I know this blog is supposed to be about America, but I'm feeling a little homesick at the moment. I have been reading the English newspapers to cheer myself up. There isn't much to praise about English newspapers. They are all hackish, scabrous and dreadfully written. But you're guaranteed storms, rows and shockas. Gossip is their only redeeming feature.
The latest furore is about the Queen and the BBC. In an attempt to appear modern, hip and fresh, the monarchy has asked the BBC to film "A Year with the Queen", a documentary to show behind-the-scenes, Queen-on-Philip action. Then, the BBC put together a trailer which implied the Queen stormed out of a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz, when she in fact stormed in.
As you might expect, the press has got its knickers in a twist. The wet Times calls it "television treason". The more Thatcherite Telegraph thinks it is "profoundly shocking". Everyone with a jowl or a moustache is calling for the director-general of the BBC to resign.
It's only in the UK - actually, in England - that this kind of bowing and scraping continues. The culprit is apparently RDF Media, which was commissioned by the Beeb to make the film. RDF's previous programming includes "Wife Swap" and "Faking It", reality shows that pit the poor and feckless against the posh, snobbish and cultured. They make people look even more hapless than they really are, by the type of editing evident in police interview tapes of black men. The Queen wanted a reality show, and she got it. She was merely the victim of the same technique. But, of course, she is not subject to the same rules as everyone else. Having packs of lawyers at her disposal, she certainly wasn't duped into signing a waver, giving the BBC full editorial control.
It's such a silly country, with all its classes and royals and public schoolboys. America is also rigidly ordered by class, but at least you pretend classes don't exist. I hope the monarchy withers and dies as it becomes decreasingly necessary. But Marx thought that would happen to the state, didn't he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
you should read my monarchy book, then, springy. i feel my hackles rise when you say england is a silly country. and the guardian's not a bad paper, is it? and the media and politics pretty uncorrupt compared to much of the world. do you feel less homesick if you think of england as a bit rubbish? compared to other places i have lived in, it's not doing too badly.
Dear anonymous, I've heard these comments before. I think I know who you are. Well, it is a bit silly. I singled out the pomp and circ and the class system to say why it is silly. It can't even be a European country properly, with its vast servant underclass masquerading as "economic dynamism".
The press is truly awful, apart from the Guardian. There isn't another decent paper in England. And none of them come close to the New York Times. I think it's because of the BBC, which is world-beating, and has the monopoly on news collected by proper reporting and presented objectively. The other media (apart from the Guardian), cut corners and rely on innnuendo and gossip to pull in the punters because they're run for profit.
It certainly is a very nice country, and I like it for a lot of reasons. I like that it doesn't take itself too seriously, and I like parliamentary systems much more than presidential ones, and generally people are funny. But why get yourself in a patriotic lather about these things? It's only a country.
huh! patriotic lather? maybe you have misread the tone of my reply. which is accidentally anonymous, by the way, as i don't know how to make it not.
you should see the papers and the tv in holland, for example. it's just porn. and in ghana there is only one non-governmental newspaper and the people who work on it are prone to being beaten up by the military and placed under house arrest.
so i think, on balance, not doing too badly. you have to put these things in perspective. i think british politics and media are among the best in the world. which doesn't mean i think they are flawless. ax
Ah, I see. Well, in that perspective, I suppose you're right, if you include all the countries that don't have a free press. And most newspapers everywhere are naff. But I think my argument still holds, that because the BBC does reporting so well, print media doesn't have to bother. The situation is reversed in America, where TV news is terrible, and a few newspapers are very good. For example, all of the quality English press's articles are shorter and less in-depth than American ones. There are usually more features and less serious news. There is much more commentary.
As for the explicit class system and the monarchy, neither are necessary or desireable. I will read your monarchy report. I have been meaning to. Maybe I'll post again afterwards. But it seems to me that the monarchy serves little social or constitutional purpose, and it is because it is so irrelevant that no one has bothered to get rid of it.
As for patriotism - "raised hackles" at criticism is clearly the emotive response of one who feels their identity being attacked. Perhaps not a "lather": sorry for my rhetorical exuberance.
but i'm not even english! 'raised hackles' was just a turn of phrase. similar to the ones your blog is larded with.
Post a Comment