rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:59 am

TV 'history' ain't history; its infotainment. And any attempt at scholarly impartiality from the BBC would be a real first. I listened to a Radio 4 programme on the kidnapping of the Marines and Sailors in Iraq on Sunday. The reporter noted the absence of the covering helicopter - but made no mention that it was withdrawn to transport a BBC crew back to the ship. Off the point, but there you go.

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:34 pm

I wonder whether a correlation might be made here between "objectivity" and "distance from source" (or event.) For example, if an American production company were to do a segment on the Zulu Wars (that would be a first, I think) might they sift through the historical information differently, rather than obviously favouring one expert primarily? As far as I know, we have no "axe" to grind with respect to the Zulu Wars.

Corollary to the above, the best TV documentary (most objective treatment, in my opinion) I'd ever seen on the subject of the Waco tragedy here in 1993 was made by a British TV crew for the Sky One network.

Barbara

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:15 pm

Dear All,
the last couple of messages on the forum have hit the nail on the head as regards the manner in which a programme is made.The way that these programmes are unfolded is due to the focus that the programme makers wish to present to the viewer.Alan Critchley's comments reveals an angle that is unfolded from an interpretation of a viewpoint.There was as many viewpoints as there are individuals present at the battle.The choice of focus is also determined by individual policies within a broadcasting company or newspaper,pre-empted by a particular set of guidelines,which nowadays,unfortunetly focuses on viewing figures or sales.
The NUJ magazine currently reveals the 'dumbing down' operative over certain issues,at various media companies,because the focus is on the satisfaction of shareholder,rather than reporting real news.If you currently rang one braodcaster to explain that another had produced errors in a programme,you would be unlikely to be given the time of day,because your views were against the broadcasting industry per se.This mentality is entirely different from the one that prevailed 30-40 years ago and has resulted due to a lot of programmes now being 'outsourced' i.e. one TV company buys from the other and vice versa.
We are lucky that we have the internet and websites like RDVC.com to balance the equation.

Tony.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:48 pm

I haven't seen the program but I'm sure that all of you are familiar with what happens in fictional books where the disclaimer appears noting that it would be a coincidence if the stuff in the book has any resonance to the "real" world out there? Now I'd think that the program also would have a disclaimer noting that the opinions held in the broadcast are of the participants and NOT the producers. Yes? No? If so, they are surely entitled to them provided they don't lie or obfuscate the "facts". I can see that if there is a disrespect to the facts of an event then that's a problem but the discussion does revolve about "history". And what is history? History is the description of factual events with interpretation and it's obvious that the "interpretation" aspect appears to raise the hair on everybody's head.. Wink

.

And "to do a runner"..now is that right off the bat a pejorative description?..isn' it say a figure of speech to describe a move backward?..please be kind I am not English or Welsh.... Wink

.....

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:05 pm

Rich,
doing a runner is avoiding your responsibilities.

The annoying thing is that they call the programme the real story or the true story which should be illegal under the trades description act.

Another annoying thing is that programmes like this make me disbelieve all other history documentaries assuming that if Saul David can make such a pig's ear of it, then probably everyone else does.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:43 pm

ah Alan I get it now.....Yes, I'd agree on the "true" story bit. I hope they broadcast it here. I'd like to watch it and see for myself what the heck is going on with events that to all intents and purposes are still lively 128 years on and causing new-found contention.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:12 pm

Dear Rich,
if you do get to see the programme you will not see a disclaimer.One aspect of this type of programme is that you can't slander or libel the dead.This is one point of the law that sees programme makers of history,feel nice and comfy in their legal bed.Sometimes in an almost smug way.If a programme maker implies that all descendants of a particular man had inherited his madness,or some other undesireable trait,then a descendant could sue the programme makers.
Alan points out,and I am in agreement with him,that to use the term 'to do a runner' is not the correct 'slant' that should be used to describe a
military option to retreat to Helpmakaar,under the life-threatening pressure of being outnumbered by 30/1.If the programme makers and authors involved in modern 'sensationalist' type of history programme's home was suddenly under an attack,by a resurgence of Goths from Central Europe,marauding at odds of 30/1,to pillage their wares,wouldn't a retreat to a safe haven be understandable.
The jist of the arguement here is that to use the term 'do a runner' achieves a particular effect by contructing in the viewer's mind a form of cowardice.As Alan says,the discussion between the officers did not include the involvement of Hook,the account of the battle that was used as a source of reference in the programme.When Dalton became injured Chard and Bromhead didn't suddenly stop fighting stood there with dumb looks on their faces (they have been described as 'dim-wits and frauds' elsewhere)looking for guidance,they did there bit as any other soldier present at the defence.
History is fair game for santisation and alteration because the men who took part in the battles aren't here to defend themselves.The worst form of cowardice is picking on the weakest of opponents.Dead men are the most vulnerable of all.

