The offenses of creationists aren’t always blatant: it’s the sneaky erosion of science, the quiet omissions, the gradual degradation of good science where they make the most gains, and it’s where they get bold and stick their heads out (like Dover) where they get slapped down. We need to be aware of the small stuff, too, because it adds up — like this effort by Dutch evangelicals to edit David Attenborough’s documentaries. Some changes have to be made in translations and so forth, and the BBC does allow cuts up to about 5 minutes per hour, but the nasty thing is how targeted the cuts are at slicing out just those bits a pathologically ignorant theist would find objectionable.
I’ve had some people complain that we ought to reserve our outrage for the big stuff, the dramatic crap the creationists try to pull. I’m going to have to disagree. The little stuff that nibbles away at accurate information and slowly destroys the public education of science that must be confronted just as strenuously.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Wouldn’t characterise that as so small, either. Reading:
In particular, she singled out the EO DVD “Het Leven van Zoogdieren” – The Life of Mammals. The series is presented as written and “presented by David Attenborough. Yet it is censored and Episode 10, about apes and humans, is absent. In short, he said, it appears “in a mutilated form, cutting or rephrasing all passages relevant to evolution.”
That’s pretty brazen. Hell, it’s distinctly dishonest. Tends rather to distort the views of Attenborough himself. Imagine if someone wrote a book on natural history, and then someone reprinting it said: oh, but we’re gonna take out all the stuff our idiot superstition disagrees with, and we’re not even gonna tell you, but you still get to have your name on the cover, and everyone’s gonna think your views are perfectly coherent with ours. In Attenborough’s shoes, I’d be seriously, seriously pissed.
My suggestion to Sir David: Always include seven or more minutes of blatant evolution per hour in any production. Preferably more. Given the BBC’s rules, that would do the trick.
No no, get David Attenborough mad. He could lead an anti-creationist jihad (Yes, I am aware that is a religious word) on the basis that most people of the past 40 years have grown up with him explaining the natural world and wonders of creatures to them on TV.
It’s such a shame; real scientists spend the better part of their time doing research and furthering science while these fundamentalists, assuming their view is correct a priori, spend all their time censoring opposing views and trying to convert people rather than doing anything that’s actually productive.
As such, they devote more time and energy to tearing down good work than scientists, who spend their time doing science, can spend protecting that same work.
Since the human population of the world has exceeded what can possibly be supported without science and engineering, why can these people not see that, by corrupting scientific information, they are essentially undermining the machinery that keeps them alive (and driving SUVs and spreading their drivel by the internet and feeding food to their children)?
I’m with you. Keep on these liars, and expose every disgusting little deceit they pull: every little quote-mine, every little omission, every little misrepresentation, every little lie they tell.
Unfortunately, it seems that only the atheist and scientific communities know that these frauds only survive by their lies. Most moderates recognise that these people are fundamentalist freaks with only a tenuous grasp of reality, but few seem to recognise how debauched and deceitful they are.
After all, these pious profligates been trying to paint the scientific community as covering up a ‘Darwinist conspiracy’ for years. The difference is, the scientific community can survive scrutiny; in fact, it thrives on it. Not so these bags of bile.
They should burn in hell for that, the infidels!
I’m going to second Brownian’s comment. It’s cumulative…
Most moderates recognise that these people are fundamentalist freaks with only a tenuous grasp of reality, but few seem to recognise how debauched and deceitful they are.
Indeed. We should be satisfied when the vast majority of published dictionaries read as follows:
creationist (n.) — liar.
… and no one much sees this as surprising.
Seconded, guthrie. But even more important than that, don’t the creationist wanks realize it is a bad idea to upset a man who can say things like:
“Hello, I’m David Attenborough, and I’m talking to you (camera pans out) from the midst of a group of carnivorous monitor lizards.”
“Hello, I’m David Attenborough, and I’m talking to you (camera pans out) from the middle of a live volcanic crater.”
etc etc.
