to think the BBC's First world war coverage should be fronted by proper historians?

[ComposHat]

Not media types like Dan Snow, Gareth Malone, Jeremy Paxman. Okay Kate Adie at a push as she's been in and out of war zones, do they thinkthe viewing public are so shallow that they can't comprehend or appreciate history unless it is dished up by a celebrity.

[AnnabelleLee]

Its a tv programme. They are tv presenters. Ergo, they are the right people for the job.
Should crime programmes only be fronted by either police or criminals? Should fashion programmes only be fronted by models or designers? etc etc.

[ratqueen]

Credible history programmes have proper historians acting as advisors behind scenes (my uncle is one). They use presenters to present because that is what presenters are good at!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Thanks, juggling - sorry, I know it's daft to comment when I've only watched the clip, it's just what struck me.

I agree about more than one view! I know it's mostly not history but I like that about QI - when someone really knowledgeable like Sandi Toksvig is on, they end up raising loads of different points so you get a proper discussion not just 'this is how it is, end of story'.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

To be fair they did also say that the response to conscientious objectors by the country was somewhat chaotic, so they didn't present everything in a black and white way. I think it would be better though without such strong views from Paxman or whoever is presenter.

It's an interesting question of how they should approach it and I guess people will have different views on how it should be done.

Maybe we could actually cope with more than one view of history though - that would be interesting. I'm sure Mary Beard would agree!

[EBearhug]

Paxman - well, he had Julian Fellowes on in the first episode. There are god knows how many proper historians out there, and they decide to have Julian Fellowes. gah.


Also, I already fed up with having to relive the whole of WW1, and we are not yet even at August 2014, let alone November 2018.

Maybe next we can have a change, and they can overdo Waterloo instead.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I think Paxman is definitely patronizing whatever he presents, whereas Mary Beard (for example) isn't. I don't see why being an academic historian would automatically make someone into a patronizing presenter incapable of communicating with 'the masses'? Pretty sure Lucy Worsley is an academic as well as the rest.

My issue isn't what their credentials are - it's that there are programmes scripts you can tell someone who knew what they were talking about wouldn't touch with a barge pole, because they'd look an idiot. And so they get someone else in to specify it at the camera looking serious. That is a bit insulting, isn't it?

I've only seen the clip of Paxman doing the conscientious objector bit, but his whole tone suggested he believed that it was all very black and white and he knew what was going on. I'm not sure that is true, but if he's presenting, he's being put in a position of authority. I think that makes it more patronizing/exclusionary, not less so.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

That's a bit harsh to be honest, isn't it Doctor Nick ?!

[DrNick]

i cant take anyone seriously who says Uni tbh

[Minnieisthedevilmouse]

Having been to uni I can confidently say many of the biggest fools I have ever met have worked at or been educated by a uni.

Frankly I'll take personality every time. Get me to engage with a subject and I'll listen. I'll then question your arse off later. Books whoever they are written by are just opinion. Credentials can be unnecessary noise.

Do love Brian cox though. He's on my would list :)

[crazyspaniel]

*thread, not "threat", obviously

[crazyspaniel]

Paxman presenting a TV programme I can accept. But the fact that his book is on the reading list for an OU course, as mentioned further up the threat, beggars belief and is really quite worrying.

[SauvignonBlanche]

YANBU, Paxman's programme was revisionist nonsense.

[mrsjay]

as somebody who so isn't an intellectual but enjoys history,
maybe these programmes should be for the masses not the individuals who turn their snooty noses up at them

[mrsjay]

oh god some proper historians can be really dull cant they these presenters are not writing the programmes just presenting it and it is a tv programme not a history lecture and as been pointed out some of them are historians, TV presenters probably put across a better TV programme than a proper historian, I do love Dr Lucy thingy her programmes are fab and she isnt boring at all,

[ComposHat]

I take the point re. Starkey, that's the product of him being an arsehole rather than not knowing his material.

Yeah who if thinking history shoyld be presented by someone who actually knows what they're talking, properly researched and not a soapbox for their half informed views, than yeah, call me an intellectual snob.

[LadyIsabellaWrotham]

Clarkson's piece on Brunel was a lot better than Tristram "actual historian me" Hunt's hatchet job on Isaac Newton for Great Britons. Never forgiven Hunt for that.

[mrspremise]

at least it's not Claudia Winkleman or fucking Fearne bloody Cotton

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I think I've struggled more with 'proper historians' than not on occasion. David Starkey is a 'proper historian' but uses the credibility that gives him to be a misogynistic arsehole, for example.

I find the tie-in books more of an issue.

[Whocansay]

Well I'm really enjoying the current series with JP. It's not something I know a great deal about and he's making it really interesting for ignorant oiks such as myself.

And I thought his books were pretty good too.

You, OP, sound like a big, fat, intellectual snob.

I wouldn't class a celebrated journalist and author as a celebrity either.

(And I liked the Jeremy Clarkson programme about Isambard Kingdom Brunel for the 'Great Britons' series, so ner!)

[eddiemairswife]

I agree Viva. I'm not a Top Gear fan', but I have really enjoyed the documentaries I have seen Jeremy Clarkson present.

[TheCraicDealer]

I'd understand where you're coming from if it was saaaaaay Myleene Klass presenting it, but that lot are alright. Presenting is harder than it looks (so I'm told) and it's probably quite difficult to get someone with the credentials you want that can engage an audience without boring the tits off them. Mary Beard, Starkey and Schama are obviously exceptions to that.

With the centenary coming up they're probably anxious to get recognisable names in to present these things rather than take a punt on a newbie. I can't really think of a well known historian that specialises in WW1. Also I will watch anything with Dan Snow in it because he is foxy [lowers the tone]

[DrNick]

lol at Mesopotamia

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I thought Paxman has been good overall although I agree he shouldn't tell us what to think so much - as a pacifist and Quaker I was rather annoyed with him saying that he'd always thought of absolute pacifists (those that refused to help the war effort in any way and were therefore often sent to prison for their beliefs and stand) as "cranks" Personally I think that's disrespectful of those who even at the time were recognised as "conscientious objectors"
Otherwise I thought the coverage of conscientious objection on Monday's programme was very interesting.
I think he also said that it was a war that we had to fight, which again I think is certainly a matter of opinion.

[VivaLeBeaver]

Some of the best ones I've seen have been presented by Jeremy Clarkson. He's very knowledgeable about the subject, well researched, passionate, writes his own stuff.

[hootloop]

I have a historically kind of important ancestor and am half way to a history degree. Am I half a historian?