It’s not terrorism if you’re white

Have you heard about the terrorism case coming before Burnley Crown Court later this month? No? That might be because there were no big raids, no special press conferences by the Home Secretary, no well-timed police leaks and yet not only where various chemical components found at the two subjects’ houses (the largest ever haul from a private home ever, according to the police) but also a rocket launcher and an NBC suit! So why does Google News only find eight articles about this?

Might it be because the subjects here were not Muslims, but white (ex-)British National Party members? The story does not fit in the government’s and media’s narrative about terrorism, so it’s ignored.

The BBC’s Space Odyssey

Tonight the BBC finally broadcasted the first episode of a new documentary series, Space Odyssey, which had promised us a look at what a manned Grand Tour of the Solar System could be like and what wonders could be found on the way. The trailers had made it sound like the series would be equally about the technology behind the expedition and the planets the expedition would visit: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto. S— wanted to see the latter most, I was hoping the former would be dominant; unfortunately we both were disappointed.

The actual series you see, is neither fish nor fowl: it’s part astronaut drama ala Apollo 13, part reality tv about five astronauts living together for six years and only part science documentary. The information about the visited planets is shoehorned in between shots of the astronauts adjusting to their circumstances and demonstrating zero-g and Tense, Dramatic Moments, with appropriate closeups of the people in Mission Control, of the expedition in Danger. Tension while contact is lost with the Venus lander! Excitement at a dust storm on Mars! More excitement at a very close approach of a binairy asteroid! And all with the obligatory, sweeping, over-intrusive violin music. It made S—wonder whether it was a PBS co-production, while I guessed it would be Discovery Channel; rightly as it turned out.

It certainly shares the flaws of other BBC/Discovery co-productions like The Future is Wild: good central concepts but bad execution, the emphasis on special effects and pretty pictures over science and imparting knowledge, the speculation presented as fact and the fact presented without a good context to make sense of it, but as trivia. And of course, the science errors.

Radio lag? Neither seen nor mentioned until the dramatic asteroid approach when suddenly the script requires a 38 minute lag; the previous tense moments were all witnessed live by Mission Control. Then there were the Venus and Mars landers, both of which looked roughly like souped up Moon landers. But the moon has an escape velocity of only 2.38 km/s, which can be reached even by a puny lander; for Mars, (5.027 km/s) and especially Venus (10.36 km/s) with an escape velocity not that much less than Earth’s, you need something more. You need the same sort of big fuckoff rocket on Venus that it takes to put two people into orbit on Earth, basically. Another thing that bothered me about the Venus sequence: the need for a tough astronaut suit was mentioned, to withstand the sheer pressure and noxious fumes there; so why the huge clear plastic faceplate?

Unfortunately, the technical realities behind the expedition, what it would take to actually do it in real life got even less mention than the planetary exploration. What I would’ve liked to see was an approach similar to that of The Blue Planet, where each program had two parts. With Blue Planet, you would first get the wonders and miracles of whatever part of the oceans it was this time, followed by an explenation of how these wonders and miracles were filmed and the technology and science behind it. That would’ve been much more interesting here too, especially if the programme’s makers hadn’t tried to cram everything into two episodes.

A failure then, but an interesting failure.

Hacked off at the BBC

Let’s rag on the BBC for a bit then, eh? There are a few things about the BBC that cheese me off no end.

For one thing, for a non-commercial organisation they sure do put a lot of ads. Why the fuck do we need to be reminded forty times a day that this new exciting programme will premiere in two days? By the time it finally comes on I’m sick of it already. Not to mention that usually they’re so obnoxious that you want to shoot everybody involved after the second time you’d seen them.

And the programmes being advertised are often no better. How many fucking shows do we need to have where some nice upper middle class white couple gets their room redecorated, their garden done, their clothes revamped or their life sorted out? Yes, they can be entertaining and obviously are cheap to make, but after the fifth variation on a theme I’m sick of them.

Let’s not even mention Fame Academy.

Another cheap format that should’ve been discontinued by now: celebrity quiz shows. Have I Got News for you should’ve been stopped after Angus Deyton was fired. When it was good, it was very very good, but it only looks tired now. The same goes for Buzzcocks, which has had all of the interesting music celebrites by now and is now reduced to the third backup singer for Atomic Kitten.

A related format is that of the celebrity nostalgia shows. I Love 1999? What the fuck? Various non-entities talking about how much they liked four years ago? Or what about Grumpy Old Men? Various baby boomers whinging about all the predictable stuff you’ve heard your parents complain about too often already.

But at least there’s still Eastenders.

Auntie Beeb

Chris Bertram is talking about the BBC on his weblog, after he recieved a link from the Biased BBC weblog. He notes some things I’m annoyed with as well:

So what do I think about the BBC? I’m not particularly keen on the way it is financed (by a regressive poll tax) and I’m sure that will change given the multiplication of channels. The BBC’s current position strikes me as untenable given the way it uses the licence fee to subsidise its aggressive competition with the private sector via ventures such as BBC Choice, BBC4, BBC Style, BBC Everything Else and in the magazine market with its range of music, gardening, history etc etc offerings. I think I’m right in saying that they’ve now been barred from surreptitiously advertising some of these products on their main TV channels, but, all the same, magazines like History Today have to compete in a market against a product bearing the imprimatur of the prestigious public service broadcaster and containing numerous TV tie- ins, listings and so on. That strikes me as unfair.

I don’t really agree on the licence fee, as it does make the BBC more independent from the government than if they had to depend on funding from general taxes. I was against the similar arrangment we had here, true, but that was because we had the worst of both worlds: a licence fee *and* lots of commercials.

As for Chris’ other points, I quite agree. I get very annoyed with the amount of advertising the BBC does themselves for channels I’ll never see and I do think the BBC has gone too commercial in the last five years or so: BBC World e.g. is nothing but a rebranded CNN with british accents. I also think the quality of the two main channels has drastically gone down: too much socalled reality programmes showing some rich upper class twits getting their life laundried or their gardens the size of Devon redone or buying a second home, a small little castle near Windsor. The less said about [fx: annoying Scottish accent]Fame Academy[/fx] the better. And spare me Pauline “can’t act, can annoy” Quirk, please. However, Chris has a point when he says:

At the same time, I thing a great deal of what the BBC produces (like the Robert Hughes programme on Gaudi and the documentary on Algeria I mentioned recently) is really great stuff. And a lot of the best drama of recent years has been on the BBC (would Denis Potter ever have gone so far without it?). Channel 4 used to provide an alternative arena for good programming, but in recent years it has become dominated by reality TV, crap gameshows, chat programmes from hell and other dross (yes, even more than the BBC).

The strength of the BBC at the moment seems to me to lie in its non-fiction programmes. Series like “What did the Victorians do for us?”, “The Blue Planet” or “Life of Mammals” are just plain brilliant and it’s hard to see any other tv channel doing them.