". . . I was asking for is that programmes like this one should be introduced less obtrusively and by someone rather more expert in whatever the subject matter happens to be."

The presenters are our proxies at the event. We see them there, watching or partaking and we imagine ourselves doing the same. It's an effective, tried and tested way of communicating information and storytelling. Your criticism could equally apply to David Attenborough picking up a pygmy chameleon in the rainforest, but we see his reverence and joy and he communicates some of that wonder and understanding to us, sat in our living room thousands of miles away. How far did Attenborough advance the cause of mountain gorillas by actually being there and interacting? Here's the rub - Attenborough isn't a primatologist; he's not even a got a postdoc but does that lessen his knowledge, understanding or ability to communicate? Of course not, but there are people "rather more expert" in terms of qualifications than he who can't hold a candle to the man when it comes to communicating (or even perhaps understanding in the wider context) the life and earth sciences.

The Unthanks are excellent artists and their love and delight in our seasonal customs was evident. They treated the traditions with respect and as locals to some of the events are certainly 'expert' enough to present on the subject.

P.S. With regards to the godawful (pun intended) Lumley Ark programme, no archaeologist would have touched that programme with a bargepole as it would be professional suicide, being based as it was on hearsay and local legend and eschewing science completely. A biblical scholar would have been more entertaining as they'd be in their element. As for Lumley, she didn't need to be an expert in anything, although she seemed worryingly gullible (perhaps she was being polite).