Tony.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:06 pm

"Libel and slander" is right, Tony. Allegations or (implications) of cowardice should always be subject to the strictest standards of proof, rather than just "thrown out there" apparently for sensationalistic purposes. They cheapen the value of an individual's sacrifice, to say the least.

You know, yesterday, June 6, was the anniversary of D-Day at Normandy in WWII. How many today would claim that the forces storming the beaches were comprised of cowards and weaklings, who had to be pushed ashore against their will? It sounds ludicrous, and the reasonable person might think that no one would ever make such an allegation. But why, then, is it deemed "acceptable" by some to impugn the courage of those who fought in a battle over a hundred years ago, and faced overwhelming odds?

You're right; it is very easy to pick on the dead, especially if they've been dead for a long time.

Barbara

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:48 am

What is needed is an independent documentary-maker, perhaps someone within the AZW Community, who, with a bit of this kind of experience (and funding) tells it like it really was. Therefore, interviews with AZW experts, who, with their busy schedules, could be interviewed (with their permission) individually at a place and time of their choosing, with a set list of questions. Any images required, should be portraits of the participants, paintings, weaponry, photographs of the battlefields, but nothing like the dreadful re-enactments in the recent VC series. After the finishing touches, it then being shown to the AZW community for their approval, before approaching any TV companies, in the hope of it being shown to the wider population.

I don't know much about documentary-making and am only an AZW enthusiast, but if wanting the best chance of detailing the campaign and battles as they really happened, make it within the AZW Community as an independent programme. Does this sound right ?

Coll

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:56 pm

Dear Coll,
the high standards you talk of are good.These programme makers live in a 'here today,gone later today' type of environment. Everything is a product and you would be called dull,stuffy or boring (just ask John Young!)and probably laughed at,if you were to challenge to current trend of sensationalist history that does the rounds.However,the worth of anything is it's longetivity and just after these programmes are aired,it's back to 'business at usual'.
I can tell you that when I attended the Victoria Cross and George Cross commemoration event at Westminster last year,the talk wasn't of how much of a great contribution that sensationalist history programmes makes to world history and the memories of the men that are tainted,but only one of disgust and dissapointment.The gullible general public might be fooled by such antics to obtain '30 pieces of silver' but those that matter know the score.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:28 pm

Tony ..I think I know what you can do. I'd ring up Prof Strachan and tell him to put his WWI books aside. Just for a bit now. And plant his mind and pen into the Anglo-Zulu War and send his work to the pundits who are making life hard for those of us who watch the AZW on the tee-vee. Maybe he could revitalize the notion that AZW productions should be an exercise of clarity and ethics rather than of obfuscation and innuendo, eh? I see the professor appears to be a big guy over there across the pond. He appears to be a top-notch historian.

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:19 pm

Dear Rich,
I watched Prof Strachen's WW1 DVD,which was 12 Hours of sheer joy.The accompanying book is excellent.Your suggestion is actually a very good idea.His comments inside the book about 'historians who function as personalities' is an astute observation.You've tempted me greatly to write a letter to him,we need somebody like Prof Strachen,who has the 'clout' i.e. the media contacts,to balance the scales in favour of 'the truth.Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:24 pm

Tony me boy........ the pen is mightier than the sword!!............... Cool

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:25 pm

and thanks for letting us know about that dvd..I need to get it if you praise it so well............

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Dear Rich,
the book by Prof Strachen is ISBN 0-7432-3959-8 'The First World War' by Simon and Schuster published 2003.If I am looking for US equivalents of UK books I usually use The Barnes and Noble website,so it would be worth conducting a search on there under 'Hew Strachen' to see what comes up.I obtained the DVD from Play.com in region 2 format for �19.99 (Sterling) .I'm not sure if it's available in region 1,but the US equivalent of Play.com may provide useful,if not,the region 2 can be easily obtained.I quote from the introduction:

'Television history has become addicted to a cult of the historian as personality...this series would have no presenter and no debates between competing interpretations'.

Sums up all we discuss here perfectly.

Barbara,
I'm sure the landing at Normandy will,in time,sadly receive the same treatment as the campaigns we deal with on here.

Tony.