Metal Monday

I was both pleased and slightly annoyed last Friday on discovering BBC Four had decided to broadcast a heavy metal theme night. Pleased because metal rarely gets any kind of mention on the BBC, annoyed because if BBC Four was doing a Heavy Metal Brittannia retrospective it meant the genre had well and truly become obsolete. And true to form, the main documentary was indeed an exercise in nostalgia, focusing too much on metal’s pioneers, spending too much time on the sixties and early seventies, with barely a mention of the eighties and the N.W.O.B.H.M. and absolutely nothing on developments since. Even if the focus was on British metal, why was so much time spent on barely relevant acts like Uriah Heep instead of important post-1980 bands like Napalm Death, or Paradise Lost or whatever? Is it cynical of me to think that cutting off the story around 1980 would make metal still reasonably understandable to the BBC Four audience, while not having to mention the more extreme developments since? Still, it’s comforting to know the BBC’s usual slightly out of kilter view of music extents to metal as well — seemingly obsessed with roots and almost unable to move out of the baby boomers’ sixties-seventies time frame, as if everything that’s interesting in rock and pop got its start there.

But though I can fully appreciate the genius of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or Deep Purple and the other hard rock pioneers, they’re not metal. These bands all fit in perfectly with the other big rock bands: the Stones, the Who, Cream and all the seventies stadion rock acts. Perfectly normal people could listen to them and go to their concerts and not be looked down upon. They weren’t metal. is metal:



And this.



Not to mention this.



Metal has always been a skeevy sausagefest sort of music, both thuggish and nerdy, listened to by the weird dorky kid with the Tolkien posters in his bedroom and the thicko failing woodshop with a habit of casual violence. It’s never been cool or top forty material, with some exceptions, yet remains popular everywhere anyway. Its image is violent, reactionary and misogynistic but apart from a few of the more loonier Christian pressure groups in the eigthies nobody ever got as outraged about it as they would get over a single fiddy cents video. And I love it.

Upgrade Me

Upgrade Me looked interesting, but unfortunately went something like this:

“Hi, I’m Simon Armitage a succesful poet and completely unqualified to actually talk about this subject, but I love gadgets and the BBC loves “name” presenters. I’m on my tenth phone already and while I love gadgets, I feel a vague unease about it all. Let me go to John Lewis and talk about how John Lewis completely revamps their John Lewis product lines in their John Lewis stores every six months. Now I’m talking to some kids of some nicely multicultural London school and see how many technogadgets they have. They all would love to have an IPhone. Oh look, I’m showing them my generation’s portable media player — a battery operated turntable. Now onwards to the future, courtesy of Samsung, as I travel to South Korea, home of Samsung, to talk about the Samsung future. It’s a bit scary and not very English and although I can set up a Skype videocall with my wife, I don’t use the internet enough to find what Manchester United did yesterday. So let’s go home and meet a lovely English eccentric that has lived without gadgets or indeed electricity for years. It’s very nice and I think I could live that way too, but I do need my e-mail and mobile phone, not so much the washing machine. This woman is a modern day Luddite and I make it clear I have no clue what motivates the real Luddites but ascribe to them my own vague sense of discomfort about material things, just like I keep assuming the seventies when I grew up was much less gadget obsessed than today. Anway, the conclusion is that it’s all very difficult and there are two sides to every story but I had fun meeting all sorts of people on the BBC’s tab.”

The Tudors

If there’s one thing the BBC just cannot do, it’s making trailers for their tv shows that do not fill you with a brightly burning hatred for the show in question after the second time you’ve seen the trailer. Doesn’t matter whether the programme itself is good or not, because the trailers are so annoying and they’re shown so often (even thirty seconds before the show in question comes on) that you cannot help but loathe it. And when the trailers are promoting something that is going to be awful, the trailers are even worse. Such was the case for The Tudors, BBC2’s latest mock-historical costumes ‘n sex drama. You knew it was going to be bad because the trailer showed all sort of dark! dramatic! scenery chewing, interspersed with pseudoporn, and the lead actor did that stupid “talking normally THEN SHOUTING bit” that bad tv actors thinks shows tension, but instead just makes them look like a berk.

