Dutch broadcaster censors Attenborough on evolution

The Dutch public broadcaster EO (Evangelische Omroep/Evangelical Broadcaster) has a reputation to uphold when it comes to broadcasting quality wildlife documentaries, both their own as well as series they’ve bought from other broadcasters like the BBC. One series they recently broadcasted was David Attenborough’s excellent (as per usual) Life of Mammals. However, something strange has happened with that series when it crossed the Channel: for some reason the Dutch version only has nine episodes, while the original has ten –and that’s not the only difference.

It turns out that the EO has deliberately removed all references to evolution from the series, as demonstrated by the three videos below. Which is not too surprising, considering the EO is after all a fundamentalist Christian broadcaster and adhers to the doctrine of the literal truth of the bible. What exactly the EO has censored in Attenborough’s series is now documented in several youtube movies, uploaded by somebody called Odurodon:

The first video compares and contrasts the BBC version with the EO version and shows which episode is missing from the latter.


This shows two scenes cut from the EO’s version of the first episode.

More cut scenes, this time from episode two.

If the EO had problems with the views expressed in Life of Mammals, they should either have declined to broadcast it or put in disclaimers at the start of the programme, not censor it. That they have done so shows a lack of intellectual integrity worrisome in a public broadcaster. Especially since they are using public funds to do this.

UPDATE: confused Richard for David Attenborough; now fixed. Reinder was good enough to link to this post and he has more information about this scandal; go read… Also, forgot to mention I first saw this story at Michiel.

Frank Fields: a noxious kind of stupid

The Week in Westminster, BBC Radio 4’s Saturday look back at what happened in politics this week is on right now and the subject at hand is Gordon Brown’s plan to extend the period a terror suspect can be held without charge. Member of Parliament Frank Fields is asked to comment and he made the following comparison, allegedly something a constitutent said to him, whose husband lost his legs in one of the London bombings. Nobody or nothing can give this man his legs back, but somebody who has spent time in prison as a wrongly accused suspect can be adequately compensated for this, so therefore extending the period somebody can be jailed without trial as a terror suspect is not a big deal.

Even when taking this argument at face value, there’s a huge flaw. The idea is that you can compensate for time spent in jail, but compensation cannot bring back legs lost in a terror bombing. However, no compensation will bring back the time spent in jail while innocent either, nor the accompanying lost of reputation.

Apart from that, Field’s whole atrgument is nothing more than hiding behind the righteous halo of innocent victimhood; he’s taking his constituent’s torn off legs and appropriating them for himself, in order to push through his agenda of extending the period you can be held as a terror suspect, without being charged. The one has nothing to do with the other. Locking up innocent people without charge will not prevent equally innocent people from losing their legs in terrorist bombings and guilty people can be charged. The only thing this extension will do is make for even more lazy police work, as they can just throw everybody who looks suspicious in jail and only then start looking for evidence.

Frank Field’s whole argument is based on a noxious kind of stupidity, one that wants us to believe that the price of combatting terrorism is that sometimes the wrong people will be locked up without a charge, that if we want no more legs blown off we cannotafford to be precious about civil liberties. It’s noxious, because so many people want us to believe it. It’s stupid because it’s just is not true.

Jeffty is five


(I wrote this last year and had always intended to come back to it, but I never did, until Nicholas reviewed Harlan Ellison’s Deathbird Stories and reminded me of this again.)

It was Kip’s post on Harlan Ellison and his trademarked name that reminded me of Ellison’s celebrated short story “Jeffty is Five”, which I had also just reread it again, so it was fresh in memory anyway.

I must’ve read “Jeffty is Five” about a dozen times by now; it’s a well anthologised story, winner of both the Nebula and the Hugo award. The first time I read it, some twenty years ago or so, I quite liked it, but over time I’ve become more and more uncomfortable with it.

As the Wikipedia summary puts it, “Jeffty is Five” “tells the story of a boy who never grows past the age of five physically or mentally. The narrator, Jeffty’s friend from the age of five well into adulthood, discovers that Jeffty’s radio plays serial programs no longer produced on radio stations that no longer exist. They are contemporary, all-new shows, however; not re-runs. He can buy comics such as The Shadow and Doc Savage that are, again, all-new although they are no longer being produced. The narrator is privy to this world because of Jeffty’s trust, while the rest of the world (the world that grew as Jeffty did not) is not.”

In the story, trust and nostalgia are inseperatable. The narrator gains access to Jeffty’s golden childhood world because he has Jeffty’s trust and looses it in the climax of the story by inadvertently betraying this trust. At the start of the story the narrator is out in the cold, untrusting world of seventies America, at the end he’s there again, but made even worse by knowing what he has lost.

