Kirsten

I'm playing catch up (so. many. posts.in. one. day.) and maybe this
question has already been answered.

--- In [email protected], Emilie <erugard@...> wrote:

> I felt pretty betrayed when I discovered that all the nature shows I
> watched when I was a kid were staged and the explanations given for
> animal behavior were all grossly incorrect, and often politically
> motivated. 20 years later nature shows are still staged and
> inaccurate.

Huh? You can't just throw this out there without an explanation. I'm
particularly interested in the "political motivation" behind
hoodwinking us poor kids regarding nature shows.

Kirsten

Schuyler

There was a really interesting BBC show maybe 2 years ago, Planet Earth (I
think). The show was formatted to work for U.S. television, so an hour long
show was 40 minutes on the BBC which doesn't have commercials (except for
itself--like PBS). To fill the 20 minutes difference they used the DVD
material called The Planet Earth Diaries, where David Attenborough would
talk about aspects of the filming or the editing. One episode was largely
about Snow Leopards and they had a whole story about mother and son, very
long, very emotive. In the Diaries section they said that they used the
first footage they got in the last section of the show. So, the artistic
desires of the show beat out the desire to tell the truth, or at least to
present the footage in a linear, true to time, fashion. I kinda thought it
was cool though. I'd never really thought about it. I've seen other shows
talk about the fact that they will use captive animals to video those shots
that they couldn't get the light for in the wild.

Maybe that is what the original poster was referring to.

I do think that they are often much better about not having grossly
inaccurate descriptions of animal behavior. We watched a show about
Edentates (sloths, anteaters, and armadillos) the other night that had Tom
Baker doing the narration (the scarf wearing Doctor Who, for the anglophile
amongst you, he does the voice overs for Little Britain as well). He was
very tongue in cheek. I imagine some of the information was sullied by the
desire to be funny. Not an awful trade-off, really.

Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com



> I'm playing catch up (so. many. posts.in. one. day.) and maybe this
> question has already been answered.
>
> --- In [email protected], Emilie <erugard@...> wrote:
>
>> I felt pretty betrayed when I discovered that all the nature shows I
>> watched when I was a kid were staged and the explanations given for
>> animal behavior were all grossly incorrect, and often politically
>> motivated. 20 years later nature shows are still staged and
>> inaccurate.
>
> Huh? You can't just throw this out there without an explanation. I'm
> particularly interested in the "political motivation" behind
> hoodwinking us poor kids regarding nature shows.
>
> Kirsten

Kirsten

Thanks Schuyler! I just might have to look that one up. I was born
in Liverpool, so we do seek out BBC productions when I'm feeling
particularly sentimental and homesick;)

Kirsten


>
> I do think that they are often much better about not having grossly
> inaccurate descriptions of animal behavior. We watched a show about
> Edentates (sloths, anteaters, and armadillos) the other night that
had Tom
> Baker doing the narration (the scarf wearing Doctor Who, for the
anglophile
> amongst you, he does the voice overs for Little Britain as well). He
was
> very tongue in cheek. I imagine some of the information was sullied
by the
> desire to be funny. Not an awful trade-off, really.
>
> Schuyler
> www.waynforth.blogspot.com

Schuyler

Ooh, if you want to see the BBC get in trouble for creative editing:
http://tinyurl.com/ywbnmy

They messed with a story about the Queen. Not a particularly savvy move.

Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirsten" <sushimeow@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:07 AM
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Why is it a positive to not have
a tv? (was:


> I'm playing catch up (so. many. posts.in. one. day.) and maybe this
> question has already been answered.
>
> --- In [email protected], Emilie <erugard@...> wrote:
>
>> I felt pretty betrayed when I discovered that all the nature shows I
>> watched when I was a kid were staged and the explanations given for
>> animal behavior were all grossly incorrect, and often politically
>> motivated. 20 years later nature shows are still staged and
>> inaccurate.
>
> Huh? You can't just throw this out there without an explanation. I'm
> particularly interested in the "political motivation" behind
> hoodwinking us poor kids regarding nature shows.
>
> Kirsten
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Emilie

I gave three links to books about this in another reply. If you
can't find it email me again an I'll resend it to you directly.

