On AOL’s news page this morning, I saw this link to a blog entry about some ads for BBC World News, which, according to the link, were “stirring up controversy”;
The blogger seems to believe it’s self-evident that these pictures are offensive to Americans, to the degree that he doesn’t bother to explain why, and I can’t for the life of me make out what they’re even supposed to be. Anyone out there got any idea why i’m supposed to be angry about this?
Try clicking on the link in the article. That gets you here:
If you still can’t see it:
The original ad shows, in the boundaries of the countries, a standing figure with a rifle over a kneeling figure in front of it. The second link takes you to a different m,ap in which the countries outline a soldier lying down poised with a rifle.
So why is this automatically assumed to be Anti-American? It’s quite illuminating that the response to the conjunction of:
[ul]
[li]Abroad[/li][li]Conflict[/li][/ul]
is immediately “OMFGBBQWTH the BBC is against us and supports Al-Quaeda”. Hypersensitive much?
To me the images just say something along the lines of “All sorts of wars and stuff are happening out there. We have the latest news about them”, which isn’t really anything to get chafed about. A generic soldier drawn from the outlines of generic countries - BFD.
I don’t understand what the blogger in the OP is upset about. It’s quite hard to see the figures on the maps, and they can’t be identified as any particular nationality: they could be British, or Russian, or Israeli. People who feel persecuted on so little evidence have (IMHO) lost touch with reality.
To me, the most potentially controversial thing was the simple message, “News beyond your borders,” implying “people in your country can’t be bothered to tell you what’s going on in other countries, so we will.” Insulting to news agencies, insulting to governments. Particularly if they’re trying, at the same time, to portray an anti-American sentiment of being over-militarily involved in other countries’ affairs.
However, I don’t see anything particularly American, anti- or otherwise, so… eh.
I can see the picture now. I was assuming it was supposed to be an actual map and trying to figure out what the boundaries were supposed to represent. Thanks for the help.
Good point. Although not necessarily controversial in a way the BBC would necessarily want to avoid. The target audience for BBC World is hardly going to be the same as that for Fox News, the BBC would probably be pleased if the campaign does trigger some debate about the state of mainstream American news reporting, and particularly in a city such as New York there’s got to be a sector of the population who will welcome a serious channel which is deliberately avoiding being America-centric.
My thoughts exactly back in June when I got one of those maps in the mail as part of a promotion from my local cable company. (BBC World News was being added to the channel line-up.)
I had no idea what countries were supposed to be represented in the map, and neither could anyone else that I showed it to. I’ve no idea where it is now; I brought it to a friends house and left it there.
Are they expecting Joe Average to see these figures without assistance? What is the point of including them? I see the one in the blown-up map, but really don’t get the point of it. Are they just trying to stir up a lot of internet chatter about the ad campaign?
My guess is that the ads are far too clever for their own good. I think simply that the BBC wanted to show that the issues around the world effect everybody, or something like that. But the pictures are not obvious enough that people see them. So it seems like they are more insidious, subliminal almost, which raises suspicion.
Well, I learned a long time ago that one of the best ways to insult somebody is to point out the truth about him. One of the reasons we’re not allowed to call people trolls outside the Pit–it’s insulting, even if true.
