TV doco's versus Books

[BlackSeptember1918]

Was sitting there watching a doco' on the Death of the Red Baron last night on teli . They were giving some background info before getting to the last flight . They said that Max Immelmann was shot down by DH2's ???....and then went on to say that Lanoe Hawker shot down Kirmaier ??????.

I switched off at that point and went back to the book i am reading on Schnauffer wwii night fighter ace ...TV programs always seem to be so badly done and are of little use except for the interesting footage .

Phil.

[Dolphin]

Phil

I watched the same program on SBS, and stayed to the end. The highlight was seeing well known experts like Alex Imrie, Norman Franks, Peter Hart, et al, being interviewed.

The general story line was reasonable but, as you said, the show was spoiled by several factual errors in the text. As is so often the case, I couldn't help but reflect that it would have been just as easy to get the background story correct.

These things are sent to exasperate us!

Cheers

Gareth

[armourersergeant]

I often find that these programs can give some good info but esentially seem to be at odds with what the experts say. So that the experts say go left and the narrator says go right and he doesnt even realise that he has contradicted what the expert said.

regards

Arm.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Two benefits I can think of ... 1) archive footage 2) succinct points made by the expert historian. Agree that the surrounding narrative can be full of myths and untruths presented as fact but on the whole, for me, with my small understanding and knowledge base, the pluses out-weigh the minuses.

Also tv, Sky particularly, has done much to raise thr profile of historical study in recent years and whilst there are negatives that go with this, at the end of the day it can only be a good thing.

[Captain Dave]

The docos are good, especialy in terms of the visual aids. But surely other people find the pace of information dumbed down too much?

(When correct of course.)

[DirtyDick]

I believe a major difference is the fact that a television documentary is (usually) geared towards a far larger section of the Public than a book need be.

Whereas a study of Richtofen, for example, may sell a few (possibly tens of) thousand copies over the course of its publication, a documentary would seek to harness many times that number of people: on the terrestrial channels in the UK they will be looking for 500,000+ viewers, and given the profusion of other channels alongside DVDs and other activities, there is a lot of competition. (Although BBC and CH4 (and sometimes CH5) thankfully do not go down the Discovery Channel road for endless rehashing of often incorrect, stock footage and fighter planes manoeuvring to guitar-based Rock.)

Thus, a more in-depth, esoteric study might be of interest to those who have a knowledge of, or interest in, the subject matter, it could leave others cold. For example, Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War is a huge tome largely concerned with the economic factors related to WW1 - he is an economic historian, and this is most telling - and would not make mainstream telly if it concentrated so heavily on these specifics. Equally, a tentative study could be made that could enthuse viewers to read more about the subject. Therein lies the usefulness of most docs.; they provide a summary to the uninitiated and provoke - hopefully - independent study.

However, there are many books out there (not mine! ) that are equally simplistic and equally likely to be incorrect with their suppositions and assertions. As has already been stated, documentaries allow for a collective response from various historians, who may approach the subject with different viewpoints and experiences, and archive footage can be used, in itself often vital source material.

As long as both are available, I can see no problem and would not necessarily place one medium above the other.

Richard