Live-blogging history

[jdaw1]

Today the BBC has been ‘live-commenting’ the visit of the Archduke to Sarajevo a century after it happened. Is it only me to whom this seems utterly faux? Big important event receiving live coverage! But the scale of the consequences of the assassination weren’t known at the time. Arguably, they weren’t known by the end of the following year. At the time it seemed like the start of Yet Another Minor Balkan War.

Is it only me to whom this fake live-blogging seems utterly faux?

[djewesbury]

It is not only you.

[djewesbury]

Also the assassination was, arguably, a minor cause rather than a major one; it presented an opportunity which was already being actively sought by this stage. The powers were re-arming and preparing extensively for war. The 'single cause' approach reveals very little about the real reasons for the war.

[DRT]

+1

[CaliforniaBrad]

+2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jdaw1]

The live-blogging is meant to immerse the audience in the time. What did they then know? What did they then not know? And what they didn’t then know was that this would have such consequences.

Compare with the live-blogging not done by the BBC.
• 6^th September 2001, the 100^th anniversary of the assassination of President William McKinley.
• 2^nd July 2006, the 125^th anniversary of the assassination of President James A. Garfield.
• 9^th October 2009, the 75^th anniversary of the assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia of Yugoslavia (he of Tuesday fame).
• 12^th May 2013, the 150^th anniversary of the assassination of Radama II, King of Madagascar. Strangled with a silk sash.
Etc.

Why not? Because the BBC is half-hearted about the what-did-they-then-know game.

[LGTrotter]

Surely this is merely a device to get people considering the event and aftermath. Indeed it is 'faux' but this carries an implication that some version of history is 'echt'. Which it isn't.

If the success of such a ruse may be measured by getting unlikely people to talk about it then this thread probably represents a victory.

-1

[DRT]

Surely this is merely a device to get people considering the event and aftermath.

Undoubtedly true. But I dislike the genre of using current real journalists to act out news reports covering historic events as though they are live. The "acting" is generally appalling and entirely implausible. I watched a few minutes of such nonsense on the BBC news this morning and instantly decide to avoid watching, reading or listening to any more of what has been produced.

[jdaw1]

If the success of such a ruse may be measured by getting unlikely people to talk about it then this thread probably represents a victory.

I suspect they wanted us to talk about WW1, rather than the extent to which the BBC’s coverage is faux.

[LGTrotter]

Ahem;

But the scale of the consequences of the assassination weren’t known at the time. Arguably, they weren’t known by the end of the following year. At the time it seemed like the start of Yet Another Minor Balkan War.

Also the assassination was, arguably, a minor cause rather than a major one; it presented an opportunity which was already being actively sought by this stage. The powers were re-arming and preparing extensively for war. The 'single cause' approach reveals very little about the real reasons for the war.

Just saying

But you're right, this kind of stuff is uniquely painful to watch.

[jdaw1]

Ahem;

But the scale of the consequences of the assassination weren’t known at the time. Arguably, they weren’t known by the end of the following year. At the time it seemed like the start of Yet Another Minor Balkan War.

Also the assassination was, arguably, a minor cause rather than a major one; it presented an opportunity which was already being actively sought by this stage. The powers were re-arming and preparing extensively for war. The 'single cause' approach reveals very little about the real reasons for the war.

Just saying

The assassination was, without doubt, the trigger. Was it, at a deeper level, the cause? For some definitions of the word, no; for others, yes; for yet others, maybe, a bit. Take your pick.

[DRT]

If the success of such a ruse may be measured by getting unlikely people to talk about it then this thread probably represents a victory.

I suspect they wanted us to talk about WW1, rather than the extent to which the BBC’s coverage is faux.

Ahem;

But the scale of the consequences of the assassination weren’t known at the time. Arguably, they weren’t known by the end of the following year. At the time it seemed like the start of Yet Another Minor Balkan War.

Also the assassination was, arguably, a minor cause rather than a major one; it presented an opportunity which was already being actively sought by this stage. The powers were re-arming and preparing extensively for war. The 'single cause' approach reveals very little about the real reasons for the war.

Just saying

The assassination was, without doubt, the trigger. Was it, at a deeper level, the cause? For some definitions of the word, no; for others, yes; for yet others, maybe, a bit. Take your pick.

I think Owen's "Just saying" was pointing out that we are not only discussing the nature of the BBC coverage.