Not only is this man a respected naturalist. He is STARK. RAVING. MAD. He is a walking example of how the British Empire came to dominate the world, by being friggin crazier than anybody else around. Now some pansy Dutch creationists want to get up in his face? Bring. It. On. :)
Aren’t the Dutch creationists just “framing” the original documentary? They’re just doing as Nisbet and Mooney suggest, “organiz[ing] central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions…par[ing] down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis […] strategically avoid[ing] emphasizing the technical details of science.” I think it is just Attenborough who believes the Dutch approach is “too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts.” Man, didn’t he get the memo?
With you all the way.
The only way creationism can truly be countered (apart from preventing it being taught in schools) is to make sure evolution is EVERYWHERE. Media need to be primed to use the e-word whenever called for instead of trying to avoid it. And all nature documentaries should contain references to it. Because of what Dobzhansky said.
What I really don’t get is what that evangelical organisation was doing editing BBC documentaries in the first place. Were they then aired on TV? In that case what channel? And why would Dutch TV allow nature documentaries to be edited by a private religious organisation?
Fundies spend their lives pulling the wool over people’s eyes. It’s what they do.
They attack the unreligious because there’s absolutely nothing positive they can do to substantiate their sorry religious beliefs. What else are they going to do with their free time? Prove that their invisible god exists? That Jesus is up there in the sky with him?
Smears and distortions and authoritarian pronouncements are the fundie’s bread and butter.
Recently in the Dallas Morning News letters to the editor someone wrote, “what good comes from teaching evolution?” They said they understood why other sciences and mathmatics were (financially) beneficial but when it comes to the evidence that is in direct opposition to their faith, to their dogma, then what is the point?
This cherry picking of science by educated, seemingly rational adults here in the Bible Belt is indicative of the conflict between culture, education and reason everywhere (except Norway, apparently). I know a lot of CPAs here with MAs who will fight you if you consider evolution valid, without ever conceding any form of cognitive dissonance on their part. As my Pappy once said, ” Son, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think.”
Just part of the ongoing, daily exposure of liars for Jesus.
Daily? Did I say Daily? I’m sorry, I meant “ongoing and continuous.”
It seems to me that if you are going to claim to be airing a BBC documentary, you need to edit it so the result is as faithful to the original as possible. I’d think the English for “70 million” translates pretty well into a Dutch equivalent.
David has every right to be mad.
After all, when PBS aired “Silent Scream”, they showed the entire film. They didn’t try to replace any of the original inane dialog with their own. Turns out it was pretty easy for me to insert my own guffaws and, “Oh, bullshit!”s.
In a perfect world this will make him film another series, perhaps about nematodes
The comments to this posting tend to forget about the issue raised initially. Here, however, follows a comment that is utterly to the point. It is a reply (dated 26 September 2007) from Sir David Attenborough himself to the Dutch biologists who recently filed complaints with the BBC about the Evangelical Broadcast Corporation (aka EO) in the Netherlands . Although it appears on a Dutch language blog, the letter is shown in its original form, i.e. in facsimile.
As it turns out, Sir David is not amused and has taken up the matter with BBC, in order find ways that — in the future — will call a halt to the kind of insincere tricks played by EO in this case.
The letter can be found at: http://evolutie.blog.com/2143628/#cmts
I have two degrees, one in geology the oher in geography as well as study credits for scientific archaeology. Evolution is a theory, so is the theory that the Earth is round or that nothing can travel faster than light. Based on the observational evidence the three mentioned above are true until someone comes along with a better theory (as they are doing with nothing can travel faster than light).
I’m sick of reading/stumbling on sites that discuss creationism, don’t you realise that by even discussing their opinions you give them credence. Stop discussing it, stop giving them publicity even if it is to refute them and, above all, stop listening to them. If you do that it will go away one hopes.
