Uninformative 'informative' programmes!


Well-Known Member
I watched the Impossible Engineering (which title seems oxymoronic to me) about HMS Queen Elizabeth last night (recorded off Yesterday but I think it's a couple of years old). QI but not very good.
However I then spent another hour on the web finding the answers to all the questions it raised in my mind but didn't answer - like how an F35B works and how big QE actually is compared to other carriers? (The latter is "fair to middling" if you're interested.)
That got me thinking about how often this happens. An hour of programme spends a lot of time hyping itself and the subject up - with repeats after every advert break - and then doesn't have time to really explain the subject in the depth it could. It'd be nice to think it was a deliberate ploy to encourage viewers to engage their brain and do some active researching ... but after their explanation of a gas turbine I'm pretty sure it was more that the production company had exceeded the limits of their own knowledge.

Anyone else spend hours trying to dig out the reality behind TV programmes?
The 'Horizon' programme has been guilty of similar things in the past, they either stretch a programme out to 60 minutes when they really only have one or two new facts to add to an old subject or they pose a question (usually in the title of the programme) and then spend 60 minutes not answering their own question. The Best example I can think of as far as the second type of programme goes, was one some years ago now simply called "What are Black Holes ?", where they danced around the subject for an hour and ended up with the same line i.e. "So, what ARE Black holes"
I think I've talked about this before: Here's what we're going to tell you and what the conclusion is, now let's go back to the beginning of the story - commercial - Here's what happened before the break, here's what is going to happen - commercial - The story so far... The end
Yes, both similar but not quite what I was aiming at.
The Horizon example is about something that isn't especially well understood (except maybe by Mr Hawkin), so some vagueness is likely.
The second one is what my OP was partially guilty of, but those ones do usually cover the ground - just there is a lot more programme than ground.
My complaint was more that the programme was about something that is well understood - it's a load of welded steel and standard machinery, not the LHC - and didn't seem to be excessively padded out, but at the same time it never quite got to grips with the 'Engineering' in the title - or the 'Impossible' for that matter. Hence my frustration.