A more serious entry tonight.

So what everyone seems to be talking about is this Eastenders plot. Ronnie Mitchell, upon discovering her newborn baby has died tragically from SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), switches her baby with that of the newborn son of Alfie and Kat Moon, leading them to believe that their baby has died and cause them immense grief.

The outrage this has caused is massive, and, in my opinion, quite understandably. For ANYONE who has suffered this kind of loss, I can't imagine the range of emotions this must conjure up. So what has happened in the reaction to this? Eastenders have issued statements from every single corner of the writers room it seems. What they're all focussing on however is the fact that Ronnie made the swap of the babies.

Since I heard this storyline was happening, I thought straight away how insensitive it was, with or without baby swap. I know it's a serial drama and it aims to tackle issues that affect everyone but I just think that dealing with the death of an infant is such a sensitive issue that it's almost taboo. In the thousands of statements that have been released though, they seem to all be saying "in no way do the actions of Ronnie Mitchell mirror those of any other grief stricken mother".

It's all very well and good to say that, but they seem to forget the fact that they are dramatising something that in itself is traumatic for any parent who goes through it. I asked my mum how she felt about it and she said that she could understand them portraying "cot death" but couldn't understand why they'd put the baby switch in. Is it just me who feels so strongly about SIDS itself being portrayed?

As I've said on I think about 1,000,000 occasions, I have a nephew. He's 1 in about 3 weeks and because I lived with him up until he was about 9 months old, I used to worry myself sick on a regular basis that something might happen to him. So, if that's how I feel, I don't know how a parent who's actually gone through the horror of losing an infant at such a young age must feel.

I think they've been under so much pressure since announcement that they've had no choice but to cut it short which I think is good. But it means that there's gonna be a constant reminder for about 3 more months. In my mind it should've never been portrayed in the first place. I feel it was no more than a ploy for Brian Kirkwood to mark his territory by putting a sensational story in that would get chins wagging, which it certainly has.

Also, on a more general note, how depressing is Eastenders?! I refuse to believe that a London borough, East End of London or not, has that much bad luck! Can't they just take a lesson from Coronation Street, which if I may be so bold, is fucking FUNNY sometimes. They have genuine moments of humour. I think that's probably the reason it's still going.

Like earlier on, I watched Brookside (they have classic episodes on 4oD. AMAZING) and in one episode, a woman was propositioned, harassed by a guy who blamed her for the break-up of his family, then she was raped when she was alone on an empty street. Now, I understand, this was probably an extra dramatic day, but I couldn't help feeling like shit was going from bad to worse for her.

Soaps just aren't believable. I don't see how they can be. So when producers say things like "we always bring the real issues to the fore and portray thought provoking television", it's really making a mockery of it....because I don't find them to be believable. Things like Neighbours and Coronation Street are consistently balanced. There's always some comedy happening while the tragedy is happening, which makes it slightly more gauging I feel.

So this went from one issue into a full blown soap rant.

Hmm.

Thoughts?
Paul xx