I’m surprised to see Dutch fundamentalists with such power — indeed, any power. When I was living in Holland a few years ago, one of the things that struck me was a huge exhibit of Darwin’s Beagle voyage right in the center of the Blijdorp Zoo’s oceanarium. I hadn’t seen anything like that anywhere in the U.S. at that time.
Oh Rheinhard, you made all my coworkers come by to see what I was laughing so hard at.
“If you do that it will go away one hopes.”
It won’t.
Good to hear David Attenborough has caught on to the insidiousness of this and is fighting it. First time I heard about this (didn’t someone mention it here a few weeks ago?) he was quoted as saying the changes were minimal and not all that important. BTW, go read his autobiography Life on Air, it’s a great look into a formative time in our culture and is very funny in places.
“I’m sick of reading/stumbling on sites that discuss creationism, don’t you realise that by even discussing their opinions you give them credence. Stop discussing it, stop giving them publicity even if it is to refute them and, above all, stop listening to them. If you do that it will go away one hopes.”
I have to disagree. The other commentors are right when they say the lies are continuous. It won’t go away by ignoring it and PZ is also right, we have to fight every battle.
“Pathologically ignorant” might be the best term I’ve heard yet to describe these fine folks. I intend to use it whenever the occasion arises. Thanks, PZ.
Flip,
Sometimes wry levity is difficult to translate. Many of the replies here are meant as supportive yet facetious. We “get” that Sir David diplomatically reprimanded the production company, specifically BBC, for allowing these “sins” of omission and thereby altering the information intended. As for the chances that future work won’t be “mis-translated”, that’s on par with believing that xians are always concerned with doing the right thing no matter what.
The remainder of the posts are concerned with wrapping one’s head around the reasons why creationists who claim moral, if not ethical highground, are so willing to obsfucate, lie and cheat to prop up their faith. Sort of gives one a headache. doesn’t it?
#18: “If you do that it will go away one hopes.”
This seems to be an unending argument in the debate about creationists: shouldn’t we just ignore them? Unfortunately, the creationists would love that more than anything: they don’t want to be put in the scientific spotlight, because they can then peddle their cheap wares to a credulous public without interference. I suspect most scientists would say that the reason they creationists have become such a problem is that they’ve been allowed to speak their piece, unchallenged, for so long.
Some changes have to be made in translations and so forth, and the BBC does allow cuts up to about 5 minutes per hour
If this is actually being presented as an excuse for what was done to those documentaries, the person offering that excuse should have his/her brain removed and destroyed for the good of humanity.
Either that or a simple punch in the fucking mouth.
I am reminded of a reply Attenborough supposedly gave when questioned “why his documentaries did not praise god for the creation of the wonderful animals they featured.” Sir David’s response apparently is “well then I would have to detail how he also created a little worm that eats into the eyeballs of African children until they go blind and I don’t think you would like that.”
I’m doubtless paraphrasing slightly as I’m going from memory but you get the idea.
Given that the BBC is currently under fire for faking things (phone ins mostly, including one where they apparently decided Cookie was an unsuitable name for a cat on a childrens programme, and lied about the results of phone poll that was voting for the name, which I still don’t understand), surely they should be a little more stringent in the defence of their works these days?
#18: “If you do that it will go away one hopes.”
If it was a fringe element, that strategy might be okay. Unfortunately, it’s roughly half the U.S. population, all of who get to teach their children the same things they believe.
Sir David Attenborough does not sleep. He waits.
News Report, Feb. 2008:
The leading causes of death in the United States are:
1. Stupidity (see “The Darwin Awards”)
2. Sir David Attenborough (he got mad)
3. Obesity (see 1)
Nobody. Messes. With. Sir David.
Please let’s not give creationists high-quality creationist-friendly media for their schools. Make them use their own low budget Christian junk, so they will look appropriately pathetic to their students.
