Hello mdonin -- I'm not "bent out of shape" about such matters, and to be honest I kind of resent that characterization. Nor is this a "pet peeve". You too easily dismiss or misunderstand my point. You're quite right that any mistakes the hosts may make shouldn't affect our enjoyment of the movie itself. So I ask you: when did I say it should? It shouldn't, and it doesn't.
My complaint, here and elsewhere, is over, not simply the errors that TCM persists in transmitting in many of its introductions and wrap-ups, but the fact that no one, including the on-air hosts, shows any evidence of trying to correct or learn from their mistakes, let alone any realization that they're making mistakes in the first place. I'm asking why TCM continues to rely on apparently untrained or unknowledgeable staff who repeatedly fail at their jobs, why people like that are hired or kept on, and most of all, why the supposed experts in the field, Ben Mankiewicz and particularly Robert Osborne, don't catch and correct the obvious errors in their scripts.
I suspect both Osbourne and Mankiewicz do more than just read an occasional script but if it is all they do, why would you expect them to know every minute detail of every movie shown on the channel?
Actually, yes, I would; or let's put it this way, I expect them to read over the work handed them with care and a critical eye, to be versed in their alleged area of expertise, to question their staff, and to put their own supposed knowledge to use in what they say. There are only two possible explanations for their making so many mistakes: either they don't care about the quality of their work and just blow off any responsibility for the words put in their mouths; or they don't actually know what they're talking about and so wouldn't catch a mistake because they're ignorant of the subject matter. There is no third possibility.
Most of your reply concerns how great a channel TCM is because of the films it shows. Absolutely -- no argument. Also completely irrelevant to my point. If TCM doesn't bother to get better people, if its hosts are either lazy or incompetent, then this affects a critical portion of TCM's mission. It's not only a channel that shows movies; it's a channel that presents information on some of them (the ones that are hosted) and is dedicated to making classic films and their stories better known -- as a way of getting people to appreciate what they see, not just watch them and leave it at that. Repeatedly making mistakes -- many of them very basic and easily avoided with just a modicum of care -- and failing to correct ones made previously is not a sign of a channel that's living up to its core mission: not just showing films, but informing its viewers.
I'd prefer them to spend any extra resources locating, acquiring the rights to, and showing these movies.
What makes you think hiring competent researchers would somehow take resources away from locating and acquiring the rights to movies? (Showing them costs nothing.) Pardon me, but that is ridiculous. All it is is a matter of firing bad ones and hiring good ones. The cost of that is a net neutral. It doesn't involve diverting money, time or any other resource from the task of acquiring movies. I think you're grasping at straws resorting to that argument.
I'll also offer that when this channel becomes preoccupied with its cruises and now a wine club, neither of which advances its core function in the slightest, your concern about diverting resources is seriously misplaced.
You don't like the fact TCM does not update information that viewers provide but that makes very little sense. Viewers can also be wrong. If they were to simply change their information based on viewer feedback, without verifying it, their error rate would likely increase not decrease. That brings us full circle, if the word is getting out and the error was minor, what difference does it really make?
Actually, I said nothing advocating that viewers provide information. That was in response to the first person to reply to this thread, who brought up the fact that I could go complain at TCM's website; I merely pointed out that based on information provided by others, that was a waste of time precisely because TCM utterly disregards any corrections or information people send in. Once again, you completely miss my point: I agree, it's not up to viewers to make corrections; it's up to the staff, either to not make the mistakes in the first place, or to correct them once they've been pointed out. Your claim that I'm somehow advocating that the TCM staff not verify any information is absurd beyond belief; again, where did I say any such stupid a thing? The whole point is that the staff
should verify their information. Viewer input should in fact be a -- not the -- primary resource for them: not to simply accept whatever they're told, but to check to see if what viewers are telling them is accurate.
But the problem is they
don't rectify mistakes; they
don't do any follow-up or fact-checking on what they've written; they
don't listen to others. They simply stick with whatever they've said before and never even admit the possibility of error. They need to realize that research is not an act, but a process; it doesn't stop just because you've written an intro, and it doesn't mean that you simply ignore areas you've already looked at, as though there was nothing wrong or no more to be learned. These people are paid to do a job, and they're not doing it.
Finally, please explain why doing proper research and getting it right is so onerous or difficult. If so many viewers can spot errors (large or small), then why can't their paid staff, or more importantly, the two men hailed as experts on the subject, do the same? You should also be aware that this is more than just a matter of making a misstatement about a particular movie; there have been occasions when they don't even get the title of the film they're showing right. Frequently they give no evidence of having even watched the film they're showing, and when it comes to guest programmers (such as the co-host of "The Essentials", right now Sally Field) the amount of ignorance on display is sometimes astonishing.
In sum, it may be you who are getting "bent out of shape" by my criticisms of TCM. You seem intent on dismissing the importance of doing their job well or of keeping faith with their viewers. As long as they show movies, that's all that matters. If all they did was show movies, I would agree with you. But it's not. TCM boasts that its hosts are experts and that their mission is to bring not just the films themselves but an awareness and a knowledge of classic films to its audience. When so much continues to go so wrong, when the evidence is overwhelming and growing that they are not only failing to do this but that they just don't give a damn, in fact react with hostility to any criticism or correction, when they don't even
try to make corrections or acknowledge mistakes, then something is clearly amiss. They could easily fix all of this, at no additional cost and without taking away resources from other aspects of their operations. They just don't. And that's the responsibility of the people who work for them and the people who run the channel. They just don't give a damn.
And I say all this with sadness, because it's my favorite channel too. But I can't overlook, not so much mistakes (as you say, anyone can make a mistake), but more crucially the shoddy and careless work coupled with an arrogant and dismissive attitude that allows far too many mistakes to happen and then refuses to correct them afterward or resolve to do a better job.
reply
share