Do NYT reporters read BBC press releases?

There's a story in today's Sunday Times about the director of the new 11-part Rome epic Michael Apter being pissed off with the BBC, saying it was "sexed up" by the BBC editors - in particular, they edited the first 3 episodes of the series down to two.

"He said he had not been told the BBC was squeezing the first three episodes — the ones he directed — down to two. They were shown at full length in America by HBO, the BBC’s partner in the production.

The corporation maintained that the cut scenes were unnecessary because British audiences “already knew” the historical background of the struggle between Julius Caesar and Pompey and did not need as much information as Americans."


Hmmmm... I wonder if the American papers will pick up on it, and how much the thousands who have been flocking to BBC America (especially for news etc) in the last few years in despair of the major US networks will appreciate the presumption that without the 'backstory' being carefully explained, some would be entertaining the notion that Caesar was the guy who built the big Vegas casino....

It'd be healthy to bear in mind how seriously history is taken in this country these days. Charles Clarke's Home Office - no longer in a position to antagonise medievalists directly - gave two reasons for not including any history on their preposterous 'Britishness' test. First, tehre's "a lot of it," and second, "It's about looking forward, rather than an assessment of their ability to understand history."
At least Americans generally recognise bullshitter when they see one...