10th August 2008, 08:58 PM
"The web attracts people who mistake their vomit for thought"
This is very true - have a read through any BBC 'Have Your Say' forum on news stories. If you took the views there to be representative of the population, you'd have to conclude that Britain consists of slavering right-wing imbeciles who think the phrase 'political correctness gone mad' can be used in a non-ironic manner without drawing withering contempt.
However, and this is an important point, whoever wrote Spoilheap seems to have missunderstood the nature of the internet. It is rapidly replacing TV and radio as the media, and not just the territory of a few detail obsessed geeks. It is democracy with a big 'D'. And if the people are speaking, it pays to at least listen to them, and not dismiss them with the wave of a glossy magazine page. It is also, for better or worse, a far more permanent medium than the casual usuer may suspect. Words in print may carry weight, but words on the internet have an inherent longevity.
Also, it certainly is not the only medium that attracts people who 'mistake their own vomit for thought'. I suggest that the BBC has a few too. Though unlike the internet, it costs an arm and a leg, and apparently supports those who are happy to insult people who have the temerity to ask for more intelligent programmes.
"This is archaeology as romance, the big vision thing, what in our dreams - if we have any soul left - we want it to be."
Apparently whoever wrote this article has decided that if you don't like Bonekickers, you have no soul. That if you don't fantasize about wearing a daft hat and poncing about in caves, routinely setting light to internationally important and unlikely aretefacts, you are some kind of intelectually challenged cretin who shouldn't be allowed near a trowel.
I need to make this plain, apparently, so will do so in bold letters, and apologise in advance to anyone who thinks it makes me look like I'm shouting. It's not that it's too imaginative - it's not imaginative enough. It's also just, and I can't emphasise this enough, not very good.
It's been regulalry refered to as 'car- crash television'. It's a shame that the archaeological advisor to the series has decided, instead of leaping clear of the accident, to sit amongst the wreckage and flames, cheerfully waving his big hat to the crowd of concerned onlookers, and trying to convince them that this was precisely how he wanted to spend his holiday, and anyone who didn't want to agree that it was a terribly good holiday was an obvious candidate for sectioning.
British Archaeology is a very good publication with an excellent reputation - the feature on archaeological radio programmes was a very good example of why archaeology works well on radio and in conjuntion with the internet, where you can see the locations and artefacts being spoken about.
I would also suggest that it illustrates that people are more than happy to use their imaginations when it comes to intelligent productions.
I'm sure the article was intended to be deliberately provocative and perhaps stimulate debate on the subject, but if that was the case it's a shame that the author didn't feel the strength of his convictions sufficiently to allow his name to appear under it.
This is very true - have a read through any BBC 'Have Your Say' forum on news stories. If you took the views there to be representative of the population, you'd have to conclude that Britain consists of slavering right-wing imbeciles who think the phrase 'political correctness gone mad' can be used in a non-ironic manner without drawing withering contempt.
However, and this is an important point, whoever wrote Spoilheap seems to have missunderstood the nature of the internet. It is rapidly replacing TV and radio as the media, and not just the territory of a few detail obsessed geeks. It is democracy with a big 'D'. And if the people are speaking, it pays to at least listen to them, and not dismiss them with the wave of a glossy magazine page. It is also, for better or worse, a far more permanent medium than the casual usuer may suspect. Words in print may carry weight, but words on the internet have an inherent longevity.
Also, it certainly is not the only medium that attracts people who 'mistake their own vomit for thought'. I suggest that the BBC has a few too. Though unlike the internet, it costs an arm and a leg, and apparently supports those who are happy to insult people who have the temerity to ask for more intelligent programmes.
"This is archaeology as romance, the big vision thing, what in our dreams - if we have any soul left - we want it to be."
Apparently whoever wrote this article has decided that if you don't like Bonekickers, you have no soul. That if you don't fantasize about wearing a daft hat and poncing about in caves, routinely setting light to internationally important and unlikely aretefacts, you are some kind of intelectually challenged cretin who shouldn't be allowed near a trowel.
I need to make this plain, apparently, so will do so in bold letters, and apologise in advance to anyone who thinks it makes me look like I'm shouting. It's not that it's too imaginative - it's not imaginative enough. It's also just, and I can't emphasise this enough, not very good.
It's been regulalry refered to as 'car- crash television'. It's a shame that the archaeological advisor to the series has decided, instead of leaping clear of the accident, to sit amongst the wreckage and flames, cheerfully waving his big hat to the crowd of concerned onlookers, and trying to convince them that this was precisely how he wanted to spend his holiday, and anyone who didn't want to agree that it was a terribly good holiday was an obvious candidate for sectioning.
British Archaeology is a very good publication with an excellent reputation - the feature on archaeological radio programmes was a very good example of why archaeology works well on radio and in conjuntion with the internet, where you can see the locations and artefacts being spoken about.
I would also suggest that it illustrates that people are more than happy to use their imaginations when it comes to intelligent productions.
I'm sure the article was intended to be deliberately provocative and perhaps stimulate debate on the subject, but if that was the case it's a shame that the author didn't feel the strength of his convictions sufficiently to allow his name to appear under it.