BBC snub Bomber Command Memorial

[air pig]

Sky played a blinder, their commentator calling the RAF March the Dambusters march, I do despair sometimes

[Tankertrashnav]

P-N - have to take issue with you on that one. I dont see that the numbering of German casualties was at all inappropriate, indeed I think a record of them has been incorporated into the memorial itself. In fact British civilian casualties were also numbered in the commentary. As for describing the Bomber Command offensive as "controversial" - well it would be naive to say otherwise. You and I and most contributors to this thread may have no problems with the bomber offensive as it happened, but no-one could seriously assert that our views are, or have been, held universally.

[Chugalug2]

I agree that the BBC News Channel was excellent, both technically and in the extent of coverage, for it was broadcast without interruption. The execution of the ceremony by all those involved, both at the Memorial and in the Fly Past, was impeccable and I congratulate them all. This was a stirring and fitting dedication to the memory of those who fought and died in the WWII Bombing Campaign of RAF Bomber Command.
So no quibbles? I'm afraid that there will always be those where the Beeb's need to "balance" kicks in, as Pontius says. In the ever necessary speech over required of all OBs where the event cannot simply be allowed to speak for itself, we were informed that "many of the survivors now feel guilt" at their actions. Even when this was challenged to the extent that some had been made to feel that way since, the point was not taken but merely passed over. The BBC default verdict had been made, yet again!

[Phil_R]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's been behind a camera on this sort of event:

- Yes you will get better coverage by waiting. A large part of the problem with the Jubilee is that it's just a bunch of boats floating down a river, and guess what, it isn't interesting for six hours. This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well if it isn't your specialist subject. Edited down you can create a worthwhile and informative precis of the topic which is much better use of airtime. Unfortunately, most of the major news broadcasters have people whose specific job it is to make a note of when their competitors get a story on air; this leads to ridiculous second-by-second counting and champagne all round if we do it faster than the other guys for a week, regardless of the quality of coverage. It's pathetic.

- The presenters (and the crews, and the individual directors) are either not culpable or not that culpable. Most television these days is produced at the dictat of a fairly rarefied band of upper-middle-class yes-men with very little life experience and degrees in sycophancy. These people target television at a sort of imaginary audience of stupid people which probably doesn't exist and would be the end of invention if it did.

As a result we have a media that is specifically designed to snub logic and critical thinking at its roots; a sort of analgesic lozenge for the brain that does its level best to turn us all into good little consumers.

Which is why I don't shoot news anymore.

You may be able to tell I'm not having a very good day.

[500N]

"This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well if it isn't your specialist subject."

And they call themselves professional ?

What ever happened to research, preparation etc or the six P's.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Phil_R

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's been behind a camera on this sort of event.......This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well .....

So how did Raymond Baxter manage it then ?

[Phil_R]

So how did Raymond Baxter manage it then ?

I don't know, I haven't seen much of his work, but I suspect by doing things that would not be tolerated by modern television directors.

And they call themselves professional ?

Inasmuch as it's possible to be a professional commentator on something that's never been done in living memory, I suppose so.

But really my purpose is not to try to excuse the behaviour of the on-screen talent, which I'll agree could have been better, but to elucidate why it was shambolic. The decision to try and make a five or six hour flotilla into a five or six hour piece of television is a bad one, because no matter how well prepared you are it simply isn't interesting for that long. None of this is anything to do with the talent, the crews, or the individual link directors. It's a mistake to assume that the people in front of the camera have much if any sway - it's a rather similar mistake to assuming that everyone in the RAF is a pilot, or that Bomber Command crews had any choice what they bombed.

P

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Phil_R

I don't know, I haven't seen much of his work, but I suspect by doing things that would not be tolerated by modern television directors.

I quite agree with you. For a start he knew what he was talking about.

In fairness today's performance was way better than the Jubilee events.

[Chugalug2]

Phil R, I'm quite sure that your professional take on the shambles that was the Thames Jubilee event is shared by one and all. I'm not sure that it was doomed from the start though, simply because:

it's just a bunch of boats floating down a river, and guess what, it isn't interesting for six hours.

