Wednesday, September 12, 2007 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

Censoring Sir David

by James Randerson

Reposted from:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/09/censoring_sir_david.html

An evangelical christian broadcaster has been editing BBC natural history documentaries to remove any reference to evolution.

An evangelical christian TV station in the Netherlands has been censoring Sir David Attenborough. When the Evangelische Omroep (Evangelical Broadcasting) network showed his flagship natural history series The Life of Mammals, it made several alterations to the script to take out references to evolution, the age of the Earth and the evolutionary relationships between humans and apes. It even left out a whole episode on human evolution.

Dutch biologists are livid. Dr Gerdien de Jong at the University of Utrecht has put together a petition asking the BBC - which made the series - to either prevent such tampering or force foreign broadcasters to make clear what changes have been made. So far, 300 Dutch scientists have signed.

The petition reads:

Dutch biologists hold in high regard the many BBC produced nature documentaries, an excellent example being Sir David Attenborough's 'The Life of Mammals'. However, we feel obliged to inform the BBC that the Dutch 'Evangelische Omroep', a religious broadcasting company, manipulates series broadcast under BBC flag. Recently, the 'Evangelische Omroep' broadcasted the 'The Life of Mammals' series in a mutilated form, cutting or rephrasing all passages relevant to evolution, since these contradict their fundamentalist religious creationist views. The Dutch community of biologists urgently requests the BBC either to insist in future contracts on the complete broadcasting of their programmes by Dutch broadcasting companies, or obliging such companies to warn their audience by explicitly announcing manipulations at the beginning of the programmes

There are lists of the changes here and here.

Sir David seems pretty relaxed about it all. He is reported as saying he thought the changes were "fairly innocuous".

And a spokesperson for the BBC told me that foreign broadcasters often make changes and are allowed to do so, "BBC Worldwide does allow up to five minutes per hour to be edited for local scheduling requirements - these edits are made by the local broadcaster."

But snipping bits out on taste and decency grounds or to fit a scheduling slot is somewhat different from changing a programme's scientific context.

What do you think?

...and if you've not heard it before, catch my interview with Sir David on the eve of his lecture at this year's Hay Festival.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 45 of 45 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #69707 by BicycleRepairMan on September 12, 2007 at 10:20 am

He is reported as saying he thought the changes were "fairly innocuous".

NOOOO!! Sue them David, let these mammals have it. Give them this, and theyll eat through everything.

Stump out ignorance, that is, after all, what you've been so wonderfully and inspiringly been doing all your life!

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

2. Comment #69709 by bertie wooster on September 12, 2007 at 10:34 am

This is yet another indicator, that unless checked, Evangelical Christianity and Islam are going to drag us into a new dark age.

Once they have built up a critical mass in political, and other establishment circles, these people will really start to dictate what we should see, read or hear. How long until RD's books and Attenborough's DVDs are cast onto a bonfire?

Other Comments by bertie wooster

3. Comment #69711 by drive1 on September 12, 2007 at 10:41 am

TGD will be a lot shorter if it gets this sort of treatment.

The editing of the film is rather sad, actually. It's worth navigating to the original article so you can check the transcripts to see what was removed or altered. Truly the equivalent of fingers in ears and loud chanting.

Other Comments by drive1

4. Comment #69712 by dsainty on September 12, 2007 at 10:46 am

I dread to think of the authority of David Attenborough's work being loaned to Creationism...

Other Comments by dsainty

5. Comment #69713 by KingofallSamurai on September 12, 2007 at 10:47 am

I'm sure I saw video footage of Sir David Attenborough saying how horrible Creationism is in a Panorama show (I think) so I am very surprised he is so laid back.

Other Comments by KingofallSamurai

6. Comment #69715 by Quine on September 12, 2007 at 10:52 am

This is how it slips away ...

Other Comments by Quine

7. Comment #69716 by sidfaiwu on September 12, 2007 at 10:53 am

Once this form of censorship becomes institutionalized, can I work for the Ministry of Truth? Thanks.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

8. Comment #69719 by Galactor on September 12, 2007 at 11:26 am

This subject runs somewhat parallel to an earlier topic; see for Dutch related young earth fruitcakery some of the posts around

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1624,Young-Muslims-begin-dangerous-fight-for-the-right-to-abandon-faith,Times-Online-David-Charter,page1#69418

Other Comments by Galactor

9. Comment #69722 by epeeist on September 12, 2007 at 11:41 am

Comment #69719 by Galactor

This subject runs somewhat parallel to an earlier topic

And another attempted piece of censorship is here - http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1627,Griffins-offensive-Emmy-speech-to-be-censored,CNNcom#69714

Other Comments by epeeist

10. Comment #69723 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 11:51 am

It is rather sad, this, isn't it? Bless those poor creationists - they like to look at cuddly animals just like the rest of us, but simply can't bear to be reminded that they weren't hand-stitched by the Steiff Employee in the Sky. It's a sorry situation when you're reduced to editing out all the natural history in order to get your dose of Natural History.

As for Sir David's easy-going attitude: I suspect he's just glad that there aren't any major ideologies strongly opposed to sentences that end: '...must find food/shelter/its mother, or perish.'

Other Comments by _J_

11. Comment #69724 by bluebird on September 12, 2007 at 11:53 am

Shameful, but not surprising. Theme of the Oct/07 issue of 'Discover' is Science in America.
A Kansas Christian school uses 'science' texts that "present the universe as the direct creation of God and refute the man-made idea of evolution".

Sir D.A.s series are top-notch, including the latest, "Planet Earth".

Someone made the quote "D.A. is to nature, what Carl Sagan is to astronomy".

Other Comments by bluebird

12. Comment #69725 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 11:54 am

(picking up from 10)

...which, now I think about it, makes me reflect. Survival of the fittest has been written through every David Attenborough documentary I've ever seen. It's all mating rituals, running away from predators and starving to death; shagging, fighting and dying. They can cut the word 'evolution' out if they want to, but I'd think that the subtext of the whole programme would still reek of it. Them pesky facts of life are pretty hard to dispense with, really.

Other Comments by _J_

13. Comment #69730 by Major Bloodnok on September 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

drive1:

TGD will be a lot shorter if it gets this sort of treatment.

The God Delusion (revised edition)

"...[T]he existence of God ... has been proved ... by science. ..."

Mind you, they probably wouldn't be honest enough to out the ellipses in.

Other Comments by Major Bloodnok

14. Comment #69731 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I wonder whether David Attenborough's laid back attitude is due to the quiet glee with which any sensible person would approach the situation of being censored whilst in their eighties.

I am put in mind of dear old Christopher Lee being delighted when nominated for the MTV "Best Fight Scene Awards" when he was about 84.

Go David! Release a version of 'Disposable Teens' or 'Fight Song' - I'd buy it :-))

(Yes, I know this is a serious subject, but everyone has been so damn serious and miserable around here recently that I have decided to have a silly phase).

Other Comments by Corylus

15. Comment #69733 by shaunfletcher on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm

While I personally am disgusted, I think the issue of legal action or serious objections by the BBC would rest on the nature of changes. If the documentary is edited deceptively to give an apparently different opinion than that actually expressed, that would be serious. If they merely dont show parts they dont like.. there isnt anything much to do about it.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

16. Comment #69741 by Yorker on September 12, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Like all Brits here I'm a funder of the BBC, I think that gives me the right to make some DEMANDS of them. I would demand they don't sell any program that allows the buyer to remove footage injurious to the overall content. The broadcaster must make whatever scheduling adjustments they need without changing the content. These programs are made with OUR money and the BBC have wasted far too much of it in recent years. I hope you will all join me in emailing the BBC about this, it's something I do regularly.

Corylus

Nothing wrong with a little silliness now and then. :)

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #69745 by Arcturus on September 12, 2007 at 2:10 pm

What a bunch of losers, editing the best nature documentaries ever made.

ps: this reminds me of this clip :)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1527015701504510860

Other Comments by Arcturus

18. Comment #69759 by robotaholic on September 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I learn more with the tv off.

Other Comments by robotaholic

19. Comment #69763 by travismc on September 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I heard about these Liars-for-Jesus® a few months ago, when I saw these videos, showing just how the censored Sir David's program

They're made by a YouTube user with the name Obdurodon.

Video 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3qoXqHNmq0

Video 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9b1bQSb_nI

Video 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEQiPccZVdw

Other Comments by travismc

20. Comment #69766 by Crazymalc on September 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Very sad.
Truth be damned.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

21. Comment #69768 by Damien White on September 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm

There are 300 Dutch biologists now?

Other Comments by Damien White

22. Comment #69772 by Arcturus on September 12, 2007 at 5:01 pm

A similar feat for EO would be editing "The root of all evil" and showing it to christians, muslims and jews.

I think it's a disgrace for BBC to accept having their footage mangled like this. (maybe they are in financial trouble :))

Other Comments by Arcturus

23. Comment #69774 by BMMcArdle on September 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. ~Ron Peterson

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

24. Comment #69777 by robert s on September 12, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Perhaps Dutch viewers should write to them and request they show Lost Worlds, Vanished Lives

Other Comments by robert s

25. Comment #69781 by Russell Blackford on September 12, 2007 at 6:42 pm

If the description is correct, this really does destroy the program's integrity. It's a mystery why Attenborough is so relaxed. I can imagine reasons why he might feel the need to keep quiet, but not for why he might say it's all fine.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

26. Comment #69783 by Robert Maynard on September 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm

This is the kind of censorship which is important, when it's altering relevant information. There's nothing bizarre about trimming the fat of a program for time, but these are targeted omissions, and they are not fatty.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

27. Comment #69784 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

travismc, I just watched those clips. The first cut involving the close up of the delicate old fossil clearly showing an ancient platypus with teeth while Sir David explains that modern platypus lack teeth, is strong visual evidence in support of evolution. If I'd seen that at age 10, it would have made a lasting impression upon me.

Perhaps Sir David isn't troubled because the series taken as a whole remains convincing, in spite of the edits. I don't know.

Still, it's weirdly Orwellian to see meanings manipulated to serve an ideological agenda, particularly involving an icon of science like Sir David.

If time were the issue, couldn't they cut some of those fly-over bits instead?

Evil idea: Photoshop a Bible under Sir David's arm while he's talking, then put it up on YouTube.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

28. Comment #69786 by BAEOZ on September 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Dr. Benway, you are indeed evil.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

29. Comment #69788 by Sittingduck on September 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Yikes.... These people are scary.

I watched the clips and it's very sad how hard they are trying to make reality fit their world view.

What are they going to do next - take away globes and maps from their followers? How do they explain away all those comfortable fitting geographies like South America and Africa? I think I was 5 years old when I "independently" figured out continental drift when I saw my first globe.

Other Comments by Sittingduck

30. Comment #69789 by Sittingduck on September 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Damien White:

There are 300 Dutch biologists now?

What do you call 300 Dutch biologists?

I dunno - but it sounds like the opening to a great joke....

Other Comments by Sittingduck

31. Comment #69795 by Damien White on September 12, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Q. What do you call 300 Dutch Biologists?

A. A clog in the system.

Er, in light of a couple of hours of thought, i should probably point out that this post was intended as a pun on the word 'clog', and was not meant to be offensive to any a) Dutch; b) biologists; or c) a comination of the two.

Other Comments by Damien White

32. Comment #69800 by dlitt on September 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Q. What do you call 300 Dutch biologists?

A. Emmigrants.

Other Comments by dlitt

33. Comment #69831 by Philip1978 on September 13, 2007 at 1:12 am

I am never going to forget hearing Sir David talk about why he didn't believe in god, he was talking about a particular worm whose main function in life is to bore into the eyes of small kids. He said that he would never want to believe in a god that could create such a cruel thing and that it made more sense that it was nature at work instead.

Fascinating man, editing his words like this is an expression of just how closed minded someone can be, why not study all the facts and then decide if God is still involved! Censoring it makes people more curious about things in my opinion!

Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

34. Comment #69836 by hungarianelephant on September 13, 2007 at 1:32 am

Sittingduck - I remember a similar experience. My teacher at the time denied that the continents had anything at all to do with each other and said it was just a coincidence. Some years later I stumbled across continental drift in a magazine. Useful lesson: those who teach us don't necessarily know more than we do.

A second awakening was at the age of 11 during a physics experiment to determine the gravitational force in N/kg using springs and weights. Every group dutifully reported that the answer was "10". Except one, which came up with "9.8". Why? Because the class had been told the answer was "approximately 10". Most heard "near enough to 10". The group with three future lawyers heard "something round about 10 but not 10". Most people see what they are expecting to see.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

35. Comment #69867 by Luthien on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 am

hungarianelephant, I remember in primary school being laughed at by the teacher (and the whole class) when I explained that, since colour is reflected light, black was technically not really a colour at all. Her reply was something along the lines of "If black isn't a colour, how can you have black paint?". The same teacher listed Astrology on my report card as one of my interests (it was Astronomy of course!!!).

With teachers like that it makes you wonder how anyone ever got an education!

Other Comments by Luthien

36. Comment #69869 by Chaeron on September 13, 2007 at 3:23 am

First of all, for all you joking people... there is this reknowned and red-list part of the dutch community who are actually Biologists, myself included.

And yes, there are more people among this community who actually object against this kind of stuff! So what do you do, you write an e-mail and say: "Plz, pretty plz with sugar on top, can me and my gf (also biologist) line up for your petition?" Next thing that happens is that your email get returned, undeliverd [spam-stuff-blocker or something] (and no I didn't use hotmail!). So far for your well-wanted opinion.
So in fact, there are far more than 300 dutch biologists oppossing this. Which, mind you, is a good thing!

As for Sir David's comment, I did not quite well understand why he's so calmy respond the way he did. Although I can imagine he couldn't be bothered. And I think he's absolutely right!

For these people (EO and EO-watchers), and I do know the EO from zapping it at the moment I see their icon, it doesn't matter what Sir David or the BBC say, or most importantly, what common sense and science have to say.
In the end, you can be just as fanatical in convincing these people evolution does happen, as they are convincing us that it doesn't happen. Only thing that seems important is that in the end, how long it may take, fact will always be separated from fiction. And actual beliefs and religions will too be separated from factual science.

Ergo, you can slam your head as hard against the TV showing the dutch version of 'Living with Mammals' as often as you want, trying to convince non-straighforward thinking people that they are 'wrong, or, and this is my vision of the matter, you can post it in the daily newspaper, bring the subject in national news, and let people make up their own minds.
Those with common sense will already know or will think things through and reach the more factual conclusion. The part of the population that says: 'Ah well, I don't know', will still don't know or care. And the other religious part of the community will still believe that the earth is flat and evolution is a movie with guy from X-files.

And besides, ever realized how much of the factual daily newsbroadcast is edited? Nobody's making a fuzz about that because we know.

So, if you don't mind, I'm back to my articles, excel-files and other nerdy stuff I have to do!

Cheers!
P.

Other Comments by Chaeron

37. Comment #69870 by Chaeron on September 13, 2007 at 3:24 am

(damn... that's just too long) >.<

Other Comments by Chaeron

38. Comment #69897 by Luthien on September 13, 2007 at 5:47 am

Reminds me of a family guy sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

Other Comments by Luthien

39. Comment #69912 by laks.84 on September 13, 2007 at 6:49 am

I am just sick of it!

Other Comments by laks.84

40. Comment #69923 by cbelt on September 13, 2007 at 7:31 am

This is especially pernicious because it blurs the divide between creationist media, which lacks credibility partly because of its crappy quality, and top-notch natural history media. Before, the good stuff had evolution. Now, a Christian school teacher can show compelling videos which don't contradict creationism and don't make them look like the dorks that they are.

Other Comments by cbelt

41. Comment #69938 by suffolkthinker on September 13, 2007 at 8:24 am

This is doubly ironic as when interviewed Sir David once said (I paraphrase) "The religious often ask me to praise god for the wonders of nature I describe on the screen, to which I usually reply: if I did that I would have to also praise god for the wonder of creating Bilharzia."

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

42. Comment #69939 by GoneGolfing on September 13, 2007 at 8:26 am

This doesn't surprise me at all.

The Theists have been plagiarising the hard works and awesome discoveries of Science for a long time now saying "see this is what our God has done !", and at the same time doing the sneaky snipping likes of what we read above.

Sir David's wonderful efforts deserve more respect and consideration than this, but, I must also remember who it is he is dealing with and therefore highly doubt that he'll get it.

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

43. Comment #69976 by Unknown on September 13, 2007 at 12:57 pm

And ofcourse there will be no consequences, because there is even a politcal evangelical party(Christen Unie/Christian Union) in the government, at the moment.

There was also a gift(About € 300.000) from the dutch government to a religious movement.

Even in a secular/liberal state like the Netherlands, seperation of church(Which isnt in our constitution :() evangelicals are taking over.

Other Comments by Unknown

44. Comment #70310 by Shuggy on September 14, 2007 at 9:21 pm

hungarianelephant, I remember in primary school being laughed at by the teacher (and the whole class) when I explained that, since colour is reflected light, black was technically not really a colour at all. Her reply was something along the lines of "If black isn't a colour, how can you have black paint?". The same teacher listed Astrology on my report card as one of my interests (it was Astronomy of course!!!).

With teachers like that it makes you wonder how anyone ever got an education!

I had

A teacher who insisted the Sun is the centre of the universe, because "uni" = 1 and "verse" = centre . You figure it out.
The same teacher who asked us use to use a list of words in sentences, including the words "Christ" and "spice". I wrote "In the time of Christ, people used many spices". She hauled me up to her table and solemnly told me I'd broken the Commandment against Taking The Lord's Name In Vain. (AD anybody?)
A teacher who asked us what electricity is, and I, who'd just been reading about it, said "electrons jostling each other." (I was about 8.) "No!" he said. "Nobody knows what electricity is."

So my answer to your question is, "in spite of the 'educators'".

Other Comments by Shuggy

45. Comment #99895 by dweebs on December 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm

I can remember being six years old and having my teacher and class laugh at me for saying that humans had come from apes. my teachers reply: "I don't remember ever being a monkey!"

And this was at a state school...

Other Comments by dweebs

Reload Comments | Back to Top