Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Topic: BBC history...is getting rubbish Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 17:55 |
I don't know if any of you guys have read BBC history, but many of it's readers, and me have begun to get a little bit tired of it. On the front of every single edition there is always some article on a superficial aspect of the second world war (no offense to modernists - your subject is very interesting if interesting topics are chosen) and if there is any other topic, it usually deals with a stereotype. I don't understand why it's getting so predictable and petty - it has great historians on it's board, but seems to come up with rubbish. Many of the titles of the letters sent in from the readers are stuff like "for those of us that don't suffer from an obbession with Hitler" and "monarchs and empires - is there anything else?". What are your thoughts on this and are your countries national history magazines (if any) experiencing this worrying trend?
|
|
Afghanan
Chieftain
Durr e Durran
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1098
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 03:08 |
That sounds just as bad as "The History Channel" shown in the states. All the History Channel in the US shows is World War II, Civil War...more World War II, and a little more World War II.
When it comes to any other history, its usually like you said, the stereotype..or even worse..rumors.
They did this piece on "The Curse of the Afghan Gold" where they made up a ridiculous story about the Scythian Gold being cursed and that curse somehow killed Alexander the Great and started the Afghan Wars.
Its really scary when History is being manipulated by money and ratings and not actual important events.
|
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 06:21 |
Killed Alexander the Great, and started the Afghan wars? Persistant curse, lasted over two thousand years. And a third rate one, no help against Genghis.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 11:15 |
Yeah I've seen the history channel and trust me BBC history is far, far worse. People only want to read things which are directly linked to them as a person, which does remove which of the impartiality and methodology behind the study of history.
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 12:10 |
Aster, you don't seriously believe it is the sole goal of BBC History to remain impartial and discover and uncover the truth about all aspects of history??
The market, despite what some more avid history buffs like yourself and the letter writers would desire, is for modern history and other, heavily studied and 'common-knowledge' subjects like Roman History etc. If the market was more interested in other topics, then it would be these topics that would be covered. Look at BBC History as pop-history, and no more. It is not something to get peeved about. You have simply moved beyond their sphere of intellectual historical evaluation!
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 12:28 |
its either ww2, roman empire or early british civs, but at the end of the day, the bbc is the best we have got, as sad as that is.
Ive liked some of there bits on the industrial revoloution, and there historical dramas are often quite good.
Things could be a lot better, but with recent budget cuts im afraid its only going to get worse.
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 19:19 |
Originally posted by Dolphin
Aster, you don't seriously believe it is the sole goal of BBC History to remain impartial and discover and uncover the truth about all aspects of history??
The market, despite what some more avid history buffs like yourself and the letter writers would desire, is for modern history and other, heavily studied and 'common-knowledge' subjects like Roman History etc. If the market was more interested in other topics, then it would be these topics that would be covered. Look at BBC History as pop-history, and no more. It is not something to get peeved about. You have simply moved beyond their sphere of intellectual historical evaluation! |
Your right, Its just the markets way of determining what sells. Hitler sells. The society of the Norse Vikings doesn't. Your not likely to get much else.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 02:26 |
Originally posted by Aster
Yeah I've seen the history channel and trust me BBC history is far, far worse |
In the words of the illustrious Pekau; Mein Gott. Are you serious Aster? You have my sympathies. The history channel has evolved into a channel that barely even has history on it. Half the programs should be on the discovery/TLC channel. An oddity that has appeared recently is that the history channel and discovery channel will have the same programming; both now have history programs, nature, engineering, biographies etc. My personal "pet peeve" is the program Modern Marvels, its a good show but it has no business being on a HISTORY channel.
Overall, very strange, I wonder if they are both owned by the same company now or something.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 04:50 |
Yes, what the hell do we need to know about history of hamburgers, or Bob Dylan for that matter?
Or about every bullet fired in WWII?
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 05:04 |
What's wrong with the history of food? I think it's interesting, I could however do with out Bob Dylan and World War II.
