[1], as do backstage staff and opera singers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see to are following the goalposts into *professional* actor land. Oh
>>>>> dear.
>>>>
>>>> You think news presentation is AmDram?
>>>
>>> Was Michael Aspel a professional trained actor (his bio seems to suggest
>>> not). But he claimed to be "the first actor to read the BBC news" (as
>>> opposed to a journalist).
>>
>> And IIRC your contention is that current presenters are actors rather than
>> journalists. Concluding anything about the situation today from a single
>> example nearly 70 years ago seems tenuous.
>
> (I'd still like an answer to the question).

I fear that whatever the question is it’s been lost in the haze of
attributions and trimming above. Perhaps you could restate it?

>> [ big snip of discussion about plays, roles and abilities ]
>>
>> I’m not sure that adds anything to the discussion,
>
> Of course it does, it speaks directly to the demarcation between roles
> of actors, backstage staff, and actors playing backstage staff.

So all do you think any of the people you saw were employed as back stage
staff rather than as actors? From your description, which I have snipped,
you seem to believe that they were all actors, so a strict demarcation
between actors and whatever other staff were involved.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply