UK vs. US editions

[GulPlum]

"serenadust" <jmmears at p...> wrote:

> You make some excellent points concerning how difficult it is in 
the 
> US to access non-American books, tv, and films.  It can be done, 
but 
> it takes some effort, and most people simply aren't sufficiently 
> motivated to make that effort.  You can't really blame the American 
> people for this IMO.  

*sigh*

I did not say that I blame the American people! I specifically and 
deliberately used that exact phrase in my previous post. 


> I know that it's "generally accepted" that British TV is among the 
> best in the world, but it's mainly because that only the very best 
> of British TV is exported (shown mostly on PBS and A&E cable).  

As far as I'm concerned, the quality of British TV isn't down to the 
proportion of quality stuff that's exported (or even the proportions 
domestically which can be considered to be of high quality). A lot of 
British TV is utter crap. The wonder is the mixture of programming 
that is available across all the channels (not just the BBC). 

After all, what is "quality TV"? Different people value different 
things, and not everyone wants highbrow dramas or foreign-language 
films 24 hours a day. The fact is, though, that in the UK you don't 
need to seek out this kind of stuff or subscribe to niche cable 
channels, it's there available in the prime-time mix.

But this isn't just about TV: my local cinema multiplex is as likely 
to show the latest French or Italian classic as it is to show a 
Hollywood blockbuster. Sure, it won't have as much of an audience, 
but at least it's available to those who want to see it.

<snip>

> I'm not aware that the president has much to do with which books, 
TV 
> shows or movies are presented in the US.  

I wasn't putting him forward as someone who is responsible for the 
problems I outlined. I put him forward as a *symptom*. 

> I'm sorry, but I find your 
> *buffoon* remark really insulting and the latest in a LONG series 
of 
> cheap political shots on this list which seem to go unchallenged 
> (how about this mods?).  I don't recall any cultural renaissance 
> under the previous (8 LONG years) administration, who, I assume you 
> admire (unless you count mainstream news outlets having to deal 
with 
> describing various interesting sexual practices which never had any 
> reason to appear in respectable daily papers before).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting Clinton forward as some paragon 
of virtue, or as necessarily politically superior to Bush (even 
though, in some respects, I think he was). However, Bush is incapable 
of behaving like a statesman (unlike even his father) and his 
priorities as leader of the richest and most powerful country on our 
planet frankly scare me.

To misquote Lupin (?), the true test of a person's character is not 
how he treats his social peers or superiors, but his social 
inferiors. My impression of Bush to date is that he has nothing but 
disdain for his fellow countrymen unless they're rich or powerful. As 
for his attitude towards the rest of the world, the less said the 
better. And as for his *knowledge* of the outside world, well...

> I realize that this list is OT chatter, and pretty much anything 
> goes, but there are a fair number of ad hominum political insults 
> appearing regularly here and they all seem to be coming from only 
> one end of the political spectrum. So far, those of us who don't 
> agree with them have let them go, but if this keeps up, I expect a 
> flame war will eventually result.  I don't *think* anyone wants 
> this, but I could be wrong.

Err... sorry, but this is a discussion list. We all have equal rights 
and opportunities to voice our opinions. If someone says something 
with which you disagree, please don't blame it on the mods if it goes 
unchallenged. If the general tone of this list is not to your 
political preference, you have only to speak up on behalf of your own 
views to redress the balance...