I rather suspect that was the Beebs take on it and why they treated it so off handedly. Any one of the old school, Richard Dimbleby, Raymond Baxter, and a host of others would have wedded their own deep knowledge of our Nation's history, with an emphasis on Naval and Maritime events, with the scene being played out before them. They would have researched each and every vessel involved; why it was involved, where it had been, and what it had done, who were on board it and why, and how that all related to this great flotilla.
In short they would have done their job to the best of their ability.
The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge. I'm afraid I take issue with your portraying such people as being not culpable for it is their very words that always create the complaints aired here. I have no issue with the technical competence of the crews for they usually, as today, produce a superb product. It is the "voices over", alternately uttering inanities (ie borne of ignorance) or the Corporation "take" (ie propoganda). Fortunately today we were spared the "special salute" drivel of the Trooping and the commentator made sure he knew who everyone was and why they were there. We weren't spared the latter though, and it interesting that some here think that this occasion was one in which the tired old clichés should once more be trotted out. Why?
The Beeb is the British Broadcasting Corporation, not Parliament, not The Archbishop of Canterbury, or any other body we might expect to continually pronounce on what it perceives to be rights and wrongs. It is merely a broadcaster, yet we have grown so used to its editorial pronouncements, be it in OBs, documentaries, studio interviews and discussions that it has become the norm. Why?
It may well accord with some who find themselves in agreement with its pronouncements, but they should perhaps ask themselves how they would feel if they were not. Still obliged, under threat of a Criminal Record if they demure, to pay for it by direct taxation, and yet continually aggrieved by its pronouncements. If one bunch of people can take control of it, then any bunch can. It is the national broadcaster and should simply satisfy itself with being just that, to the best of its ability, and stop trying to get us all thinking in the same way as the "Chattering Classes".

[500N]

Phil

I disagree. Chugalug summed it up well.

"They would have researched each and every vessel involved; why it was involved, where it had been, and what it had done, who were on board it and why, and how that all related to this great flotilla.
In short they would have done their job to the best of their ability.
The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge."


The depth and breadth of boats from around the world lent itself a great commentary, sadly which was lacking.

Here is a quick example of an opportunity lost.
At 0.50, the presenter says "this is a dutch barge that is twice as wide as a narrow boat" yet doesn't explain what a narrow boat is so how can you compare.

River Pageant River Thames London (BBC's car crash coverage) - YouTube

And what about all the Dunkirk boats ? That opens up a whole wealth of historical information and photos that could have been shown.

And the boats from Commonwealth countries, that also presents an opportunity to expand on the boat, country, people etc.

Anyway, I just don't think they care and so it won't change.

[XV490]

Did anyone see Who Betrayed the Bomber Boys? on the Yesterday Channel last night? It was narrated by Stephen Fry who, given the script, would not have taken the job if he didn't agree with its sentiments. No doubt his (probably very thorough) research on 617 Sqn has influenced his views.

Great contributions, too, from Robin Gibb and Jonathan Dimbleby. The programme's title says it all. Doubtless it will be repeated...

... at 1pm today (Friday)

[Tankertrashnav]

Whilst I agree that this memorial is long overdue, and that Bomber Command was sidelined in many ways after the war, there is one oft-repeated assertion that needs to be clarified.

Once again during yesterday's commentary it was stated that "Bomber Command was denied a campaign medal". This needs to be clarified, as many have understood this to mean that Bomber Command aircrew were uniquely denied campaign medals, a misunderstanding that one look at the chests of those attending yesterday should have dispelled.

The simple fact is that Sir Arthur Harris felt that in addition to the campaign stars awarded to his crews (Aircrew Europe or France & Germany Star), a medal should be struck which would only be awarded to Bomber Command crews. This was refused on the grounds that all the stars were theatre awards and no other formation in the armed forces had been awarded a special medal and to create a precedent would open up demands from many other deserving cases. Thus there was never an official Bomber Command Medal, but neither was there a Submarine Service Medal, a Commando Medal, or many others you might think of.

[kevmusic]

I saw 'Who Betrayed the Bomber Boys' and I thought it was excellent. It said everything that needed to be said...........about 60 years too late!

[WHBM]

I am reminded (by the image a couple of posts up of the gormless 1980s has-been "personality" Anneka Rice getting a part in the Jubilee programme) of how the BBC (and other broadcasters) work nowadays.

The programme is approved, and it becomes known that there is a budget of say £300k for it. There are myriad personalities, all represented by an equally myriad labyrinth of agents, who all say on learning of any budget "that's mine", and launch into an overwhelming, not to say murky, lobbying routine of the relevant production staff. The agents have no interest in whether their client has any ability for the programme, they just want the job for their person, and their percentage. If they can stick one over on the production team, so be it. Their person shows up, they get the money. If they're useless, pocket the money and on to the next person they represent.

Anyone who understands aviation, the military involved, etc (getting back to subject) probably doesn't have an agent and so gets nowhere near any of this. There are also BBC staff who just won't consider anybody contributing who doesn't have an Equity card.

[Phil_R]

The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge.

That may or may not be true, but that's not really the point. The issue is not what could be done, but what is desired to be done by the people who design this sort of broadcasting. Of course they could get people with the requisite knowledge if they wanted to, and most of the presenters they used are more than capable of doing the research - there's just no desire to produce that sort of programming, at least at the executive level.

