The BBC is Dead... May It Rest in Piece!
Written: Oct 08 '01 (Updated Oct 22 '03)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Programming Quality: |
 |
|
| Program Cycle: |
|
|
| Commercial Interruption: |
|
|
|
Pros: BBC News.
Cons: The Programmers Don't care what Americans watch, knowing we like their accents, anyway.
The Bottom Line: BBC is a refreshing alternative to American spin. Know the truth. It will set you free.
|
|
|
| ispeakup's Full Review: BBC America |
I was challenged by a former BBC America devotee to refine my opinion of BBC America since my review of November 2001. I rarely update my reviews, except when I see grammatical errors. These reviews are hard to write, at least for me, so once I'm done -- I'm done. Well, not quite.
I learned from some Brits that the term "quite" is actually not a compliment, rather it is a qualifier which subtracts from the positive. "Quite good," isn't really good. It's almost good. Well, BBC America, now, is only quite good. In fact, using the American nomenclature for expressions of total disgust: let me say that "it sucks."
Where once I waxed nostalgic about BBC and its programming, I am of a different opinion now. They've taken EastEnders off the air! I was a regular Eastenders fan, when I lived i the U.K., and enjoyed some of the other evening soaps like Coronation Street and Emmerdale. If they don't replace EastEnders with one of those, then I'll really boycott the whole station. The problem is that the British don't care about public opinion, like we do, so what we think is nothing to them. In fact, they care so little, they don't even have alot of shows on their station anymore. Except for "The Office" and "The Vice" it's all backyard gardening shows. Now, I'm sad to say -- I barely watch the BBC. I'd get green thumbs from all the gardening shows they have. In fact, they'd do better to change it to Home and Garden Television or something, rather than BBC America, because Ground Force, Changing Rooms, and all those other DIY/"redesign your home" -shows bore me ad nauseum (for once, I can say I prefer the American show, "While You were Out," although it's main landscaper, and his handsome sidekick, are British, I believe.
So, I've edited my piece to say that I was once an Anglophile where the BBC was concerned, although I still find their international news more reliable. For those who need to be convinced about their news, let me tell you -- I have had even a more blatant distrust of the media for several years, owing to the fact that I consider most of their slant on the news is highly opinionated and often times not accurate. Fox News is a case in point. Regardless of O'Reilly and company, I consider their news to be a fraternity of malcontents, who just happen to know how to spell. Can you spell B-I-A-S?
Furthermore, in the rush to create copy, I believe most American newspapers and media people spend more time reading others' copy and putting their own personal and individual spin on their resulting investigative stories, such that I don't consider much of what any of them say as newsworthy. More often than not, the media's rush to be the "the first," to break news usually results in a rush in providing false information. Damn the facts, full steam ahead.
The incident of the purported New Delhi hijacking is a case in point. On October 3, 2001, three weeks after the attack on America, a New Delhi plane was reported as having been hijacked. All the news stations rushed to carry the news, fostering renewed anxiety about safety in the air. Lou Dobbs, on CNN, was the first to retract the statement, with visually apparent embarassment. Now, if it really was the case that CNN had investigated that information, from their own reliable sources, then why didn't they ascertain the truth about the incident, that there was some mistake on the part of the Indian government in interpreting events which caused confusion surrounding the flight. We can all be prone to make mistakes, but this universal reaction suggests a more emotional response, than an objective one, which detracts from the feeling that news is being factually reported. The BBC did report the news, but seemed to be more restrained in their pronouncements.
I was also troubled to read on an Internet news website, that the American government was exhorting the media to keep a "positive spin" on America's actions, and promoting the same in a blitz of phone calls to our begrudging allies. If this is the case, then there is a question as to the democratic freedom of our American press. I know that desperate times call for desperate measures, but to distort the truth, for spin, is dangerous and militates against the very principles that we are supposed to be defending in waging this war against terrorism. Which brings me back to the BBC.
The BBC has covered general news events with absolute brilliance. I have learned more about what is happening from BBC America news than any other news program. One reason is because they aren't tied to the views of corporate America to the same degree as our news stations. BBC America's recount of news events of any one story can last as long as six or seven minutes, where Mr. Jennings and his other newscasting brethren have to limit their review of any particular story to two minutes, for a commercial, or quick segue to another piece of related news.
As an aside, I enjoyed watching British television for that very reason. For the most part, their shows do not get interrupted every seven minutes for commercial break. That's changed, now. When I lived in the U.K., one had to sit through three to five minutes of commercials, but watch a half-hour show without interruption. I didn't mind then, because, who doesn't like British commercials? If the television was on and I was doing something elsewhere, I would sometime race from another room to actually see the commercials, because they were so funny or interesting.
I don't think I can comment on the recent scandals about the BBC and the Blair government. When I first wrote my opinion about the BBC, I believed that the BBC was behind their Prime Minister, although I stated that they made their bias appear to be so much less obvious. I used an example of how one news anchor, or "presenter," as they are called in the U.K., kept pointing his pen in emphasis, at a Muslim spokesman on his program, interrupting him, by trying to get the speaker to state that the actions of the American and British were justified. When the Muslim reviewer explained that he thought the taking of any life was wrong, and refused to take sides, the reviewer had the presence of mind to quit while he was ahead. What was fascinating in that interview was the need for the presenter to try to obtain an answer to mollify what appeared to be a nagging doubt for those viewers doubting his own government's position. In retrospect that could very well have been evidence of what appears to have surfaced in the U.K., that the BBC did not support Blair on his position to go to Iraq, and may have even been trying to expose its bias, in the allegations concerning the "sexed up" uranium exports claims concerning Africa.
Although the BBC is going through a rough time right now, as a scientist has committed suicide based on supposed leaks by the BBC of statements he made (allegedly to make Blair's case for going to war a lie), I still believe that, overall, the American presenters, like Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw (aka Sawyer), et al, might as well be working for the Voice of America. In an article in the Boston Globe recently, a commentator wrote about the casualty of war: the voice of dissent. In this country, it would appear that there is no alternative. Polls of 500 people have been taken, representing a nation of 250 million people, as if to justify our actions. I don't think I've ever watched the BBC mention any polls, rather they have interviewed people on the street, which gives me a lot more insight.
Also noteworthy is the cosmopolitan nature of their news program. Many of their newscasters are women and minorities, which adds an interesting flavor to the debates and discussions with their guests. I have learned more about Islam watching guests parade on and off their sets, whereas, more likely than not, I am more likely to see an ABC newscaster interviewing another ABC news reporter for facts and information. One reason, I believe, is that the British are a smaller nation, and there are perhaps much fewer experts and they can gain quicker access to them. In addition, interestingly, I see a broader sense of [colonial] respect for other countries' views.
When I returned home to America from England, I was very sad, for one reason only: That I would miss British television. Now, I think the BBC can go back home. I was once glad to see that our nations' close relationship fostered partnerships such as BBC America, and was thankful that the BBC has managed to remain intact, without the trappings of American posturing and gloating. Now, I believe they've gone to the dogs. The BBC has abandoned its colony, knowing we like them -- and has given us their refuse. They have taken a Marie Antoinette posture where their viewing public are concerned: Let them Watch Gardening Shows.
Bring on better programs, BBC. And bring back EastEnders.
Recommended:
No
Average Program Rating: TV G -- general audiences
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
ispeakup
|
|
Member: VLT
Location: Wherever I Am is Where I Live.
Reviews written: 71
Trusted by: 15 members
About Me:
Rewriting my novel a 3rd time after 7 years... hope springs eternal!
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.