Entertaining television, or fake reality? UK "Top Gear" stages test so Nissan Leaf fails

It appears that BBC's Top Gear show might have done some manipulation when they went for a drive in the all-electric Nissan Leaf. Or so reports George Monbiot in The Guardian: Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards.

While the car was delivered with a full charge, Top Gear rigged that test by starting their drive with the batteries depleted. They set out on a 60 mile trip with the car telling them that the range left was only 30 miles, something that wasn't mentioned in the show. But even that may not have been enough for the producers:
...in order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, "it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat."

When Jeremy Clarkson was challenged about this, he admitted that he knew the car had only a small charge before he set out. But, he said: "That's how TV works".
Monbiot's article mainly takes Top Gear to task for crimes against BBC's Standards and Practices, but I'm more concerned about continuing crimes against documentary. When it becomes routine for events and situations to be faked in programs that appear to be documentary (i.e. non-scripted) will the audience soon believe that everything is fake?

Full disclosure here; I've been a fan of the show for sometime, but lately I've felt like they have been faking things rather than just creating unusual - maybe even extreme - situations (see: Has "Top Gear' jumped the shark?). I should also add that I recently drove a Nissan Leaf, and quite liked it; even though I think the range isn't great enough for me.

But I'm more perturbed about the underlying principle; if "reality" and non-scripted shows are creating or forcing outcomes, then they should be labelled as drama or fiction, rather than classified as documentary/fact.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, one that was probably lost when so-called "reality" programs adopted that label, but I will continue to fight it!

NotesOnVideo: Has "Top Gear" jumped the shark?



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t...
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some...
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera ...
Read more