I was really intrigued by “The Promise,” both in content and because of what Prof. Becker mentioned about complaints on the program’s ideology. Without having seen the entire series – and with a few gaps in our viewing of the first episode – I can only see hints of potential anti-Jewish or anti-semitic leanings in the show. I am not prepared to go so far as to call it such, but it is interesting to look at the political ideologies of the show nonetheless. We’ve seen by now that the British audience can be very vocal about problems they see with television programming and I believe Prof. Becker said there were around 500 complaints about “The Promise.
When we read Ofcom’s various rules and regulations a few weeks ago, I looked at bias and ideology on TV. Essentially, Ofcom ruled that if programming has a bias – and some programming should, do to the nature of its content and that all-important context – then the opposing viewpoint must also be expressed somewhere alongside the biased programming.
I don’t know if Ofcom ruled that “The Promise” did express a clear bias. If they did not, then I’d be interested to hear their reasoning as to why there is no bias. If they did, I wonder if part of the deal was that Channel 4 also had to schedule some programming about the conflict from the Jewish perspective.
A bias in this situation doesn’t necessarily seem uncalled for – when presenting such a contentious issue both historically and in the present, it seems almost inevitable that some ideology has to shine through the programming. If that is the case, though, then Channel 4, by Ofcom’s rules, has the obligation to present alternative points of view. If they did, then that seems commendable and a tribute to the benefits of Ofcom’s regulations. If not, then maybe Ofcom is just a bunch of hot air.
I watched the first episode in its entirety, but haven’t gotten a chance to watch the other three installments. I would like to eventually. What I find most intriguing is how the two perspectives will come together. Certainly, in the present, Erin and Paul’s story are presenting the Jews in a hinted (and sometimes more obvious) negative light. In the past though, the sympathy still seems to be with the Jews. Will the two perspectives merge? Will one change but the other stay the same? If they merged, would that be considered balanced and unbiased?
I think context within the show itself might play a role here. Personally, I think it’s less controversial and less biased (and honestly, the right thing to do) to present refugees from WWII in a positive light, which, as Lauren said, the show seems to do. I definitely have a biased opinion and a vested interest in the depiction of concentration camp survivors, but I think most people can agree that it’s, for lack of a better term, kind of a dick move to say “These people survived the Holocaust, AND we’re going to make you hate them.” As far as depicting modern Jews in a negative light, I don’t think that the people who were portrayed negatively in the first episode were a) all that prevalent or b) marked as Jewish while being mean. I’m thinking specifically of the people in the club who were jerks when Erin has her seizure here. My copy kept messing up at the end, so maybe there was more, but let’s take that instance. People are just ignorant jerks, especially when drunk, whether they’re Jewish or not, so I don’t really think, at least in the first episode, there’s much room for controversy. Any complaints from the first episode must have come from belligerent alcoholics. That’s kind of the only way to explain that in my opinion.