Milander #18, Ignoring the creationists won’t work, because they don’t give a rat’s ass about science. They go to media directly, ignoring regular scientific procedure, and tell the public “this is the way it is!” Only by discussing their crackpottery openly and exposing it for what it is can we counter them. If scientists remain locked up in their labs and refuse to engage with creationists, sure, that’d probably make the scientists happier, but eventually they’d get thrown out of their labs because the creationists have bypassed the system, gone directly to the government and have all labs doing anything on evolution shut down. Because that’s what they want.
Was reading something unrelated (actually a recap of Chris Matthews’ hilarious trainwreck of a Daily Show interview) when I came across this quote, which I think is relevant, both as an answer to why the little things are important, and what the “framers” are missing. This is Albert Brooks in Broadcast News.
Dear K. Signal,
Thanks for that comment. I just posted a comment over at Evolution concerning the framing debate. And I after I read your comment I am a little ashamed as what I said. Buttttttt. I do think we have to be protective of with real science and practical with communications. We do have to learn to be more effective when speaking with the general media. That is a part of framing and not all that bad really.
I just came late to the realization that Fundies are opposing most physics too. I found this wonderful quote over at a Common Sense Science. One of the scariest place I have been on the net.
“But the electron, proton, and neutron all have measured amounts of spin (angular momentum) and magnetic moment. These features can only exist because the particles have a finite, non-zero size. So, a self-contradiction of the common theory is evident: On one hand, the particles are said to be point-like; on the other hand, they are known to have a finite size (needed to have a spin, magnetic moment and the distribution of charge referenced in the next paragraph). This inconsistency in modern science is incompatible with a Judeo-Christian world view of consistency where expediency is rejected and contradictions are never allowed.”
So we do need to fight and not just on “our turf” (read Science and Scientific journalism). Its public opinion, not all of whom have alot of time or curiousity, that must be addressed. This can be helped with out compromising on science, just using better communication techniques.
“Pathologically dishonest” might be an apt description for them. They are so casually dishonest all the time that they don’t even see it (that cat story is just the tip of the feline ancestry iceberg). The Director General made a big deal of ordering “honesty training” for BBC staff – but it won’t be all of them anyway (even if we pretend that that measure itself had honest intent or the remotest chance of working!).
One of the BBC’s own programmes was advertised on the premise that people lie all the time and would struggle to go a week without lying. Which means that none of the people at the BBC, involved in the programme or failing to object to the advert, had themselves as an example of a truth teller. They all had to know they were habitual liars.
Long before the queen was misrepresented, miners apparently were (see comments). Then there are all the online BBC staff (who probably aren’t even under investigation, what with the focus assiduously being kept on phone-ins and TV/radio broadcasts). At least one former BBC person is dimly aware of the corruption being deeply ingrained in the whole organisation (see p11-12). The BBC is that allegedly rare thing in the West – a left-wing “Right-Wing” Authoritarian fundamentalist institution.
I watched a translated version of the Dutch “life of mammals”, be compared with the real version.
The worst bit is when there are chimpanzees on screen.
Attenbourgh: Here we look at our closest living relatives…..
Dutch version: Here we look at monkeys.
THEY ARE NOT MONKEYS!
Then for the next 3 minutes they just had silent footage, to cut out all the evolution speak.
Please let’s not give creationists high-quality creationist-friendly media for their schools. Make them use their own low budget Christian junk, so they will look appropriately pathetic to their students.
That abomination in Kentucky (you know, that monument to fundamentalist ignorance by AIG) was definitely not low budget. They have considerable money to throw around, a captive pulpit to gather more money from and huge amounts of time to spend it since they will only ever spend it trying to convert more people to their cause. It takes no training to preach, only faith.
There are lots of small labs that do productive, legitimate scientific work on smaller funding than the evangelicals have at their disposal. A huge amount of research could have been done for the money spent on that mess and that research could have had benefits outweighing its original costs.
