Ian Hislop’s Trains That Changed the World

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, Liam said:

Which is back on tonight - by the looks of things there won’t be many RMwebbers watching! 

 

To be honest, I've not seen any episodes, so I'll make a point of watching at least this evenings episode.  I do recall the other version of "Trains That Changed the World" and wasn't impressed, so I'll watch with interest.

 

I may even comment...

 

Just did a quick google.

 

Yesterday are currently showing "Trains That Changed the World" so its possible to compare and contrast

 

Then again, according to all listings, Ian Hislop’s Trains That Changed the World was on last on the 3rd, there's no episode this evening, the slot is occuiped by the speculative "drain the oceans" series.  If anyone wants to watch, its all on the catchup My5 service.

 

Ho-hum.

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Hroth

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours ago, Liam said:

Which is back on tonight - by the looks of things there won’t be many RMwebbers   pedants watching! 

 

FTFY

 

 

[Hobby]

That's a bit strong...

 

These aren't minor details ("pedant" definition: "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning") but in many cases gross inaccuracies and use of inappropriate photos/film footage and are very common across lots of modern documentaries, not just railway ones, where photos and film clips are used which are not of the subject being discussed and are often even from a different time!

 

It used to be that documentary makers prided themselves in their historical accuracy but it seems these days that in their haste to produce programmes anything goes these days... Although the writers of old David and Charles and other publishers of railway books did have their errors it was mainly down to the information that was available at the time so could be, to a certain extent, forgiven. Modern documentary makers have no such excuses, especially with the basics such as making sure the train featured in the photo or film clip actually relates to what is being discussed.

 

Trouble is that it's a slippery slope, people see the documentaries and believe what they see is correct and you then get the "but it said such and such in the programme I've just seen!"... I'd put it alongside Hollywood's efforts at re-writing history... U571 anyone? (OK, that comment might also be a bit strong as well!!) 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Hobby

[Liam]

4 hours ago, Liam said:

Which is back on tonight - by the looks of things there won’t be many RMwebbers watching! 

My bad - not on tonight after all, instead there’s a programme about unearthing German submarines from the North Sea. 

[Steamport Southport]

8 minutes ago, Hobby said:

That's a bit strong...

 

These aren't minor details ("pedant" definition: "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning") but in many cases gross inaccuracies and use of inappropriate photos/film footage and are very common across lots of modern documentaries, not just railway ones, where photos and film clips are used which are not of the subject being discussed and are often even from a different time!

 

It used to be that documentary makers prided themselves in their historical accuracy but it seems these days that in their haste to produce programmes anything goes these days... Although the writers of old David and Charles and other publishers of railway books did have their errors it was mainly down to the information that was available at the time so could be, to a certain extent, forgiven. Modern documentary makers have no such excuses, especially with the basics such as making sure the train featured in the photo or film clip actually relates to what is being discussed.

 

They are minor details though.

 

Complaints that Huskisson wasn't the first fatality. He was.

Complaints that the L&MR wasn't the first proper railway. It was.

Complaints about whether a canal was a ship canal or not. Who cares?

Complaints that bit of footage isn't of X in year Y. 

 

All trivial and definitely the epitomy of being pedantic.

 

 

Was there ever a time documentary makers dealt entirely with facts? Even Attenborough has admitted most of the footage in his wildlife documentaries was faked. Disney film makers kicked lemmings off cliffs as experts thought that's what they did.

 

Even landmark documentary series such as World At War is full of inaccuracies as are most books. Most writers have an agenda and twist facts to fit whatever narrative they are aiming for.

 

 

What's an expert? Someone who is good at passing exams, writing essays and talking. That's all you need to do to get a degree. The girl serving you coffee in the NRM probably has one. If you are good at that you continue and get an MA, PhD, etc. "Well done. Here's a scroll. Now you can be an expert as you have a piece of paper saying you are". Most of us have them now. There are over 2 million students in the UK. That's 2 million more experts.

 

It's a Channel Five documentary series aimed at the general public in a slot that has programmes like Britain's Favourite Pudding and Meghan And Fergie. Not an academic history of the railways.

 

Enjoy it or switch off. But I feel some people think of it as a sport to point out errors. That's being a pedant I'm afraid.

