R.T.E. Radio One interview with reenactors

[wiblick]

On the side: Kodos on the Chickens BTW. Always wanted to do that. Have had chickens but never brought them with us. Might I suggest fishing nets, stick crates or tethering for containment. Major issues to consider are dogs and kids running at the chickens. They really don't like it and will look for somewhere to go in a hurry. Crates would be best for all I'd reckon.
Dave.

I can see anybody who knows me well rolling their eyes! 'cause you see there will be much research and purchasing of specially made chicken baskets & possibly a wattle wall or 4 when the time comes, any excuse to buy something new! I plan on dutch bantams for ease of transport - I should get Dorkings which have the correct 5 toes of early breeds but they are very large, Dutch Bantams are layers of the correct size & colour eggs (as per Early Irish Law), and they lay pretty much the number expected of a medieval breed 100 eggs a year.

Back to the thread!

Aoife

[noodle]

This documentary was poorly edited and very poorly narrated, going no way towards creating a fair, balanced, neutral or accurate display of what was going on. The narrator tried to exoticize and fetishize the events that he recorded, and it's fairly clear that he edited it to play up whatever 'oogie boogie weirdness' he heard instead of actually documenting anything. If anything, this should embarrass documentary makers more so than re-enactors. Fading rock music and conversation together behind a voice over does not a cutting-edge documentary make.

It's easy to forget that when programmes like this are being made, a lot of what has been said can be taken out of context, and chopped and changed around to make something that the maker wants to display. Unfortunately, a very heavy handed approach is to be seen in this case. I'm pretty sure that the original recordings could have made an engaging, fun, interesting show that really got people enthusiastic about the hobby and wanting to know more, rather than a show that upset people. It's a shame, really.

[Maid-MarionRose]

Hear Hear! Well said Niamh/Noodle!
The bias and personal agenda of the documentary maker is what is apparent here.
Those of you who know Petes know he doesn't call himself "king of Ireland"
Nor do all Clans have a leader
It was said Petes was part of the circle, that our group didn't have a "clan leader"
but such things contradict their agenda and as Aoife said

there is no way to present ourselves credibly in the press... it's not what they are looking for.

Your comments about nee-paganism Dave -
The "documentary" didn't mention pagans- and he was informed on the day
whilst he was trying to get the pagan aspect involved it was said to him
How Re-enactment is very distinct from Paganism and how we keep religion out of it...
Having both Christians and Pagans in our group.

So rather than say it's self promotion that's responsible,
Look how they took John's comments about courses in google and emphasised the survivalist "end of civilisation" aspects.

Who is self promoting? Petes? If you think so I invite you to communicate such sentiments directly...
Since he is not a member of the online community and If you want to say such things about him (this goes for others too) I think rather than back-biting disdainful comments you should contact him directly and tell him.

This isn't about any sense of camaraderie or community, this is about telling someone directly what you think rather than withering online. I can pass on his number (with his permission) then say it as often and to as many as you like.

Anyway he has my friendship, honour, and respect, and I am surprised at those who choose not to discern, as Niamh did,

The narrator tried to exoticize and fetishize the events that he recorded

and the real shame is that back-biting and disdain is more a part of this forum than any measured and constructive perspectives!

[Dave Mooney]

Ok, Marion, it seems you've been brooding on this overnight so first off don't try and make this my problem! I can see you're drumming up a cause in your head.
I didn't give an RTE recording team a pile of nonsense for them to be able to edit into the piece they aired.
And don't try make it sound like I'm jumping on Pete because he's not on-line either because I'm not. There is no back biting going on....and what disdain? It's called 'disappointment'.

Pete's a lovely bloke and a great fighter and teacher of combat. I'd tell him in person he was an awful silly boy to fill up their tapes with this ancient fluff and nonsense and then not expect them to try get as much mileage as possible out of it. However, that wont go back in time and prevent him giving them the goods, will it?!

