Robin Horbury made this comment a few days ago:
BBC drama once led the world. Today, it is little more than political correctness and pantomime agitprop.
Did anyone see the latest BBC1 example, Hunter? (Sunday and last night 9pm). The plot was that a group of Pro-Lifers (natural BBC villains because they don’t support sexual free-for-all)were so incensed that they decided to start killing children unless the BBC showed footage of a post-24 week abortion.
It was license for some horrendous images of the Pro-Lifers abducting and injecting innocent children with various lethal drugs – sequences that were so graphic that they would not have been shown on terrestrial television a few years back. And of course to portray the villains as heartless, callous, evil scum.
I have combed the internet to see if Pro-Life groups have ever done anything remotely like this. I found a few nastly examples of intimidation and violence in the US where staff of clinics have been targeted.
But – tell me if I’m wrong – there’s not one example anywhere in the world of a Pro-Lifer killing children, under any circumstances.
So Hunter looks to me to have been an example of a BBC coterie sitting down somewhere and deciding how they could find new ways tovillify a group that the corporation hates. Any passing resemblance to something called reality was abandoned in favour of the political need.
I personally do not support a lot of what Pro-Lifers want. But I do support their right to say and camapign for their goals – and not to be attacked in this wholly ridiculous way by the BBC.
The other ludicrous element of the plot was that the Pro-Lifers believed that exposure on BBC news bulletins would change attitudes. Of course, that was yet another reflection of the puffed up self-importance of BBC types.
A commenter called Tom replied,
I seem to remember the first of BBC’s Spooks (or the first I ever saw) had a similar plot – pro-lifers as terrorists.
They’re clearly into recycling their rubbish.
Grant | 27.01.09 – 7:47 pm
I don’t know why I’ve suddenly been re-christened “Tom”.
My name really is Tom.
Boring perhaps, but there’s really no call for sneer quotes.
The programme’s message that pro-lifers are villains was so obvious that even stupid people could see clearly what they were up to, surely? Therefore it was an own goal.
BBC – take note of your guidelines as referred to by John Bosworth above at 8:09 pm and try to be more subtle next time.
Why is it that a relatively small commercial outfit like HBO comes out with dramas of the quality of the Sopranos and the Wire, while the BBC, wallowing in a jacuzzi-full of cash, makes crap like this?
That isn’t a rhetorical question. I’d dearly love to know…..
R Beeb output, “Top Gear” is OK apart from the reflexive anti-Americanism, (or more correctly anti working-class Americanism, they’ll have liberal Yanks from the BBC’s approved list on. I guess the anti-Yank bits are a small price to pay for a programme which attracts an audience that actually enjoys watching it – as opposed to being hectored, lectured, demonised etc.
There was a prog on digital last night which reported for the first time I can recall that opposition to Darwin’s theory came from respected scientists as well knuckle-dragging Christian fundamentalists. Made a nice change, an intelligent programme. Not sure whether that was on the Beeb, though.
Five Nations rugby didn’t have much agitprop last year either.
Why is it that a relatively small commercial outfit like HBO comes out with dramas of the quality of the Sopranos and the Wire, while the BBC, wallowing in a jacuzzi-full of cash, makes crap like this?
That isn’t a rhetorical question. I’d dearly love to know…..
Excellent question. Pehaps the BBC reps on this site could enlighten us.
I would also like to know why every long running programme on BBC turns into a version of East sodding Enders.
Soapification of programmes should be illegal
Rab C. Nesbitt would be too intellectual for the BBC of 2009. They would have to find a way of dumbing it down.
Grant | 28.01.09 – 9:26 am | #
They did. They called it “Dear Green Place”.
(Which I believe those south of the border will not yet have been subjected to.)
Tom 9:38
Many apologies, absolutely no offence intended, I have no idea why I put your name in quotes !
Tom 9:38
Re-reading Natalie’s original post, she refers to a “Tom” in inverted commas, guess that is where I picked it up !