As a story, it is a powerful dose of nostalgia, a paean to Ellison’s own lost childhood and the wonders it held, even for people who never experienced this time themselves. There’s always been a stubborn streak of nostalgia in science fiction, an awareness of history to which this story appealed; as its long list of awards shows. It also fits well with the general trend for nostalgia of the late seventies —happy Days, anyone?

Now in general, nostalgia is a reactionary emotion, not just a hankering for an idealised past and a denial of the present, but also a denial of possible future improvement. In small doses this is harmless, but when it controls a discourse, it can be a prelude to authoritarianism. Which is why I’m skeptical of nostalgia these days, especially as seductive as it is presented here. Ellison is quite convincing in his genuine love for nineteenforties pop culture, but unfortunately, this love is stuck in the middle of a quite amoral tale. Let me explain what I mean by that.

First, there’s the treatment of Jeffty’s parents, who are depicted without any sympathy for their plight, as dour, soulles, crushed people with no notion what their son can do, or appreciation of him. Both physically and mentally they’re repulsive. They have to be repulsive and unsympathetic for the story to work, to make the real world that much more dismal, but also because if the narrator felt any real sympathy for them, his joy in sharing Jeffty’s world with him could not be so innocent.

Then there’s Jeffty himself, whose condition is treated as not just positive, but as a wonder, something to envy. Again, this needs to be done to make the story work, but if you think about it, would you want him to stay five forever, or would you want him to grow up?

Finally, there’s the narrator’s treatment of Jeffty, which is nothing short of exploitative. In the heart of the story, when he recounts his time with Jeffty, “the happiest time of my life”, it’s all about him listening to new installments of his old favourite radio shows, seeing his favourite movie stars making new movies of his favourite novels, reading his favourite comics and pulps; you get the picture. It’s all about his pleasure in material things, justified through the lens of sickly nostalgia. (His hatred for contemporary America is also rooted in material matters: rock music, cheap candy bars, junkfood.)

This is why, though I loved this story when I first read it years ago, I’ve found it less and less charming everytime I’ve reread it. It’s well written, but it’s wrong.

The elders won’t save the world

It is the sort of initiative a Guardian reader can’t help but love: Nelson Mandela gathering the world’s most respected elder statesmen into a sort of worldleader superhero group, the Elders:

Nelson Mandela marked his 89th birthday yesterday with the launch of a group of world-renowned figures who plan to use several Nobel peace prizes and “almost 1,000 years of collective experience” to tackle global crises which governments are unable or unwilling to confront.

“Using their collective experience, their moral courage and their ability to rise above nation, race and creed, they can make our planet a more peaceful and equitable place to live,” said the former South African president.

Mr Mandela, looking frail and walking with a stick, said the group, to be known as the Elders, was created at the initiative of Sir Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel, who organised the funding.

Its members include former US president Jimmy Carter, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, and former archbishop of Cape Town Desmond Tutu. The former Irish president Mary Robinson and Bangladeshi philanthropist Muhammad Yunus are also included, with others expected to be invited to join. Mr Mandela said the group could become a “robust force for good” in dealing with challenges
ranging from climate change and global pandemics, such as Aids and malaria, to “that entirely human-created affliction, violent conflict”.

It is an initiative sprung from the same mindset as Live 8 or Live Earth, or the idea that Tony Blair would make a good Middle East peace envoy now he’s an ex-prime minister. It’s the idea that celebrities can change the world, because they can get people mobilised and interested, while worldleaders listen to them and respect them. Activism, but safe activism, as it is our elders and betters doing the work for us, and all we need to do is sent them “our fecking money”, relax and watch the popstars cavorting on stage.

But it will never change anything because it’s designed not to do so. Like planting a tree to make up for your plane flight, it’s meant to assuage your guilt without actually doing anything. It’s sad to see Nelson Mandela, at one point a genuine freedom fighter and revolutionary, being co-opted this way.

Something Rotten – Jasper Fforde

Cover of Something Rotten


Something Rotten
Jasper Fforde
393 pages
published in 2004

Something Rotten is the fourth novel in Jasper Fforde’s Thursday Next series, which concludes the story and ties up all the remaining plot points from the previous three books. There may be some spoilers here if you haven’t read the previous novels,The Eyre Affair, Lost in a Good Book and The Well of Lost Plots. Like the previous books this was entertaining, funny in places but slight. Nevertheless, this was an improvement on the previous book, which I thought to be the weakest in the series.

In Something Rotten Thursday Next comes out from her hiding place in the realm of unfinished stories back into the real world, to take on her old enemy the Goliath Corporation and force them to uneradicate her husband, Landen Park-Laine. This may turn out to be more easier than she though, as the corporation has seemingly turned over a new leaf and is in the process of setting right all of their previous misdeeds in return for their victims forgiveness. Landen may therefore be much more easily restored to her than Thursday thought possible.

Read more