Big Brother's logo 'defiles' White Horse
May. 6th, 2003 12:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drcuriositySomething is very wrong with this picture.
[Full Story Here]
A gigantic eye, familiar to fans of the television game show Big Brother, has been daubed alongside the White Horse to promote the forthcoming series of the most notorious reality television programme of all. Its vast dimensions rival that of the White Horse, which stretches 374 feet from nose to tail.
Archaeologists have demanded an inquiry into how the National Trust - which owns the site - granted permission for Channel 4 to disfigure the environs of the White Horse for such a 'tacky' reason. Conservationists condemned the marketing ploy as 'sacrilege' after it emerged that Britain's biggest landowner accepted £2,000 to allow the logo to appear beside the graceful galloping outline.
One heritage, going cheap. When I first heard this mentioned on IRC, I hoped that it was someone making a rather grim Orwellian point, not the logo of a bloody TV show. Two thousand pounds? I hope someone at the National Trust gets his delicate bits well and truly roasted over this one. This is the kind of thing that should happen in an ironic, fictional, Cyberpunk corporate future gone mad, not modern-day Britain.
Yes, I'm probably a throwback relic to an age where people actually cared about historical significance. I'm sure not everyone will indulge my pre-postmodern sensibilities. Even so, commercialism doesn't have to be so fucking crass.
[Full Story Here]
A gigantic eye, familiar to fans of the television game show Big Brother, has been daubed alongside the White Horse to promote the forthcoming series of the most notorious reality television programme of all. Its vast dimensions rival that of the White Horse, which stretches 374 feet from nose to tail.
Archaeologists have demanded an inquiry into how the National Trust - which owns the site - granted permission for Channel 4 to disfigure the environs of the White Horse for such a 'tacky' reason. Conservationists condemned the marketing ploy as 'sacrilege' after it emerged that Britain's biggest landowner accepted £2,000 to allow the logo to appear beside the graceful galloping outline.
One heritage, going cheap. When I first heard this mentioned on IRC, I hoped that it was someone making a rather grim Orwellian point, not the logo of a bloody TV show. Two thousand pounds? I hope someone at the National Trust gets his delicate bits well and truly roasted over this one. This is the kind of thing that should happen in an ironic, fictional, Cyberpunk corporate future gone mad, not modern-day Britain.
Yes, I'm probably a throwback relic to an age where people actually cared about historical significance. I'm sure not everyone will indulge my pre-postmodern sensibilities. Even so, commercialism doesn't have to be so fucking crass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 05:50 am (UTC)The other part of me is astounded at the temerity of it all.....
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 06:11 am (UTC)That's like survivor painting their stupid logo at something of similar significance here. What crap. Boycott? Oh yes.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 06:19 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-05-05 06:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 08:38 am (UTC)Or maybe "Jerry Springer" on the Pyramids?
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 07:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 07:37 pm (UTC)That's absolutly terrible.
Who would even think of doing anything like that?
Yikes.
Date: 2003-05-06 05:12 pm (UTC)Apparently, however, we got off light. At least no one sprayed an advertisment for Dawsons Creek on the San Xaiver del Bac mission or anything.
In a work, ick.
C.