And this years all internet champion in the category of “much” abuse is…
Some people would say that British TV does not reflect reality, but rather it’s a left-wing metro-intellectual attempt at social engineering.
i.e. “If we put enough mixed-race couples and gay policemen on TV then it will become accepted in wider society”.
Many (most?) people who work in TV (especially the BBC) are likely to be university educated, London-based, and left-leaning in their politics. That’s a broad brush statement and there are lots of counter examples, but as a general culture it definately leans left rather than right, and that arguably skews the images put out on TV.
Seems like a bit of a jump to go straight to “therefore they may well be deliberately trying to create social change”. I could well believe that those who go to university in or live in London might well find themselves in more of a cultural melting pot than somewhere out in the country, and so cast or write based on what they see as normal. I live (basically) in London myself, and TV in that regard seems to map well enough to my reality. But it seems rather unfair to declare - even by declaring on behalf of others - an active attempt to misrepresent in order to push social changes.
I can’t help but be reminded of what Stephen Fry has to say on the subject.
Maybe a bit far, but they did have blacks around then, you know. Cushite auxilia and so on.
Also, Texas: we haven’t got it. Also, all those other American places famous for mad right wingers, fundamentalist and inbred rednecks. Somehow Norfolk just isn’t the same.
I know the university educated tend to get better paying jobs and become upstanding middle-class people who read the Daily Mail and worry about house prices, immigrants, swan-roasting Romanian paedophiles and gypsies moving in at the bottom of the garden, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to just assume that the university educated as a class are racist.
As a member of the GCSE-less underclass, though, I do find women of racial minorities to often be sexually attractive.
Am I being wooshed? I’d understood the bit you quoted as meaning people that went to Uni are *less *likely to be racist, as they probably have been more exposed to people from different cultures and countries!
Yeah, amongst younger people at least you are likely to find a lot more tolerance among the people who have been to university (which is now a pretty significant proportion of the total) as this is generally the place that you are going to meet people from a much broader range of backgrounds.
Again I think that there are going to be big geographical issues here. Someone who has grown up in London or Birmingham is probably going to meet a broad range of people whatever they do. Someone who is born, raised, and employed in Harrogate without going to university, less so.
Obviously I’m painting with a very broad brush here.
Hey- I did a study-abroad summer in Oxford about 8 years ago, and we graduate students were ASTOUNDED at just how drunk people got, and how many fights broke out after the clubs closed at 2 am. Exorcist-style vomiting, passing out on the streets- male and female, pissing in alleys (male & female), fighting, vomiting, laying half-comatose, etc…
I mean, I’ve seen a few bar fights in and around college bars, but it’s not a common thing, or at least wasn’t where I went to school (Texas A&M). Nor do I remember that many people being that drunk commonly. Plenty of drunks, but not to that degree in those numbers.
Yet there we were with some pint-sized English guys trying to pick fights with other guys in our group, just because he had a US soccer jersey on. Luckily, I’m a long way from pint-sized (6’1" and an athletic 235 lbs- like a rugby prop), so when I put my hand on the guy’s shoulder and inquired as to what was going on, he backed off in a hurry.
Well, that’s just silly. Most university-types probably don’t see a black fellah from one year to the next.
Really? And what temple of racial purity did you get your degree from? Because that statement if in regards to British Universities is utter bollocks.
As I understand it based on a BBC report on this issue (which does not seem to be available online), the issue is not the use of Parliamentary footage, it is about the editing of Parliamentary footage, for comic effect or otherwise. So if broadcasting an entire and unedited debate makes politicians look stupid, they’re on their own - but you are prohibited from editing their quotes in Parliament.
As pointed out previously, there is no shortage of (sometimes quite vicious) political satire in Britain as a whole.
Zac Efron is white and Vanessa Hudgens is hispanic. I’m not sure I’d consider them an interracial couple, but some do.
When it comes to interracial couples on US TV, it’s typically minor characters like Stanley on The Office and his (rarely seen) white wife or Barney’s black half-brother on How I Met Your Mother who’s married to a (seen only once) white man.
I’ve definitely seen short clips of Parliament on the news, which must have been edited, both live and recorded.
University of life, mate. School of hard knocks. College of getting your teeth kicked in. Coincidentally, the only institution of higher education in the land not possessed of a disproportionate number of rich white women, although I chose it due to the favourable finance options on offer.
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
I believe in the British airing of the Simpsons they bleep out any sort of profanity and anything otherwise offensive. Not to mention Britain has Sharia courts, you can get arrested for “hate speech”, and so on.
It’d probably be a good idea to stop reading the ‘free reupublic’ boards, too.:dubious:
No, it IS the use of parliamentary footage in satire - the decision not to air was based on section 4 in here.
However, this only applies to TV footage, and not to radio - slightly different rules apply there.
Even I, living in the middle of nowhere, have heard from two people who travel that the worst place in the world to be is in England when the bars let out. I know you’re being defensive, and I suppose some areas are more genteel than others over there. But here - Bar fights, here, make the local news. Any bar where lots of fights go on, in or outside, lose their license (and this goes for corner stores and bodegas). Bars and clubs in some areas are denied licenses if the neighbors object to their opening, citing traffic and noise, but really meaning they don’t want drunks driving across their lawns or urinating in the bushes. Not to mention traffic checks and roadblocks on all major holidays. (I used to hang out in a wonderful dance club in a bad part of town, was friends with the bouncer, Bigfoot. At the very first sign of trouble, the troublemaker was escorted out within 30 seconds, and anyone already inebriated wasn’t allowed in.)
My chief exposure to British-produced television shows is what’s shown on PBS, so the selection is probably skewed to appeal to PBS viewers, but what’s always struck me is the number of British sitcoms that are centered on older people: Keeping Up Appearances, As Time Goes By, Last of the Summer Wine, Waiting for God, etc. Plenty of American sitcoms have supporting characters over the age of 60, but it’s pretty rare to have people that age as the leads.
That said, when I visited England I noticed that a good chunk of what airs on television there was made in America. So it’s not like the British are too enlightened to watch American shows.
Three of the four all premiered within 18 months of each other. It was likely one of those television trends that happen in America too.
I mean, just look at the TV listings for 1995-1997 and count how many Friends imitators premiered.
Aah, that’ll be why you’ve no idea what you’re talking about then.
Oh yes, thank you, I had indeed forgotten that Hispanics are non-white in some parts of the world. Thanks for the clarification!