 

 

Jason

[Hobby]

As usual we'll have to agree to disagree. In my view using photos and footage from an unrelated train and era is unacceptable, that's not being pedantic, it's poor and lazy editing and should be unacceptable. If you bought a book on a subject and the author used photos from something totally unrelated would you be so forgiving? I very much doubt it. TV documentaries are no different to that book, they purport to be about a subject and then often play fast and loose with facts. 

 

But as I said earlier that's the way of modern TV these days, you seem to accept it, I find it slipshod and unacceptable, hence the agree to disagree. My only hope is that such stuff doesn't start to slip into reference books, though I won't hold my breath. 

 

Using your degree analagy my daughter has an honours degree and a masters, I know how much work she had to undertake in research to get both, ensuring that the stuff she quoted was correct and accurate to the best of her efforts. I've seen her really annoyed at some of the stuff that is put out these days.

 

A documentary is supposed to entertain and inform, using incorrect information and media does neither. 

 

Just because its aimed at the masses shouldn't mean slipshod work. I suppose we just get what we deserve, if no-one challenges the producers to make better researched programmes then we'll just end up at the lowest common denominator. Whilst this programme hasn't quite reached that level it's getting close. In my view.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Hobby

[Sir TophamHatt]

Shame really as it could have closely followed a really old TV series narrated by John Peel called Classic Trains.

That was a really great series, each episode dedicated to a specific train / industry.

I thought this would be similar but it's a bit humble jumbled.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Sir TophamHatt

[Pacific231G]

On 10/09/2021 at 14:38, Steamport Southport said:

 

They are minor details though.

 

Complaints that Huskisson wasn't the first fatality. He was.

Complaints that the L&MR wasn't the first proper railway. It was.

Complaints about whether a canal was a ship canal or not. Who cares?

Complaints that bit of footage isn't of X in year Y. 

 

All trivial and definitely the epitomy of being pedantic.

 

 

Was there ever a time documentary makers dealt entirely with facts? Even Attenborough has admitted most of the footage in his wildlife documentaries was faked. Disney film makers kicked lemmings off cliffs as experts thought that's what they did.

 

Even landmark documentary series such as World At War is full of inaccuracies as are most books. Most writers have an agenda and twist facts to fit whatever narrative they are aiming for.

 

 

What's an expert? Someone who is good at passing exams, writing essays and talking. That's all you need to do to get a degree. The girl serving you coffee in the NRM probably has one. If you are good at that you continue and get an MA, PhD, etc. "Well done. Here's a scroll. Now you can be an expert as you have a piece of paper saying you are". Most of us have them now. There are over 2 million students in the UK. That's 2 million more experts.

 

It's a Channel Five documentary series aimed at the general public in a slot that has programmes like Britain's Favourite Pudding and Meghan And Fergie. Not an academic history of the railways.

 

Enjoy it or switch off. But I feel some people think of it as a sport to point out errors. That's being a pedant I'm afraid.

 

 

Jason

Jason

I totally disagree. I've spent most of my working life making factual television porgrammes (the clue is in the title) , writing articles and, in the latter part of my career,  creating learning materials.  I have always done my best to be factually accurate and to check my facts before broadcast or publication. What I have never ever thought is that this programme is for a general audience who won't notice any errors so therefore it doesn't matter. On the contrary, because for a general audience this may be their only source, of information, the importance of getting it rightr becomes if anything more, not less important. The nature of the audience does affect how you write a story but not whether you tell the truth.

to quote a very old saying. "if you think education is expensive- try ignorance".

 

People pass exams and wirte essays to demonstrate that they understand whatever it is they're seeking to be experts in. If they've been able to get a degree then they should also have learnt how to learn which means they'll be better able to absorb new techniques and knowledge duirng the course of their carreers- even if that career doesn't relate directly to the subject of their degree- A degree is not a narrow job specific training course (though some such as medicine do include specific training) but should provide the grounding for future training. My degree hapoens to be in engineering and, though I went down a different career path that I discovered while at University, I was far better able than most of my colleagues to interview scientists and engineers and inventors and write scripts about science and technology. 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Pacific231G