I think everyone is already aware of the Discovery Channel series on China, hosted by Ted Koppel, which aired last week. I haven’t seen any footage yet, although I will at some point and share my thoughts (if I have anything remotely important to add, that is).

Even though I haven’t seen the series, I did read the New York Times review of the show a few days ago. The piece includes both positive and negative comments, and finishes up with this snarky comment that the series is: "moderately engaging observational journalism." How nice.

Some interesting parts of the review:

1. Part 1, on Wednesday night, includes an amusing game of follow the traveling couch as Mr. Koppel illustrates the economic interdependence of China and the United States. An Ethan Allen couch keeps turning up in the segment, in varying stages of completion, with some of the work being done in each country. Where the couch eventually ends up says a lot about both the economic push and pull between the countries and how a former archenemy can become an admirer.

I wonder if this characterization of China as an admirer is from the series or from the author of the review. I guess I should watch the first segment first. Funny how Americans seem a lot more comfortable with developing countries where the populace is enamored with blue jeans and pop music, validating Western culture. Feeds into the whole image of the U.S. as "the good guys".

2. Part 2, on Thursday, includes a droll visit to some kind of dinner theater where the regimented entertainments and pronouncements from Mao Zedong’s day are turned into a kitschy show. “To many Chinese these days, the Cultural Revolution is better mocked than too carefully remembered,” Mr. Koppel says.

I wonder if Ted went to one of those places in Ya Bao Lu in Beijing that have these interesting floor shows. If yes, I don’t think it’s fair to automatically assume that just because something is kitsch, it is necessarily mocking. Some folks like kitsch and think it’s cool. I’m not one of those people, but I try not to judge.

3. Koppel’s reaction to a public works project (this is Part 3) is that:

There must be machines that could do this job, but conserving manpower is not China’s problem,” Mr. Koppel explains. “Putting hundreds of millions of dirt-poor people to work is. Any job that can be done by manual labor, is.

If he is making a general point about labor in China, then his opinion represents pretty outdated thinking, I must say. A lot of productivity gains have had enormous effects on the Chinese labor force in recent years. A very minor example close to home would be a lot of those bus ticket takers whose jobs have been replaced by technology. To be fair, a public works project bolsters his point quite well, but there is a lot more going on with the economy these days, making the labor force a complicated beast.

On the whole, I’m looking forward to watching, and I’ll try not to be too critical. I will definitely not be as snarky as the New York Times.

Sounds like Rich is also giving Koppel the benefit of the doubt.