As far as political motivation, I was referring to the work of
feminist writer Marilyn French, among others who make this case based
on the gross misinformation put forward in wildlife
'documentaries'. Her thesis (and I am not quoting directly because
those particular books are in an unopenable cupboard at my house
barricaded by a giant piece of film gear that that my husband has
been working on for the last several months) is that these
misrepresentations of animal behavior give us the impression that
male dominance and patriarchy are 'natural' for both animals and
people. Violence and warlike behaviours (beyond hunting for food) are
also shown to be 'natural' by these shows. Her case is that these
phenomena were rare in prehistory, where human societies tended to be
matricentric (centered around the guidance of mothers and elder
women) and still don't exist significantly in any but two species of
animals. Tv, in this way, both misinforms and at the same time
reinforces the prevailing political realities of inequality and expansionism.

I haven't done this argument justice, but here is the link for one of
the books.

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Power-Women-Men-Morals/dp/0345334051


Emilie






At 12:07 AM 31/07/2007, you wrote:

>I'm playing catch up (so. many. posts.in. one. day.) and maybe this
>question has already been answered.
>
>--- In
><mailto:unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected],
>Emilie <erugard@...> wrote:
>
> > I felt pretty betrayed when I discovered that all the nature shows I
> > watched when I was a kid were staged and the explanations given for
> > animal behavior were all grossly incorrect, and often politically
> > motivated. 20 years later nature shows are still staged and
> > inaccurate.
>
>Huh? You can't just throw this out there without an explanation. I'm
>particularly interested in the "political motivation" behind
>hoodwinking us poor kids regarding nature shows.
>
>Kirsten
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kirsten

Hi Emilie,

Thanks for the condensed explanation. I did see your links to books
on the topic, but my reading list is already a mile long;) It was the
"political motivation" part that threw me. While the patriarchy and
politics are (unfortunately) inextricably linked, I didn't make the
connection first time around. I may have to dust off my Marilyn
French this evening;) I'm intrigued by her thesis.

Thanks,
Kirsten



--- In [email protected], Emilie <erugard@...> wrote:
>
> I gave three links to books about this in another reply. If you
> can't find it email me again an I'll resend it to you directly.
>
> As far as political motivation, I was referring to the work of
> feminist writer Marilyn French, among others who make this case based
> on the gross misinformation put forward in wildlife
> 'documentaries'. Her thesis (and I am not quoting directly because
> those particular books are in an unopenable cupboard at my house
> barricaded by a giant piece of film gear that that my husband has
> been working on for the last several months) is that these
> misrepresentations of animal behavior give us the impression that
> male dominance and patriarchy are 'natural' for both animals and
> people. Violence and warlike behaviours (beyond hunting for food) are
> also shown to be 'natural' by these shows. Her case is that these
> phenomena were rare in prehistory, where human societies tended to be
> matricentric (centered around the guidance of mothers and elder
> women) and still don't exist significantly in any but two species of
> animals. Tv, in this way, both misinforms and at the same time
> reinforces the prevailing political realities of inequality and
expansionism.
>
> I haven't done this argument justice, but here is the link for one of
> the books.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Power-Women-Men-Morals/dp/0345334051
>
>
> Emilie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:07 AM 31/07/2007, you wrote:
>
> >I'm playing catch up (so. many. posts.in. one. day.) and maybe this
> >question has already been answered.
> >
> >--- In
>
><mailto:unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected],

> >Emilie <erugard@> wrote:
> >
> > > I felt pretty betrayed when I discovered that all the nature shows I
> > > watched when I was a kid were staged and the explanations given for
> > > animal behavior were all grossly incorrect, and often politically
> > > motivated. 20 years later nature shows are still staged and
> > > inaccurate.
> >
> >Huh? You can't just throw this out there without an explanation. I'm
> >particularly interested in the "political motivation" behind
> >hoodwinking us poor kids regarding nature shows.
> >
> >Kirsten
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>