Tom, I didn’t intend the quotes round your name as sneer quotes. I thought your comment was very apt and funny, that’s why I highlighted it. The quotes were “this is not his full name” quotes. But since you don’t like them, they shall go.
Mikewineliberal, your link to Wikipedia rather proves the point of Robin Horbury’s original post. There have been no instances of anti-abortion violence against children. Furthermore, the most recent instance of anti-abortion murder in the US was over ten years ago, midway through Clinton’s second term. You’d never think that from the way the BBC cover the subject. I did a post about this on Samizdata a while ago. I look forward to seeing the BBC give credit to George W Bush for his proud record: no murders of abortion providers on his watch.
Several commented that Hunter was good drama. No doubt this was true, all the reviews I have said agree it was gripping. This is not relevant to the question of bias – except in so far as it propagates the propaganda more effectively.
Roland 11:07
I haven’t seen “Dear Green Place”, but I was a secret fan of Rab (don’t tell anyone, please).
—quote-
RR:
There was a prog on digital last night which reported for the first time I can recall that opposition to Darwin’s theory came from respected scientists as well knuckle-dragging Christian fundamentalists. Made a nice change, an intelligent programme. Not sure whether that was on the Beeb, though.
—-quote
I too would like to see an intelligent debate. When one side shouts so loudly and does not let the other side speak, it makes me want to hear the banned views more strongly, especially as science is supposed to be about weighing up evidence from both sides.
There are scientists who believe in ‘intelligent design’ ie some supernatural involvement in the earth and life. This includes many physicists and astronomers. The intelligent design concept could include some element of creation.
The question of the spirit and why we are here cannot just be answered by the BBC preaching its message at us – ‘this is the meaning of life, we are right, there is no other view, shut up.’
When one side shouts so loudly and does not let the other side speak, it makes me want to hear the banned views more strongly
This idea that your side is ‘banned’ is ludicrous, a perfect example of the victim culture. Creationists shout very loudly all the time. They even own publicly funded schools in England, for fuck’s sake.
I wasn’t thinking of creationists or ID-ers so much as actual scientists who have/had difficulty with the mechanism of natural selection – a difficulty Darwin himself identified. It was so much more interesting than the unrefelcective hagiographical stuff the Beeb puts out most of th e time about CD.
RR – Yes, there are some puzzles, and I am not exactly sure which ones you mean, but here is one example: why are so many successful animal and plants the ones that arose ‘in the beginning’ of the process, if you pardon the expression, such as molluscs and ferns, and, moving on a bit, crocodiles, etc, which, as they are dinosaurs with the legs out, should have gone extinct long ago.
Another interesting point – amongst the astronomers and physicists there are a higher proportion of believers in intelligent design than amongst other scientists. I suppose it is partly to do with how things are just right for life on earth – even without the moon as big as it is and where it is life would not be able to exist.
Sutekh | 27.01.09 – 9:56 pm |
Well, I was the fourth generation of an evangelical christian family and the majority I met I found to be intolerant, dismissive of other views, bigoted, anti-intellectual, closed-minded and wilfully ignorant.
And I would include some members of my family in that.
I have to say that I’ve had similar experiences with evangelicals, but also with anyone with strong religious reliefs, in which I include AGW believers, 9/11 truthers, and ultra-orthodox Jews. However, in my experience, they’re a fairly small minority of believers overall.
I’ve known plenty of people who are plenty into their religion – excessive church going, always a Bible lying around, and the like – who are far more tolerant and open-minded about people with different beliefs than most vocal Leftoids are. The problem is that Leftoids – and BBC employees and those whom they pay to create their tv dramas – lump in all those who admit to being believers of any stripe into that “ignorant/intolerant/insane” category.
It’s the kind of “identikit” secular belief system Grant was talking about on the other thread. I tend to call it “Intellectual fascism” because it seems like anyone who vocalizes unapproved thoughts – in this case it’s professing some kind of religious belief – is automatically ostracized and assigned to the lower orders of society. One must hold all the correct thoughts, not just some. Even if the ordinary believers don’t wear their evangelical hearts on their sleeves, and just keep it to themselves, they’re considered just as bad as some foaming-at-the-mouth “Yer all sinners!” type.
