Is it not time that all TV and radio weather forecasts were accompanied by background muzak and drumming?

 

So many TV programmes now include this superfluous noise, and it's creeping into radio programmes - a recent example being BBC Four's 'The Digital Human' where it sounded like radio interference from another channel. So why are weather forecasts exempt?

 

Any complaints about this irritating racket receive the standard response that it "enhances" viewers' and listeners' experience. It certainly doesn't do so for me.

Why do so many weather forecasters on TV and radio insist on telling us that rain will "move its way" in a particular direction? Why can it not simply move?

I have just watched a TV recording of a programme about the new steam locomotive Tornado trying to reach 100mph. Instead of hearing the wonderful sounds that the attempt must have created we were 'treated' to a crescendo of maddening muzak. Why do producers insist on wrecking otherwise entertaining programmes with this type of irritating and superfluous racket? Complaints usually receive a standard reply (if any) that it 'enhances' viewers' experience. Really?

Commentary during TV coverage of the World Athletics Championships has informed us that people are "watching on" while on radio they are probably "listening in". Why can't they simply watch and listen?

The recent furore over BBC salaries raises the question of why so many TV programmes need two presenters reading alternate sentences. The non-speaker usually doesn't know what to do except stare blankly into the camera or inspect their colleague's ear-wax.

 

Can someone, perhaps from the Met Office, please explain why so many weather forecasters insist on saying "as we head throughout the course of" rather than "during"?

Why do  so many campaigning politicians, notably John McDonnell, insist on opening their presentations with "What we are saying is......................" instead of simply saying it?