I am of course building something of a straw man here, but I suspect that proposals to produce a broadcast along the lines of what's being discussed in this thread - involving a factual review of the history of the vessels involved - would be received, after the laughter had died down, of being far too much of a lecture, far too dictatorial in tone and inappropriate for something that was supposed to be a celebration (and I might agree, to some extent). In a wider sense, due to "the unique way in which it is funded", the BBC is often terribly self-conscious about its public service remit (much more so than the other PS broadcasters in the UK) and has a terrible tendency to overdo things like audience participation, even when that participation involves monosyllabic responses to a presenter's questions from a clearly-uncomfortable member of the public. At risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, there would very likely have been a review process (that's a "debrief", mil types) after the event at which some chortling exective producers would have given themselves a slap on the back every time a member of a visible minority appeared in shot. I have been in meetings like this. It is very horrible.

To be clear, I'm not supporting this state of affairs, much as the citizenry of this board doesn't necessarily support the fact that Typhoon is many times over budget and ten years late; nevertheless, this is the situation, and it is not the fault of the presenters. In general it's worth giving TV presenters the benefit of the doubt, as in many cases they're paid talking machines. They bear a much-reduced responsibility for what they're saying than, say, a politician.

What's much more interesting is to discuss what the correct solution would have been, and this is a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that my audience here is mainly retired and serving RAF officers, their friends and families, and associated people, a largely male, upper-middle-class group likely to be the most tolerant of a four-hour lecture on the small boats of Britain. Nevertheless, I suspect if you'd seen it, you would probably have complained that it was a bit dull and failed to make the most of the situation, and you'd have been right.

I'd wholeheartedly agree that the BBC's choice to go completely to the other end of the spectrum, for the imaginary audience of stupid people I mentioned above, was just as much a mistake. The best approach, as so often, would seem to be somewhere inbetween.

P

[Wensleydale]

This was refused on the grounds that all the stars were theatre awards and no other formation in the armed forces had been awarded a special medal and to create a precedent would open up demands from many other deserving cases.

But a bar for a theatre medal or star with the legend "Bomber Command" would have gone some way to mitigate the fact that no unique medal was awarded.

[Tankertrashnav]

But a bar for a theatre medal or star with the legend "Bomber Command" would have gone some way to mitigate the fact that no unique medal was awarded.

Certainly a clasp for the 1939-45 Star for the pilots, observers and air gunners who flew operationally in the Battle of Britain had already been authorised and this distinguished the very small number of aircrew who took part in that campaign (as you might define it) from the very large number from all three services who received the 1939-45 Star. In the case of the Aircrew Europe Star, the majority of the recipients of this star were from Bomber Command, making a clasp 'Bomber Command' somewhat redundant. What was regrettable, however, was the decision to make D Day the cut-off date for the award of the Aircrew Europe Star, and thereafter award the France and Germany Star in its place.

My point remains. Once you make a special case for one formation, however deserving, you invite it from others, and there is no end to it. If you dont agree, look at the thread on the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal, with all the whingeing from those who feel they have been denied a medal!

[MaximumPete]

I've just finished reading "No Moon Tonight" by Don Charlwood.

This book should be compulsory reading for all of the objectors to the Bomber Command Memorial. It gives a real insight into what young men were called upon to do for their country.

I was very fortunate to have been trained by some ex Bomber Command pilots during my time with Cambrian Airways, the best training I ever experienced in 35 years of civil aviation.

They wore their medal ribbons with pride.

MP

[Albert Driver]

What's much more interesting is to discuss what the correct solution would have been, and this is a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that my audience here is mainly retired and serving RAF officers, their friends and families, and associated people, a largely male, upper-middle-class group likely to be the most tolerant of a four-hour lecture on the small boats of Britain. Nevertheless, I suspect if you'd seen it, you would probably have complained that it was a bit dull and failed to make the most of the situation, and you'd have been right.

Each and every one of those Dunkirk boats had a story to make your hair stand on end if it were told properly. Dull they are not. The fact is the presenters couldn't be bothered to read the histories of the boats and make something of them. Raymond Baxter would have been in his element with something like this and his enthusiasm would have captured the most ordinarily disinterested viewer. That is what a professional presenter is supposed to do.

And that is what is missing in the culture of the current generation of BBC presenters.

[Chugalug2]

PhilR:

In general it's worth giving TV presenters the benefit of the doubt, as in many cases they're paid talking machines. They bear a much-reduced responsibility for what they're saying than, say, a politician.

I don't think that I could have written a more damning verdict on the Beeb and its benighted presenters than you have. You paint a picture of a bureaucratic agenda bound monster that had failed before it even began the River Pageant OB. There is a well worn cliche regarding RAF Officers' Annual Assessments that goes:
"This officer sets himself abysmally low standards and consistently fails to attain them"
That is where we seem to be with BBC OBs, where "Celebrity" presenters who know little and say even less that is worthwhile are forever being cut to, and hence away from the subject of the broadcast, to stick a microphone under someone's nose and ask them what they think of it so far. The Beeb, like most other institutions that were named "British" something or other, is too big and too remote from the real world. Cocooned in a safe assured state of guaranteed survival they have lost their way. The need to be shown it, ie the way out. It is no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been. Time to remove the life support!