I mean, the underling story of Biker hard man turning from actual violence to 'lets pretend violence' was a good start but it plummets into a crazy land of sword wielding biker/Viking/High kings and his druid and warrior buddies deciding who gets to be high king etc. and not to mention offspring disarming thieves and keeping the weapon as a trophy. This is all just bravado talk from lads that can't help telling tall tales . This wouldn't be so bad if they were the only ones doing this stuff. The problem is how it reflects on the rest of us and in the middle of the implementation of a sword ban as well.

I'm sure this started out as a biography of Pete's life, or the more interesting parts of it, and he's been betrayed in its inaccurate portrayal, but If they weren't provided with the crazy stuff they wouldn't have had it to edit.

My reference to Neo-Paganism is in line with "pagan... hippies..." comment above but also because those lines blurring has been an issue in the past.

I don't think they over emphasised the survivalist "end of civilisation" aspects but did capitalise on it as a comedy piece. That commentary is clearly led by the interviewer and sounds in jest to me and not entrapment.

You need to take the post recorded conversations with the psychologists into account in this also.

Dave.

[brendan]

OK, I have to admit to not listening to the show so will not comment directly on its contents.

In Foulksrath where some of the recordings were made the sound guys were walking around with their recorders going for the full time that they were there. As a result the eavesdropped a lot of random stuff - the sort of stuff that reenactors talk about. I understood that the only reason they were there was to record some combat sounds - the other stuff was all ad-hoc.

The guy who made the documentary got 1 hour of air time out of a 30 minute show. That is a big clap on the back to him at a time when RTE is facing serious cutbacks. He did his job well and no doubt got grannies in hair dressers talking about the program.

We cannot expect positive coverage of what we do as it is nowhere near as interesting as some of the more borderline stuff about the hobby and the people who take part in it. If any of you do have an idea for a documentary on the hobby that conveys a truer sense of what it is all about then get a proposal together and go to RTE with it, in the meantime we are at the mercy of whatever gets ratings.

Oh, and do bear in mind that this is a public forum so anyone can read the accusations and counter accusations put up here.

Brendan

[Maid-MarionRose]

Ok, Marion, it seems you've been brooding on this overnight so first off don't try and make this my problem! I can see you're drumming up a cause in your head.

Insulting Dave - and I've got better things to do with my Saturday nights,
wasn't brooding and not looking for a cause...
I just happen to agree with what Niamh said and considered it the most measured and fair comment thus far!
and you should review what you say!
Because it is insulting and disdain refers to your obvious ideas of superiority

I didn't give an RTE recording team a pile of nonsense for them to be able to edit into the piece they aired.

[brendan]

<MOD>This is not to any one person: Lets try and keep the personal remarks to a minimum</MOD>

Brendan (In moderator mode)

[noodle]

We cannot expect positive coverage of what we do as it is nowhere near as interesting as some of the more borderline stuff about the hobby and the people who take part in it.

I respectfully disagree. With big events like Salute and Duncannon drawing crowds, it should be relatively doable to create and foster positive coverage of what we do.

A positive grassroots reputation can easily be earned, by speaking to local radio stations and local newspapers about the (for want of a better word) mainstream reenactment scene, explaining what it is, why we do it, why we like it and so on. The public isn't going to find out about all the cool things we do if nobody tells them and nobody explains. From there it would theoretically be possible to gain the support to make another documentary on the subject, if the TV or radio stations were interested.

[brendan]

Sure, a PR thing can work well. My point is that it is much easier to knock something than make it seem like a good thing. If you can see a way of working the media around to a more positive view then go for it.
But at the end of the day any radio station will want a story that engages listeners - the question becomes how to do that while still getting across the positive point that we want to make...
...what is the positive point we want to make anyway?

Brendan

[wolfvine]

Greetings my Friends.
Maybe we could approach RTE as a collective and sell them the idea about doing a documentary on the setting up of an event eg.
Talking to organisers and the re-enactor/re-enactor group running the event.
The problems envolved in organising and running the event.
The re-enactors and living historians who attend and how and why they got into the hobby.
The period of history they portray, their costumes and equipment .
Documenting the events itself as it happens eg. talking to the public, re-enactors and organisers as the day progresses.

You would easily have an hour long show there, it would be a day in the life of a re-enactor. We could all put our best foot forward for something like that.

Sean.
May words speak only truth