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 06:21 |
The history channel? Justinian pretty much nailed it. I just wasted a couple of hours of my life yesterday watching a documentary on hippies. Why did they even bother i wonder? I already knew all that stuff. I had thought that maybe they had something new too pass on! Nah...
The BBC? I didn't even know they were still largely relevant!
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:08 |
winston churchill had it pegged when he called TV a fools lantern
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned
Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 20:27 |
History, Aster, is narration and the role of the historian is to discover new insights from the unchanging detritus of time. In contrast, television being a visual medium essentially becomes eye-candy and if one is alert enough and has long experience with the pictographic record it then becomes a game for often the narrator is discussing an event and the visual is but stock footage totally disconnected to the subject under discussion. These discrepancies are quite obvious in WWII narratives, but become glaring in pictoral presentations of WWI--just how often can one look at the celebration of the Romanov tricentennial of 1913 while the narrator is discussing the Revolution of 1917. Then there is the usual theft of Eisentein 1920s film footage as illustrations of the October 1917 Bolshevik revolution!
Not even antiquity is held sacred as one can note from the peripatetic antics of The Naked Archeologist. Let us face it, the scripts for the bulk of programming come not from the hands of historians but from practicioners of Audio-Visual continuity. Rarely do efforts such as those of Michael Grant blend the role of the popularizer with sound authentic footage. Then there is the garbage served up by talking heads such as the late Carl Sagan, but hey we've got to keep in mind that what is in play is merchandising! Thus, you have the refusal of such tripe as that narrated by Leonard Nimoy to die a quite death and constantly live on in re-runs under the title of History.
By the way, anyone who long ago viewed such classic film documentation of World Wars I and II on commercial television of the 50s drawn from the film archives of the Imperial War Museum in the UK and the USIA in the United States will recognize all of the nonsense now circulating and immediately note the disconnect. The so-called History Channel comes nowhere near the visual and audio perfection of a documentary series from 1952-53 titled Victory at Sea!
Likewise the 1973-74 documentary series, The World at War said it all visually, and it is the footage from this excellent effort that is forever recycled absent the sterling narration of Laurence Olivier.
Little today approaches the competence of such projects as The 20th Century--
And all we are left with is junk following up such nonesense as Templars, Mary Magdalen and the Chinese discovering America!
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 20:48 |
I'm aware of that, and I realise that it's what the public want. I also realise that everyone in this thread represents an very small percentage of the readers/viewers/listeners to such pieces of media. I would not have bothered to start this thread, however, if I knew that it was many, many more than just people like us who were getting tired of it.
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:00 |
aster, we should pool AE members resources and start a production company, making decent history programmes.
I dont know how many uk members there are.
We could blow the bbc out of the water.
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
Kevin
General
AE Editor
Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 18:41 |
The ususal History Chennel shown over here is pretty much thing to not bother even watching, However History International, The Military Cheenel and Discovery Civilization are a little bit better. Now and days though I read and use the internet and so therefore I barely even watch TV.
|
|
Lotus
Samurai
Joined: 17-Aug-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 14:27 |
Did you see the 6 hour BBC story of India , presented by Michael Wood ?
There were no special effects or computer generated imagery, I thought it was an excellent series.
Looking forward to the book that accompanied the series for crimbo.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 18:39 |
And it's presented in boring fashion. Dreadfully boring...
|
Join us.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 21:37 |
Yes - and every five seconds there are adverts. I once watched a programme with Dan Crushank about the Parthanon on that channel - he went there, stated that it actually wasn't very architecturally advanced and was about as advanced as stone henge (WHAT?!??!?!) and then said some stuff about Byron and the Romantics and their visits here. That was all he said about the Parthanon.
Why not go to the Castel St. Angelo and speak about the drainage system and 80s Italian Punk bands who posed there? Why not go to Ur and speak about what a great picknick spot it is? Why not go to the site of the battle of Mysore and speak about the different kinds of grass? WHAT is the matter with that channel? I realise that history needs a little bit of "dumbing down" to successfully work on air, but it's just got ridiculous now...
|
|