Live-blogging history
Live-blogging history
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?
Is it only me to whom this fake live-blogging seems utterly faux?
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Live-blogging history
It is not only you.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Live-blogging history
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.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
-
- Quinta do Noval LBV
- Posts: 232
- Joined: 01:11 Thu 04 Jul 2013
Re: Live-blogging history
+2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Live-blogging history
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.
• 6th September 2001, the 100th anniversary of the assassination of President William McKinley.
• 2nd July 2006, the 125th anniversary of the assassination of President James A. Garfield.
• 9th October 2009, the 75th anniversary of the assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia of Yugoslavia (he of Tuesday fame).
• 12th May 2013, the 150th 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.
Compare with the live-blogging not done by the BBC.
• 6th September 2001, the 100th anniversary of the assassination of President William McKinley.
• 2nd July 2006, the 125th anniversary of the assassination of President James A. Garfield.
• 9th October 2009, the 75th anniversary of the assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia of Yugoslavia (he of Tuesday fame).
• 12th May 2013, the 150th 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.
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
- Location: Somerset, UK
Re: Live-blogging history
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
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
Re: Live-blogging history
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.LGTrotter wrote:Surely this is merely a device to get people considering the event and aftermath.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
Re: Live-blogging history
I suspect they wanted us to talk about WW1, rather than the extent to which the BBC’s coverage is faux.LGTrotter wrote: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.
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
- Location: Somerset, UK
Re: Live-blogging history
Ahem;
But you're right, this kind of stuff is uniquely painful to watch.
jdaw1 wrote: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.
Just sayingdjewesbury wrote: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.
But you're right, this kind of stuff is uniquely painful to watch.
Re: Live-blogging history
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.LGTrotter wrote:Ahem;jdaw1 wrote: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.Just sayingdjewesbury wrote: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.
Re: Live-blogging history
jdaw1 wrote:I suspect they wanted us to talk about WW1, rather than the extent to which the BBC’s coverage is faux.LGTrotter wrote: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 think Owen's "Just saying" was pointing out that we are not only discussing the nature of the BBC coverage.jdaw1 wrote: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.LGTrotter wrote:Ahem;jdaw1 wrote: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.Just sayingdjewesbury wrote: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.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn