I was just watching the opening credits of The Nun’s Story, which is a Hollywood movie made in 1959. I noticed that the credits said “Filmed in studios in Rome.” Not “Rome, Italy”, just “Rome”.
If the movie were made today, I guarantee that the country would have been given in the credits. Now, I know there are several Romes in the US, but c’mon - surely a movie set in Europe is more likely to have been filmed in the large capital city Rome, Italy, than the small town of Rome, KY.
When did this habit of the necessity of naming the country arise? Bill Bryson remarks upon it (IIRC he calls it the “Paris, France phemonenon”) in one of his books as having arisen during the 17 years he was out of the country and cites it as a symptom of the dumbing down of the US media.
Furthermore, why is it now deemed necessary? Surely common sense would point to the most likely country in which the city resides. The habit doesn’t exist in other English-speaking countries. Surely the US public isn’t that ignorant?
It strikes me as laziness in script writing…I’ve just gone through all the top ‘world’ stories on CNN and BBC’s sites (assuming these correspond fairly well to the equivalent broadcast stories of today). BBC’s all manage to explain where they’re talking about without patronising the reader, e.g. with phrases such as
CNN seems to not bother with this, just starting every story with “LONDON, England”, etc. Their one exception is “Gaza City”, which they daren’t state a location for. :rolleyes:
I don’t think its a dumbing down of the media alonejjimm, I think by now it’s common knowledge where the states fall among industrialized countries in primary education.
People do make mistakes. There was that case last year of a British couple who thought they were buying air tickets for Sydney , Australia and ended up in some god-forsaken fishing village in eastern Canada of the same name.
Maybe this has contributed to London and England being treated as synonyms. I heard on the radio last week, “Professor Suchandsuch from Cambridge Univeristy in London”. Actually, now I think about it, I do hear “London” used without “England” being appended. But it is always ParisFrance, SydneyAustralia and RomeItaly.
Not really from school - in England, my geography classes were more to do with rainfall in Ghana and damming the Upper Volta than where places were… world geographical awareness I would get from books or the TV.
Perhaps it’s just force of habit? Since it is so often necessary for Americans to specify which Springfield or Portland they are referring to, or because “Buttsville, Idaho” is more helpful to the listener than just “Buttsville”, they eventually decide “Screw it, I’ll just use <city>, <territory> for everywhere from now on”.
Thing is, Americans have always had this issue with “Buttfuck, Mississippi”, “Tittywank, Maine”, and “Gobshite, Oregon” (I’m just enjoying myself here), but have only relatively recently started saying “Lower Craphole-on-the-Arse, England”.
Bosda, you haven’t yet replied about the “joke” comment, but I just wanted to confirm, in case you were in doubt, that the movie was made by Warner Brothers (a Hollywood studio) in Rome (that’s in Italy, in case anyone was wondering):
Not whining, Brutus - jeez, been sniffing the hyperdefensive glue again? I’m asking two simple questions, to which nobody has yet given me an answer. 1. Why, and 2. when?
To get a cite, just turn on your TV. Almost every single time a city is mentioned in the US media, it is given an identifier, even when the context of the city is obvious. Here you go - first link on CNN.com: here’s a story about Thailand. The headline is “Thailand bla bla bla”. Yet the leader says “Bangkok, Thailand”. In this context, mentioning the country is redundant. And even if the headline didn’t contain the word “Thailand”, I doubt there are any Bangkoks anywhere else in the world with which we might confuse it.
As a slight hijack I like the American idea of using the defining state, eg Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It’s an easy way of knowing where towns and cities are located.
( I wanted to use Boston, Massachusetts as my example but I wasn’t sure how to spell Boston )
It’s not that Americans are ignorant of geography, although many are.
The real answer to this question is that the Associated Press, which sets the standard for style in broadcast journalism in the United States, wants story datelines to reflect the city from which they were filed. Therefore, if the reporter who did a story in Cambridge or Edinburgh or Cardiff (or Belfast, for that matter) actually sent the story to AP from London, the dateline is going to say London, England. They know damn well that Cambridge is not London, and that when people hear “London”, they think “England”. However, in the interest of accuracy, they add the country. Also, keep in mind that adding “England” to the dateline cements the fact that it’s in London, England; most people only pay half-attention, and once a sentence leaves the newscaster’s lips, it’s gone forever.
All of this is in the AP Broadcasting Stylebook. If anyone wants a quote, I’ll be happy to post it.
As far as why, I think it is a practical matter. Newspaper articles need to be as direct and concise as possible; part of their legibility comes from standarization. It is an American convention that each story be topped with the header, and I see the advantage: the newspaper skimmer does not have to read any of the story to see where it originates. Instead, the headline and the place will give a short synopsis.
I just checked out-very quickly–Canadian and Australian papers. There system of headers seems somewhat arbitrary: is Tbilisi, Georgia really that much more obscure than Or Yehud? The advantage of the American system is that the editors don’t have to decide if each city needs an identifying country or if it should be common knowledge. Something coming out of the village (town? Thriving metropolis? I have no idea.) of Lop Buri, Thailand will have the same header as something coming out of Bangkok.
I strongly suspect that the eight-year-old you had to learn the countries of Africa before the thirteen-year-old you could fully comprehend Ghana’s rainfall. Those early geography lessons helped you sort these books and TV programs out.