I think enough evidence has been provided on this blog that this kind of thinking is fairly endemic in certain quarters at the BBC. The classic examples, of course, are the ones we bring up all the time: Jeremy Paxman giggling at Tony Blair about praying with George Bush, and Justin Webb’s public – on-air and on his blog – condemnation of what he imagined to be Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs. Ol’ Justin said outright that Gov. Palin was unfit for public office because of one specific religious belief (or, more accurately, what he believed her belief was). Palin never pushed her beliefs while in office, never waved them in anyone’s face during her stint as VP candidate, never acted anything like what the BBC seems to fear and loathe. Yet, because of one (misinterpreted) religious belief, Palin was labeled “evangelical nutter”, and treated by the BBC as being beneath contempt.
Webb was allowed to say such things without fear of repercussion, because his bosses agree with him.
Paxman wasn’t giggling about Blair or Bush’s extreme religiosity; he was giggling at belief, full stop. Justin Webb wasn’t condemning Creationism only, he was condemning belief, full stop. He revealed a bit too much of his thinking in his recent blog post Freethinkers welcome!”. And he took a similar tone in his other post about no Bible in The Obamessiah’s second swearing-in.
To people like this, and those who write the TV shows and even some who come here to defend the indefensible, almost anyone who admits to religious belief is potentially just as bad as the most fire-and-brimstone bible-banger, or the one nutjob who killed an abortionist doctor.
It’s not fair, and not very tolerant or open-minded.
David Preiser (USA) | 28.01.09 – 4:17 pm
Paxman wasn’t giggling about Blair or Bush’s extreme religiosity; he was giggling at belief, full stop.
Wrong. JP is respectful of religion and interested in the subject and says he’s envious of those with a strong faith. His wife/partner Elizabeth Clough is a former head of religious programmes at C4.
Other than that you are on the right track in what you say.
Anonymous | 28.01.09 – 5:15 pm |
His wife/partner Elizabeth Clough is a former head of religious programmes at C4.
That doesn’t make her religious tho’ does it? Far from it perhaps, knowing C4.
This is par for the course. Bonekickers had a Christian fundamentalist use a sword to chop the head off a Muslim (yes that way round).
And though I didn’t see it, I believe Spooks had Mossad do a ‘black bag’ terrorist attack hoping to implicate Arab terrorists.
Ditto portrayal of Christians in East Enders from what I recall years ago.
The common themes are bias and complete disconnect from any real events.
And the term ‘spooks’ isn’t even correct! These idiots can’t tell MI5 from MI6.
But perhaps this will make more people realise how ignorant most BBC drones are. Sane people know that it’s the religion of peace where you behead people.
C4 has a series currently running about the history of Christianity. I haven’t seen any of the programmes but keep meaning to watch them on the C4 catch-up.
The first one was about the connection with Judaism, presented by Howard Jacobson. Knowing him, it is bound to be a polemic. Could be interesting.
Another one was presented by Michael Portillo.
Why worry about BBC ‘drama’?
Who watches it?
Who has their opinions formed by it?
The ridiculous thing about BBC television is that is staffed by people who think they are involved in ‘the arts’ and ‘culture’ but who broadcast to the section of the population least interested in such concepts – the downmarket mass TV viewers.
Pete, just above:
“people who think they are involved in ‘the arts’ and ‘culture'”
They are also nearly all young, and middle class, (it goes without saying what their political views are), and I would guess, have arts degrees or degrees in subjects like politics.
Hence they think any proper science programme is ‘nerdy’. So when they do make a science program it is usually presented as a sort of drama production, with the presenter saying ‘never mind about the boring details, just look at ME in various locations’
Their idea of a scientific experiment is to take a sample of about five people and follow a few weeks of their lives as they take their food off them or stuff them with burgers.
