4REAL.
« previous entry | next entry »
04 Feb 08 | 03:49pm |
Right. This Churchill = Myth thing. 3,000 people were asked some sort of question, given some names and seemingly answered "myth" or "real" to each one. This was done so UKTV Gold could promote their repeats of Robin Hood.
There's a lot of inaccurate claims being made about this. The Telegraph version says all 3,000 were under 20. Not so.
Many people have assumed that the people asked were UKTV Gold viewers. Not so.
UKTV's article itself, however, is full of crap.
King Arthur is the fictional figure most commonly mistaken for fact – incredibly almost two thirds of Brits (65%) believe that he existed and led a round table of gallant knights in the idyllic ancient Kingdom of Camelot.
Right. Was the question "Did King Arthur exist for real and really lead a real round table of real gallant knights in a real idyllic ancient Kingdom of Camelot"? Probably not. It was more likely "King Arthur - Myth or Real?" At least some of these 65% must think that there was a real King Arthur but are less certain about the shape of his table.
Nearly half of us (47%) have no idea who Richard the Lionheart was.
This appears to be the same percentage of people who think he was a myth, suggesting heavily that they've drawn this conclusion from that finding. I have an idea who Robin Hood was and I think he's a myth, so how could you assume it's the same thing?
IT GETS BETTER!
The research showed that the nation's under 20s are lacking the most when it comes to basic historical knowledge. Over one fifth (21%) thought Winston Churchill, arguably Britain's most famous Prime Minister, was a work of fiction
This compares with 23% of the entire nation. Yes. That must mean that a greater percentage of the over 20s thought Churchill was a myth!
If anyone knows anyone that saw the original survey, I'd love to see it. If people were faced with a still of Charles Dickens from the Doctor Who episode, they'd be correct to say he was a fictional(ised) character; if people were asked "Is Churchill a legend?" then under current popular usage of the term they'd be correct. Given that Robin Hood's title sequence kicks off saying he's a legend, and UKTV G repeat Doctor Who, neither is beyond the realms of possibility.
There's a lot of inaccurate claims being made about this. The Telegraph version says all 3,000 were under 20. Not so.
Many people have assumed that the people asked were UKTV Gold viewers. Not so.
UKTV's article itself, however, is full of crap.
King Arthur is the fictional figure most commonly mistaken for fact – incredibly almost two thirds of Brits (65%) believe that he existed and led a round table of gallant knights in the idyllic ancient Kingdom of Camelot.
Right. Was the question "Did King Arthur exist for real and really lead a real round table of real gallant knights in a real idyllic ancient Kingdom of Camelot"? Probably not. It was more likely "King Arthur - Myth or Real?" At least some of these 65% must think that there was a real King Arthur but are less certain about the shape of his table.
Nearly half of us (47%) have no idea who Richard the Lionheart was.
This appears to be the same percentage of people who think he was a myth, suggesting heavily that they've drawn this conclusion from that finding. I have an idea who Robin Hood was and I think he's a myth, so how could you assume it's the same thing?
IT GETS BETTER!
The research showed that the nation's under 20s are lacking the most when it comes to basic historical knowledge. Over one fifth (21%) thought Winston Churchill, arguably Britain's most famous Prime Minister, was a work of fiction
This compares with 23% of the entire nation. Yes. That must mean that a greater percentage of the over 20s thought Churchill was a myth!
If anyone knows anyone that saw the original survey, I'd love to see it. If people were faced with a still of Charles Dickens from the Doctor Who episode, they'd be correct to say he was a fictional(ised) character; if people were asked "Is Churchill a legend?" then under current popular usage of the term they'd be correct. Given that Robin Hood's title sequence kicks off saying he's a legend, and UKTV G repeat Doctor Who, neither is beyond the realms of possibility.

Well, yes actually he was. Ok he was just a king of his little bit down south somewhere (Wessex?, Essex?, Sussex?) and not England (plus no knights and no round furniture) - but he did exist and is thought to be the source of the myth.
Link | Reply | Thread
Link | Reply | Parent | Thread
Link | Reply | Thread