Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
But that “even-handedness” creates the impression that the Americans and Israelis are just as likely to be the bad guys as the Islamic terrorists! That isn’t the way things are in the real world.
Also, the Americans seem to be the bad guys an awful lot.
John Reith:
Reithy me old pal, the argument is so simple even your pig headed BBC indoctrinated brain should be able to cope with the main issue of Spooks…
No Spooks storyline has ever been thrown out on behalf of Americans, Israelis, Fathers for Justice et al because it may cause them offence.
Only muslims are permitted the kid-glove treatment with this show. Why is this?
Incidentally, and totally O/T, “Spooks” is also a derogatory name for black people, which in my opinion already proves how hopelessly out of touch the writers and producers are with reality in the first place. Had they know that, the show would have been called something else, without a moments hesitation.
John Reith | 12.11.07 – 12:55 pm |
At one time the bad guys in BBC drama were either Tories, businessmen or Americans. In a murder mystery if one of the characters fell into that group they were always the villan. It became so predictable that it became hardly worth watching.
These days they have added Israelis. I’ll take your word that they have also included Muslims because I have not seen a single programme where this is true. But then I don’t watch everything!
In one Jonathon Creek episode the villan was the policeman investigating the crime!
I can’t remeber the last time (though I’m sure your databases will have the requisite one time example) a villain that was a Labour Party member (not New Labour),a trade unionist or a communist.
Given all the programmes the BBC makes about the Nazis they make precious few about the Soviet or the Chinese communists. Both of which groups had a far more murderous streak than the abhorant Nazis.
I’m sorry, but I’m really not convinced by this one. ‘Spooks’ is just a harmless piece of fun, surely no-one watches it and considers what the implications are of who is the bad guy?
I have to confess I quite like the fact that it’s rather murky, the the British secret service isn’t above a bit of torture and that there are different groups of Iranians acting with different motivations.
And Fat Contractor, the literary tradition of the policemen actually being the villain is a fairly well-established one, dating back at least to The Mousetrap (a 1947 radio play) • sorry to spoil the ending for those of you out there who didn’t know!
I think we’d do better to concentrate of all the many factual areas where bias is evident thatn getting too wound up by a piece of fluffy entertainment.
And I’m not convinced by what you say, Rob (except about the tradition of the policemen being the villain — TFC can’t have watched many crime movies).
It’s not that anyone watches it and “considers” what the “implications” are. But the sort of things that happen in it soak into the general background of everyday assumptions.
Plus, it’s isn’t ordinary escapist entertainment — it clearly tries to pass itself off as based on reality. And all the publicity that surrounded it when it came out made a big thing of the show’s creators boasting of how they’d had the help of real-life ex-MI5 agents helping them to make it realistic.
When I was active as a skeptic I listened to a lot of believers in psychic phenomena, and many of them spoke of how The X-Files had been a big influence on them. That was also a show that created the impression that there was some basic underlying reality to it. If you think these things have no influence then I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken.
Interesting comment Rob – in fact I know there are senior people in the BBC who are bothered by some plotlines in Spooks and do not share your view.
Fair enough, both of you, it’s just my opinion, of course. Personally I just disengage brain and let it wash over me (much like most Hollywood movies), but I accept that some people might take it more literally than that.
Bunny, can’t say I take too much notice of BBC publicity material, lol…
Currently in Spooks: The French are probably the baddies. The Brits have tortured the Americans. The Iranians are looking for peace. The Iranians are well advanced in creating a long range nuclear bomb.
It’s still bloody entertaining.
Incidentally, and totally O/T, “Spooks” is also a derogatory name for black people, which in my opinion already proves how hopelessly out of touch the writers and producers are with reality in the first place. Had they know that, the show would have been called something else, without a moments hesitation.
Reg Hammer | 12.11.07 – 1:39 pm |
which might explain why my first exposure to the series was on the american channel A&E, with the title of “MI5”
Rob Clark | 12.11.07 – 4:19 pm | &
Blithering Bunny | 12.11.07 – 5:05 pm |
There are loads & loads of films where the police are the baddies but there are very few where the investigating officer commited the crime under investigation or have I just missed those ones?
Is there a literary tradition of the investigating officer being the villain rather than just a villain? I don’t read crime fiction so I don’t know if this is so.
As to the Mousetrap, I’ve not seen it, and probably won’t now 😉
You’ve just missed them. Although admittedly there are less of those than the ones where the investigating officer’s superiors are the baddies.
If your major contact with the BBC is the World Service you have recently been bombarded with this: Helen Boaden, BBC’s Director of News presents 75 years of BBC World Service in one minute chunks. Or less if you subtract the puffery.
1971 – Bangladesh war of independence
75 years of BBC World Service. 75 years of balanced broadcasting. It’s 1971.
BBC correspondents try to be scrupulously impartial but in wartime even straight forward reporting of events can be seen to be partisan. During the Bangladesh war of independence from Pakistan, the BBC’s Bengali service was required listening because it broadcast the facts when reliable information was scarce. The Bengali service correspondents were national heroes to those wanting independence.
What did those who thought they were defending Pakistan’s stability and sovereignty, on the other side, think? These people speak Urdu and listen to the BBC Urdu service (commenced in 1949). Ms Boaden is senior enough to know that “seekers for independence” is a loaded term. The difference between them and traitors to the nation depends purely on POV.
The BBC is not meant to be “national heroes” to one side in a conflict.