Have they ever shown a graph?
Oh yes, I forgot, the global waming hockey stick graph.
Millie T:
The Howard Jacobson programme on Christianity was entirely uncontroversial and really rather intelligent. It’s hardly news that Jesus Christ was a Jew and came to fulfil the old law, after all.
I watched Portillo but it was so dull I’ve forgotten what he said. He mispronounced “Cappadocia”, I seem to remember.
The most recent one was about Christianity in Britain by a chap called Beckford and he was very nice about the Venerable Bede, who seems to have been the most recent Geordie intellectual (joke) and also Alcuin. Beckford said that Britain owes its social inclusiveness and diversity to the Anglo-Saxon Christians – which might be a bit of a stretch given their less than tolerant attitudes at times to the Vikings (who, no doubt in a spirit of fellowship and outreach, massacred the monks of Lindisfarne where they stood). Overall, Beckford seemed to be saying that social inclusiveness and diversity are the highest achievements of Christianity, which may come as a bit of a surprise to some people who thought it might have been about salvation.
Double Standards:
If you have Anglo-Saxon genes it would be unthinkable to suggest that you had more rights to land or property in this country than anyone else. In fact you might even be arrested as the police have been instructed that where racism is perceived to have taken place, it has.
On the other hand, if you go to live in India you will not be allowed to buy land.
But the best situation to be in is Palestinian. This particular race is in a unique position. For example, if you find you have Palestinian grandparents who lived in a part of Israel in 1948, 60 years ago, merely by possessing such genes entitles you to lands which are in dispute. The fact that your ancestors, ie genetic relatives, once owned them, means you can own them!
Obviously the principle of giving a race of people land rights by virtue of race does not apply in Britain. Over there you are allowed to talk about genetic ancestry without being racist.
RR | 29.01.09 – 10:39 am
Interesting – thanks for that. Howard J is undoubtedly very intelligent. I really must make a point of watching those programmes. It’s a shame they can’t manage without bringing Christianity down to two weaselly vogue words.
In fact you might even be arrested as the police have been instructed that where racism is perceived to have taken place, it has
In that case, I have a solid case against Abu Bowen.
Muslim Wars | 29.01.09 – 11:08 am |
My ancestors were kicked out of their home in Jerusalem in 70 CE by the bloody Romans. Does that qualify?
David
what happened to the original inhabitants of where you live now?
They were sold for beef. I live in the country in a field.
If certain races step foot on part of a continent, they own the whole continent forevermore. Even if they like to live one per square mile.
This rule applies to South American Indian tribes (although they own just the whole forest, not the whole continent), Red Indians, Eskimos, Africans, and Aboriginies. Take South Africa, for example – even those parts which were previously completely uninhabited can only be owned by black people.
Therefore because tribes occupied New Zealand 1000 years ago, their genetic ancestors are entitled to land rights forevermore.
Hence Victoria Woods, on the BBC History programme, is quite free to ask the Maowri, ‘Why were you unsuccessful in repeling the invaders?’ (ie the British), and she was quite free to call Livingstone ‘racially bonkers'(a safe target).
And you are quite free to say to the Palestinians ‘When will you ever get your homelands back?’
But these rules only apply to certain selected races.
Over in Britain, however, a different set of rules are used. There is no genes=land rule here.(I am not suggesting there should be, I am just pointing out extremely opposite sets of principles applied by the BBC, for example) It is not enough to say ‘if you fit into our culture, you are welcome’. We have to say ‘We accept, that as the country which had the most successful empire, and provided the world language, we need a good kicking”. And the BBC and the schools will be happy to carry out the task.
John | 29.01.09 – 11:50 pm |
what happened to the original inhabitants of where you live now?
They run the casinos and make a pile of cash, mostly.
what happened to the original inhabitants of where you live now?
John | 29.01.09 – 11:50 pm |
They returned, fought and defeated the invaders from the 7th century and the economic immigrants from the 19th.
I live in Israel – nuff said đŸ˜‰