And, because the scientists in the labs are doing research and writing papers, they do not have the time available to stand on street corners or walk door-to-door to preach and convert. The only thing a fundamentalist does is attempt to convert people to their own way of thinking or to punish those who do not think the same way and one hundred percent of their funding is directed toward that effort. Further, because their message is easier to understand and devised exclusively to appeal to human weaknesses of vanity, self-worth and group-thought, they tend to be heard more easily by the masses. I say, if scientists do not step forward to fight every little battle, tooth-and-nail, the fundies will ultimately win because their efforts are directed exclusively at fighting us, while we, by the nature of profession, are not exclusively directed toward the fight. Science is not easily understood and there are fewer people who can explain it, which means that those who understand it must work twice as hard as the fundamentalist to get the nature of the work understood by the common man… who the fundie is constantly trying to win over to the cause.
We can hope for common sense to keep fundies in balance, but we can’t bank on them having small purses. We can hope that the cost benefits of good science balance the flat-earth stupidity of creationism in our society, but we must also realize that the ease of passage of their message might outpace the inherent complexity and difficulty of commuting rational science. It can take five minutes to create a passionate, bible thumping robot; it can take ten years to produce a cognizant PhD. We are lucky there are loud voices like Dawkins and Hitchens, even if we don’t completely agree with them. Orel Roberts and Kent Hovind are louder and there are more of them.
I do prefer to keep quiet, but the truth is important. There is a fight in our future to avoid many countries becoming Afghanistan under the Taliban… or the Crusades all over again. Or the dark ages, with witch burnings and rampant disease–the microbes are evolving every moment I type and we will need new antibiotics to fight that, or literally die.
Okay, I’ve said too much…
Read a few of the comments on that blog mentioned in post #17. Never knew we had so many creationists living here. Or that they’d be offended that badly when it is pointed out that the EO is being dishonest.
Okay, everyone, time to mobilize!
Tell the BBC what you think about their ho-hum response to this assault on our collective intellectual integrity.
Stand in solidarity with our Dutch friends Dr Gerdien de Jong and Dr Hans Roskam, who are at this very moment waging a multi-pronged campaign against this blatant anti-evolution censorship of BBC natural history programming.
I’ve listed the relevant links for making a complaint to the BBC at the bottom of this post:
http://thebeagleproject.blogspot.com/2007/10/not-just-american-problem-part-i.html
We have to fight them. Otherwise we will be back to burning witches, except witch = scientist.
One of my old school friends said it best – “One dollop of black paint can spoil a whole can of white paint. But think upon how much white paint it takes to drown out the black…”
Gobaskoff, good find — I hope you’ll direct that to Attenborough’s attention, since in the published letter he wrote that as far as he could see, the only problems were omissions.
This part you caught is not an omission. This is misinformation:
> The worst bit is when there are chimpanzees on screen.
> Attenbourgh: Here we look at our closest living
> relatives…..
> Dutch version: Here we look at monkeys.
If he were in Canada, Attenborough would be able to assert his moral right to the integrity of his work (assuming he didn’t waive it – and someone of his stature wouldn’t have to to get produced). I have no doubt a Canadian court would hold that editing his work the way those Dutch creos have done violated the moral rights of the author.
For that matter, in any Berne Convention country (and I’m sure all the EC countries are), the law should provide that he can block this sort of thing. From the Berne Convention:
“(1) Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”
If Attenborough waived his moral rights, I hope he’ll learn for the future and not do so in the future. Unfortunately, far too many folk are unaware of that aspect of intellectual property law.
Of course, none of that is a legal opinion, but if anyone has a line to Attenborough, tell him to talk to his lawyers.
Hey, aren’t these the same folks whose ancestors were the good people who created and then fell for the whole Tulip craze thing back in the late 1630s?
WNED TV in Buffalo, N.Y. is showing “a brief history of Disbelief” right now (from 10:00 p.m.!
Here you go: link to mention of the program: “Arthur Miller’s ‘A Brief History of Disbelief’.”
