I've noticed that, since the proliferation of satellite stations cable, etc - not to mention exporting shows to the US/PBS stations - that the first 5 minutes of everything, be it docs or dramas or coms, contains an overexcited summary of what you're about to see, because, once they are sold to a commercial broadcaster, they don't want the viewer switching over once the first set of ads has concluded. There seems to be a trend now (especially on Sky/Virgin) where the preceding programme will have very few commercial messages betwixt it - and the prog that follows it - then an abundance of ads after that initial 5 minutes: "look what's coming folks - it's not boring - we're going to explosions and naked native dancers! Don't turn over!"

Of course, this has been happening in the US for years - the title sequence on sitcoms is always after a little 'fun prelude' to pull the viewers before the main action starts - "after these messages!"

Glad you gave me the chance to get that lot off me chest!

that most 1 hr shows like that could be condensed into 30 minutes, the rest is filler and repetition.

This catch-up/preview/repeat till brain-dead nonsense would drive me to distraction, were it not for the miracle of Sky+ (other PVRs are available, your mileage may vary). I routinely whizz through everything until the title credits start - often between 4 and 5 minutes into the programme - before I press play. Which means, as a by-product, that there is hardly a programe screened these days that I actually watch 'live', as it were.

And can I just take a moment to moan about on-screen trailers for the following programme which all but obscure the last seconds of the programme I haven't finished watching yet? Thanks. I feel better.

I do like these two "reality" programmes, but both are guilty of long intros re-capping the previous episode, they then repeat this trick following each ad-break (as if you can't remember what happened three minutes ago) and then they show you half of the next episode before the end credits..!

Documentaries are now also blighted by the journey metaphor. Every single one seems to insist on showing the presenter travelling to the next location by train, plane or car, wasting a good amount of the program on irrelevant travel shots with the presenter teasing you as to what he or she is going to reveal next. Just bloody get on with it!

Yes, we enjoy Masterchef, but does it have to be on four nights a week for eight weeks? That's like a whole year's worth of programmes in old money.

Just because it's popular doesn't mean we want it every day.

Also, not just anyone can be a chat show host. Just because they're popular doesn't mean they're a shoo-in for a talk show. They need to be interested in other people first and foremost and celebrities on the whole are either only interested in themselves or consider themselves to be on a level with those they're supposed to be interrogating, hence losing any sort of edge and making for boring, unrevelatory TV. See also: the comedy chat show. On the wane, thankfully.

The use of the phrase "This is the story of ...."

potential is made 50 minutes in length to allow for adverts outside the UK.

When shown on the BBC, they add a top and tail to pad it out to an hour; obviously this can't contain material of any significance so it's filled with an over-enthusastic presenter striding across the cliff-tops

trust the power of the spoken word any more; every moment of significance has to be "pre-teased", and rendered "realler" by flying graphics or clodhopping chunks of bangy techno when the payoff comes just in case we miss it.

It also annoys me that every talking head has to be pretty. I'm getting sick to death of pretty. I don't trust pretty. I often wonder if Robert Hughes, Jacob Bronowski, Kenneth Clark or John Berger would even get a look-in these days.

Watch 'Knowledge Or Certainty', an episode from "The Ascent Of Man", a series you mentioned. What you will see is an old man talk to camera for 60 minutes, occasionally using sequences where necessary to illustrate some fairly complex ideas. What you get is one of the most compelling arguments ever committed to film.

and I think most of the massive will agree, that those sorts of progs mentioned are more entertaining that they've ever been because the alternative is so ghastly. And i think it explains the success of Simon Schama. Can you imagine that pitch?

"What's it about Si?"

"I'm just gonna walk around a lot of old buildings and talk about the past."

"And..."

"oh, I'll get a few of my actor friends to read out old letters written by a former kings and queens..."

"Oh so it's a gay thing? Lots of buff men in chaps and bridles... I like it!"

"No... stately queens - you know like Elizabeth I..."

"Well, I can't see it working Si, but if we do pick-it-up - I must insist that you get your hair done wear a leather jacket!"

The BBC Natural History Unit, traditionally the epitome of excellence and reserve has, in recent years, taken to adding those ten minute "The Making of" bits on the end of its documentaries. Now, I've got nothing against those kind of things per se, but they belong on the DVD, and shouldn't be part of the main event. To me, they are self-promoting devices of the "Aren't we amazing filmamkers" variety. And while that may indeed be true, why not just let the programme speak for itself, and let the punters decide for themselves?

I blame it on Murdoch - not just the Digger - but his son and daughter and all those toadies & lackies that Roop uses as an alternative to toilet-paper! They're spoiling it for everyone!

Back your Beeb, ladles and jelly-spoons, it's the last bastion of true democracy in a world dominated by the Digger's greed!

Then again...

Shouty presenters used to be the preserve of 'yout, nee yoof' TV, now everybody shouts at you but particularly, and i apologise in advance ladies, female presenters. Even shows about property, food etc, invariably have at least one presenter talking way to loud. maybe its me getting old but it drives me crazy.

Also very annoying on TV is the need to illustrate a news or current affairs story with literal recreations or pointless OB's. One of the biggest offenders in this is BBC's breakfast show (and dont start me on Bill Turnbull, how do these people ge these jobs???). A good example was a recent report on the business section (ahem) about people purchasing items tyo go on holiday. Luckily for most of us that have no idea what a holiday entails they helpfully filled the studios with deckchairs, fake sand, beach balls (you get the picture) and the presenter gave us the shocking news that people were spending less on books/lotion etc. at the airport whilst sitting in a deckchair sipping a juice cocktail....well thanks for that, much clearer now!

they're all clamouring for your attention in a vastly overcrowded marketplace; even the news! (thank God for Charlie Brooker! I've a funny feeling all the presenting journos and editors watching that show are absolutely pooing their pants ievery Tuesday night).

And the fact that most of us (me especially) are spending more time doing this sort of thing means that they're losing the battle. THEY WANT YOU! HEY! OVER HERE! LOOK AT THE SILLY OPERA SINGER! LOOK! JOHN TRAVOLTA FLYING HIS PLANEIN HIATI! LOOK! LOOK! They shout to the disenfranchised viewer who's finally turned away, empowered to do something constructive away from the TV screen...

... so he's sitting at another TV screen talking about....TV...?

I wouldn't have Sky if it wasn't for Sky Arts and Homer Simpson.

The Digger should get down his knees every morning and give thanks to Matt Groening and Mariella Frostrup!

How often has the end of a show been ruined by the channel trailing the next programme at the side of the screen, thereby preventing anyone from reading the credits? The Comedy Channel went one better the other night - the last episode of the current 30 Rock series was ruined when an announcer spoke over the dialogue in the show! I wasn't able to hear what the actors were saying because some twerp was telling me the show would return 'in the autumn' or somesuch. Do they really have such comtempt for their viewers that they don't care what we think?

I have a BT Vision Box ( which requires BT Broadband... pretty good up here in Central Scotland)similar to SKY+ box ... it has a +30sec forward skip button and a -7sec back skip button I find 8 or 9 rapid presses bypasses all adverts almost exactly ,maybe a couple of the old -7s and Bobs your uncle ...no more car insurance adverts ever again

can't remember the last time I watched "live" TV.

What depresses me more is not necessarily the introduction device that you are talking about - it is a reliable feature in other forms (presentations, essays, text books etc) so allowable I s'pose. It is the fact that once these things are done (presumably proposed by a TV consultancy firm), then every bladdy programme of its kind feels they have to do it. This 'me-too' lack of imagination is the thing that p-s me off about TV these days.