Well, here's an #InOurTime episode which I *think* is not actually an April Fool but real knowledge carefully presented to make it *sound* like an April Fool. But I'm honestly not sure.
Listen to it before checking other sources and see what you think. Whatever, the people who made it had a lot of fun doing so.
In Our Time: Archaea
Starting from: 00:31:10
Episode webpage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002sg10
@simon_brooke
@Wen
Definitely entirely genuine. Nothing remotely controversial there.
Eukaryotes & bacteria made a great tradeoff in dealing with oxygen for widespread success. Everything else that had spent a billion years plus evolving into every other pathway and bioniche then tended to stay away from the nasty oxygen.
Biologists being oxygen breathers, it took a long time to even be aware of Archaea, until we were able to reproduce anoxic or boiling or acidic or water-free environments.
@BashStKid @Wen well, the conclusion I had reached was that it was all true (and that was before I checked Wikipedia and confirmed it). But I do believe that the experts were playing a deliberate game of saying things which sounded completely implausible!
It was certainly a fun listen.
@simon_brooke @Wen I’d put it a little differently, perhaps; I think those bits were where you can see their enthusiasm shining through, and those bits make very engaging and memorable story hooks; I dare say you’ll remember the bits about having to invent a hot microscope to not kill the thermophiles, or how important they are to efforts to minimise cow farts or maximise plant nitrogen fixing.
@BashStKid @simon_brooke Memorable bits of Science, even if fleeting, encourage people to find out more?
@Wen @simon_brooke At a minimum, teaching academics would like to think so …
To be more upbeat, In Our Time itself is proof that lots and lots of people are interested in engaging and unpatronising stories, be it science, history, or art?
(If media execs can be kept from destroying everything).
@BashStKid @Wen aye. It seems the BBC can't do any other science or history programme without finding a 'comedian' to present them and reduce everything to trivia.
@simon_brooke @BashStKid @Wen Hannah Fry's recent AI 3 parter was good
@falken @simon_brooke @BashStKid Yes, as always too much filling, but that seems to be the way of things
@Wen @simon_brooke @BashStKid yeah, agree. Horizon got to the point where it was fine to skip the first half!
Helps draw people in I suppose
@BashStKid @falken @Wen #InOurTime has always been like a really good masters level seminar group. It's not casual listening, certainly; but it has introduced me to so many areas of knowledge I should otherwise have missed.
Undoubtedly the crown jewel of Radio 4.
@falken @Wen @BashStKid does it? It quite clearly drives a lot of people away. Is there a net gain?
@simon_brooke @falken @BashStKid Who does it drive away?
@Wen @simon_brooke @falken @BashStKid the vacuous filling and endless recapping repetition means I’ve stopped watching telly documentaries, there’s much more in-depth content on YouTube/Nebula, such as the Smarter Every Day series on Nuclear Submarines or Kodak film production, various detailed previews of space missions, the intricacies of building HS2 tunnels at Euston, etc. All well researched, clearly explained, but covering a lot of technical details
@falken @Wen @simon_brooke Not to be ‘shakes fist at cloud’, but …
Old but successful programmes threw a ton of didactic info at you, with no repeats, and no reference available.
New programmes lead you by the hand, repeat endlessly, can be caught up on at convenience, and Google is only a click away.