It’s a series!
future broadcasts:
Yeah, when they do this sort of thing (which is all the time), it’s necessary to stomp on it. I think that most Netherlanders can speak English and get the BBC if they want it, so the best approach (for the Beeb, Sir David, and science) would be to stop the EO from broadcasting or selling anything at all from BBC, and sue them as far as possible into the ground for what they’ve done already.
On a related note: on my fossil-lab tour this morning, after I’d been explaining the geology and taphonomy and palaeo-behaviour evidence relating to the Riversleigh deposits, pointing out the clear differences between cave deposits, lacustrine sediments, and a layer of windblown dust capping a bone-bed (one of many exposed on one hillside), there was one person who started spouting that she believed everything I’d shown them was explained by Noah’s flood, the world was created by God six thousand years ago, and evolution couldn’t possibly be true because God created you, God loves you etc.
This sort of thing happens surprisingly rarely (creo-loonies are both rarer and quieter here in Oz – even Queensland – than the US or Netherlands), but there’s no way I will ignore it. The rest of the group were clearly with me so we had a good laugh and carried on with the questions and answers. Laughing at them is an important duty, as well as pointing out that what they’re saying was refuted hundreds of years ago. And making sure that the rest of the crowd does see the difference between testable scientific interpretations of the evidence, and some loon parroting a bunch of made-up stuff. That’s why the misrepresentation of Attenborough’s work is so seriously criminal, because it obscures the difference.
I beg your pardon! “Arthur Miller” was a search term. It’s “Jonathan Miller’s ‘A Brief History of Disbelief’” including interviews with the playwright Arthur Miller and philosopher Colin McGinn. It’s a BBC series with lots of great quotes.
“What I really don’t get is what that evangelical organisation was doing editing BBC documentaries in the first place. Were they then aired on TV? In that case what channel? And why would Dutch TV allow nature documentaries to be edited by a private religious organisation?”
They own the channel. Just because they’re evil does not mean they’ve forfeited their right to speak freely.
“If Attenborough waived his moral rights”
From what I understand of Dutch copyright law, an author cannot waive the right to resist the mutilation of a work:
Posting this to the BBC feedback site:
I am absolutely appalled to hear of the fiasco in which Sir David Attenborough’s excellent documentary, “The Life of Mammals” was sold to an evangelical Dutch group, which butchered its scientific message out of existence.
The editing completely destroyed the sense of the documentary by removing all reference to evolution – the cornerstone of all biological theory. And yet Sir David’s image and name remains attached to this perversion of his work.
If I were Sir David I would be suing the BBC for allowing this, as well as the Evangelische Omroep (EO, Evangelical Broadcasting) for this gross misrepresentation of his work.
Sir David’s scientific reputation is probably too high to suffer greatly from this misrepresentation, but the BBC’s credibility has certainly taken a great blow. I cannot understand how the BBC can have allowed this to occur. I urge you to take all possible action to revoke rights from this travesty of Sir David’s work. I further urge you to take action to ensure that all future translations of BBC programs retain the full intent of the authors. What is next?
Perhaps a documentary about the Royal Family tcould be dubbed with a new commentary asserting that they are all lizard people? It’s about as appropriate as what was done to Sir David.
I look forward to hearing a reply explaining what you propose to do about this situation.
PS: Yes, I fixed the typo before posting.
Here is the BBC complaints URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
Well it’s a better response than the one reported almost a month ago.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/09/censoring_sir_david.html
There has to be some campaign against the wilful distortion of scientific information.
(assuming he didn’t waive it – and someone of his stature wouldn’t have to to get produced).
Under Canadian law it is almost impossible to waive the artist’s inalienable (moral) rights, although technically waiving the right of attribution would have a major impact on the right of reputation. Of course, Sir David is not anonymous, so that’s moot.
Some of the details of the cuts can be found on YouTube under OBDURODON.