We’ve watched the series a bit since it came on because we always catch it switching from Have I got News for You on BBC1 to Q.I. on BBC2, because we keep forgetting there’s half an hour inbetween them. While watching it, S— remarked that it seemed made for the American market because a) dumbed down, b) overdramatic and c) lots of filler that could be cut for commercials. Well, surprise surprise, it turned out she was right, Daily Mail tells us. This being the Mail, there’s plenty of sexy photos of it inbetween telling us how sexed up and awful it is:

Modern radiators, Tarmac driveways, concrete bollards and Victorian carriages have all made appearances in the tenpart series set in the 16th century.

Made by Showtime, a U.S. production company, The Tudors appeared on American screens before being bought by BBC2. Henry VIII is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers of Bend It Like Beckham fame.

Last night, Leanda de Lisle, a Tudor biographer, said: “Overall the series is badly written with an extremely cheap feel to it.

“It is hugely disappointing. With inaccuracies in almost every sentence, the BBC is dumbing down the Tudor period.”

She said the anachronisms would be acceptable only if the drama “rang true” – and this hadn’t been the case.

She added: “The characters talk in completely unnatural ways, addressing their own family members as “Anne Boleyn” or “Mary Boleyn” so that we, the stupid audience, understand who they’re supposed to be.

“Henry VIII was exceedingly powerful, both politically and physically, but Rhys Meyers is pretty, rather than macho and thus completely unconvincing.”

The Tudors is only the worst recent example of the BBC’s recent tendency to sex up and dumb down its historical dramas, either to attract more viewers or to be able to sell it on to the American market. Any educative values still presents in these shows is watered down to homeopathic levels in the process, losing much of the justification for them. These series are supposed to teach some history in an enjoyable manner, but unless you’ve got a fetish for “medieval” costume cosplay, you’ll neither enjoy The Tudors nor learn anything from it.

Balanced News

There’s a good report up on Medialens of how something that looks at first sight to be a balanced newsreport, on further investigation,isn’t. No prizes if you guessed this might have something to do with climate change, and in particular, that High Court judge and his supposed finding of “nine errors” in Al gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The BBC did their usual piece on this, by interviewing the involved parties, but they let themselves been snookered as they never looked into how the complainant, Stuart Dimmock, a lorry driver and school governor could afford to bring his complaint all the way to the High Court. If they had, they would’ve found that he was sponsored by the climate change skeptic New Party, itself sponsored by Scottish millionaire Robert Durward. By not reporting this in their interviews with Dimmock, the BBC therefore provided a clearly false picture of this court case while still adhering to the doctrine of “balance”.

This is only one example of a widespread practise, not just at the BBC but in all news media, where instead of journalists trying to determine the truth behind the surface story, only the claims and counterclaims of the involved parties are reported. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in politics especially it is often hard to objectively determine the truth of a story, or the story is about the conflicting interpretations of government and opposition for a given incident. It’s then that a summation of claim and counterclaim is justified, but not when relevant facts are left out of the story.

But even when this sort of reporting is justified, a story can be balanced and still be unfair. An example of this was on display in a news item I heard last night on the Radio 4 six oçlock news bulletin. The story was about the Scottish government’s opposition against a replacement for the UK’s current Trident based nuclear deterrent. since the Trident submarines are based in Faslane in Scotland, making the country therefore a nuclear target, it’s clearly a legitimate concern of the Scottish governement, even though technically it falls outside their jurisdiction.

On the BBC news however this was framed with a soundbyte from Wendy Alexander, the leader of the Labour opposition in the Scottish Parliament, who said she didn’t want English politicians speaking for Scotland on matters like healthcare and therefore Scottish politicians should not speak out about English or British matters either. This was immediately followed by a question from the BBC reporter to the Scottish National Pary’s spokesperson on whether the SNP did not go too far in its opposition to Trident replacement. With that, even though both sides, Labour and SNP, got their say, the bias of the story was clearly in favour of Labour; but you wouldn’t know that it was biased unless you paid close attention.

It’s a borderline dishonest way of reporting on stories, and it’s far more common than you think. Much of the reputation of a Jeremy Paxman or a John Humpries for being “tough”, it seems to me, is due to mock aggresive oneway questioning like this, where only the weaker party is attacked like this. The BBC may pride itself on being independent, but in important matters it will almost always take the side of the vested interests, the establishment.

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.