#49:
“What I really don’t get is what that evangelical organisation was doing editing BBC documentaries in the first place. Were they then aired on TV? In that case what channel? And why would Dutch TV allow nature documentaries to be edited by a private religious organisation?”
As to the Evangelische Omroep (EO, Evangelical Broadcasting) it is part of the PUBLIC Dutch broadcasting system. Dutch broadcasting is not by a state corporation (as in Britain, Belgium, Germany, etc) but the Dutch government accredits private societies with broadcasting rights on public television. The societies have members, can be subscribed to, one becomes a member. Public broadcasting time is allotted according to number of members between the broadcasting societies. (That is the main rule, lots of minor rules I suppose). In theory, very democratically representing everybody and all. The broadcasting societies are protected from government or whatever interference by the Dutch media law.
Most Dutch actually do not subscribe to any of the 10 or so broadcasting societies: it is frightfully yesterday to be a member. This leaves public broadcasting to the best organized group. The EO is the largest public broadcasting society, with most members, and lots of TV and radio time
A recent survey of church membership had it that the ‘orthodox’ (not Greek orthodox but the most strict wing of the Reformed churches) and the Pentacosts together have about 5% of the population, say 750 000 people. The EO has about 500 000 members, and is the largest broadcasting society, of the 10 or whatever. The EO represents the best organized group. Of the EO memberschip, 60% adheres to 6000 years (survey April 2007).
The EO has been broadcasting BBC nature documentaries for many years and has been mistranslating the Dutch spoken text for as many years. The EO seems to have a monopoly on them, I don’t know why. The BBC nature documentaries are among the popular most broadcasts of the EO for the general population.
BBC and Belgian (Flemish) TV carry the documentaries too, usually 2 and 1 years before the EO. That is how people noticed the differences. But three cheers for internet: http://evolutie.blog.com/2007/7/ 31 July was the start.
Way to go, cajela.
C’mon everybody, tell the BBC what you think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
And while your at it email BBC Worldwide’s Mark Macdonald (he’s the one who told journalists “this is a problem of the EO, not of the BBC”, “anyone can have their own opinion” and “when a documentary is translated, there will be changes.”):
[email protected]
Here’s what I wrote to the BBC. Feel free to cut and paste:
– – – – – – – – –
Dear sirs,
I am writing to complain about the position the BBC has taken with regard to the censorship of BBC Natural History Programmes including David Attenborough’s Life of Mammals by the Dutch broadcasters Evangelische Omroep (EO).
It seems that you have allowed the work of the greatest science communicator of our time to be denuded of evolutionary content in its Dutch “translation”.
As reported in the Telegraph, Life of Mammals has been censored to suit the creationist whims of Evangelische Omroep. Not least of their censorship offenses, they omitted the entire 10th episode of Life of Mammals–the one about apes and man. They have also selectively deleted segments of the other episodes when the inconveniently mention such things as “evolution” or “millions of years”.
I urge you to visit Gert Korthof’s blog Evolutie, where Dr de Jong contributes a guest post in which she painstakingly documents the offending omissions: http://evolutie.blog.com/1962396/
The “changes” are also revealed on Dr de Jong’s home page, complete with links to YouTube videos which expose the evidence for all to see. http://www.bio.uu.nl/evolpopbio/personeel/gerdiendejong/
These YouTube videos quote Communications Manager of Global TV Sales & Publishing BBC Worldwide Mark Macdonald as telling journalists “this is a problem of the EO, not of the BBC”, “anyone can have their own opinion” and “when a documentary is translated, there will be changes.” Like deleting a whole episode and meticulously removing all references to evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth?
Drs de Jong and Roskam have also organised a petition and sent letters of complaint to the BBC, and to David Attenborough. David Attenborough responded by saying “I am entirely on the side of the biologist in Utrecht. The BBC should take steps to make sure that the minuteness of the meanings are maintained.”
How do you plan to respond to this? I encourage you to follow David Attenborough’s entreaty to protect the integrity of his intellectual property, your copyright, scientific rigour in general, and the rights of Dutch-speaking people everywhere to see an accurate depiction of our current understanding of life on Earth.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Karen E. James
London
– – – – – – – – –
“There is in every village a torch – the teacher; and an extinguisher- the clergyman.”
PZ, I wholeheartedly agree. Its the “little stuff” that by its very pervasiveness does the MOST damage.
Flakes of snow can and do cause vast amounts of destruction via avalanche and glacier. Another analogy is as instructive: erosion by “little stuff” like grains of sand or drops of rain can and does demolish whole mountains of effort to build human knowledge.
The “Big Stuff” is only the most immediately noticeable in the (typically local) effect, and not always the most damaging as people often deduce thereby.
Absolutely, the little stuff “must be confronted just as strenuously”. Its the incessant erosion by the “little stuff” in collective form that’s really the big stuff. The bigger bits and the attempts to deal with them are to a large extent merely show.
Blechh, I wrote “your” when I meant “you’re”. Obviously I have not read Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
To everyone who would like to complain to the BBC:
Right, the Beeb would like us to stop emailing Mark Macdonald directly. Apparently he’s just a “press officer” and the proper attribution of the BBC quotes is simply “BBC spokesman”. Do, however, continue directing your comments to the BBC here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
More details on this update:
http://thebeagleproject.blogspot.com/2007/10/update-on-eoattenborough-censorship.html
That’s not much of an excuse for him making or passing on such feeble BBC brush-offs though. If he was a link in the chain at all, he bears some of the blame for failing to see it wasn’t an adequate response. “Just following orders” is supposed to be out of fashion – unless you’re an incompetent and/or dishonest authoritarian type.
PS It actually makes it worse that it was a “BBC executive” who is supposed to have been responsible for the shoddy attitude, ie not merely some lower flunky. As previously observed, the rot starts at the top and goes all the way down and through the organisation. It’s not really or merely the external contractors, newbies and part-timers – onto whom the BBC has been trying to pass the blame for the other incidents.
So some bod nearer the top of the BBC’s food-chain is guilty and is apparently trying to remain anonymous to dodge responsibility. Which raises the question of whether this person is on the list of BBC people scheduled to go for “honesty training” (sooner rather than later) and can they add in some science training too (since that might have marginally more chance of working)?
Hi,
I am so glad to see that not just we in the Netherlands are mad about this censoring!
How can I teach my kids (now 4 and 2) about the world when great documentairies are butched by the EO?
Thanks for complaining hopefully it will help!
All the best
Esther
ps thankfully we don’t life in a really religious country as the US, but it still bothers!
In the affair of the Dutch Evangelical Broadcasting ‘neutralizing’ the David Attenborough documentary “The Life of Mammals”, it seems that some people have emailed Mark MacDonald of the on seeing one of the English language OBDURODON videos. This video has now been removed.
Marc MacDonald is a BBC spokesman, and in no sense responsible for policy.
Post to his personal BBC email address is not in any way appropriate.
Moreover, I understand that some of the posts were quite aggressive. Aggression is quite reprehensible in any context.
Incredible to see how emotionally people working in the field of science react! It ambiguously affects me to see their zeal concerning the scientific truth, on the one hand it’s great to see how valuable science has become but on the other hand it’s somewhat worrisome to see how science has become something like a pseudo-religion.
I share your concern about the editing operations perfromed by the Dutch EO but in the Netherlands a broadcast corporation has freedom to do this, to serve their own members. Working in the field of Journalism & Communication science I have to teach students quoting is fine, but adding the references is necessary to make it traceable, since it’s not the student’s own work. Similarly altering a video should be accompanied by a message the video is altered concerning this or that in order to prevent harming the original intent of the author. That would do justice to all parties albeit a compromise.