The BBC: An Existential Crisis?

[teamsaint]

More than one Stephen Fry - as in:

There is a thread in this.......

think I need beer.......

[Thropplenoggin]

There is a thread in this.......

think I need beer.......

It's not needed, TS - you're already seeing double.

[kernelbogey]

I've just been listening to Night Waves in which Matthew Sweet supposedly interviewed David Kynaston whose magisterial history of post-war Britain is extended by a new volume, Modernity Britain: Opening the Box, 1957-1959 (Bloomsbury).

Someone, presumably either Sweet or his producer, conceived the notion - I will not grace it with the word 'idea' - of treating large parts of the interview as a post-modern 1950s-style quiz show, asking the modest academic to identify slogans for chocolate bars, brassieres and other products.

Kynaston, when allowed to speak uninterrupted on the subject of his book - which one might naively have supposed to be the purpose of his being invited onto the programme - had fascinating things to say about this period: the dominance of working-class (65% of population) culture, Labour's failure to address the inequality of the public schools, the romanitcisation of working class culture by public school boys in the government, and so on.

But the production team had obviously decided pace Brian Sewell's view of the Beeb - to turn this into entertainment. Kynaston sounded uncomfortable with the whole barmy enterprise and I felt embarrassed that a Radio Three supposedly intellectual programme should descend into such crowd-pleasing Michael Palin-style jollification.

Shame on them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think the slide in mediocrity has come about over the last twenty years since the dismantling of the old production departments and their replacement by commissioning editors who see everything merely as product. Departments like Music and Arts, Documentaries, Drama, Current affairs certainly suffered from a certain lumbering bureaucracy, and decisions could be slow, but they had the advantage that decisions about quality were made by people who were really dedicated to their subject.
If a younger programme maker need advice on a project, there were seasoned producers on hand to advise and criticise. This could be irksome for the impulsive, but it worked.
One other fact is that older filming methods required forethought. In order to reduce costs and time, a director need to have devised a formal structure before filming began. With digital video all this has been dispensed with. Instead the programme is shaped at the editing stage, and lots of material, good and bad, is junked.

Thanks for this, Ferretf.

[kernelbogey]

And of course you would have to get a TV license.

Of course. As I have posted before, I would be happy to pay a full licence fee now, sans tv, if I could allocate the money to Radio Three. As it is I get all the BBC's radio output for no cost to me at the point of delivery....

Mind you, when I were a lad... [cont. p94]

[Boilk]

A few years ago, [Alan] Titchmarsh hosted the Proms – an absolute insult to anyone who knows or cares about music. You wouldn't ask a conductor to go on Gardener's Question Time."

I read this Guardian article online a couple of days ago and almost started this very thread with the Alan Titchmarsh Proms comment, which had me in near hysterics; and The Fiona Bruce one was IMO also spot on.

I think one of the reasons BBC arts coverage has plummeted in quality over the last 20 years is that a publicly-funded broadcaster has to be seen to compete - viewership wise - with the other broadcasters. With a mere 5% average audience share, for example, there would be a lot of pressure to scrap the Licence Fee altogether if 95% of the public were not regularly watching.

Would love to see a no-holds-barred Brian Sewell series on modern 20th century art, his insights would be both controversial and illuminating, but always entertaining, rather like his London Evening Standard articles.

[scottycelt]

What a marvellously refreshing and entertaining piece of journalism and in the Guardian too ...

I've always loved these very rare moments seeing Sewell interviewed on television. His deadpan, contemptuous manner in rubbishing mediocrity always has me in stitches. 'Bollocks' and 'Fiona bloody Bruce' indeed! And poor Fiona is far from being the worst example, imo.

Sewell concentrated his wrath on the BBC and part-absolved the commercial broadcasters because of commitment to profit, shareholders, etc. However, I'm not sure that is always a genuine excuse for simple things like providing a news bulletin free of loaded delivery.

Only yesterday I was astonished to hear that simpering newsreader Anna Botting ( of Sky News) reporting that the sentence handed down to Stuart Hall was being reported to the appropriate authorities because he had only been given a 15-month sentence for child-sex offences. That was half-news, half-opinion. She should have simply given the fact of the length of the sentence and then added that some considered it too lenient and are taking the matter further.

Such shabby and amateurishly careless delivery is all too prevalent when it comes to factual broadcasting these days. Let's hear much more of the fearless Mr Sewell!

[teamsaint]

What a marvellously refreshing and entertaining piece of journalism and in the Guardian too ...

I've always loved these very rare moments seeing Sewell interviewed on television. His deadpan, contemptuous manner in rubbishing mediocrity always has me in stitches. 'Bollocks' and 'Fiona bloody Bruce' indeed! And poor Fiona is far from being the worst example, imo.

Sewell concentrated his wrath on the BBC and part-absolved the commercial broadcasters because of commitment to profit, shareholders, etc. However, I'm not sure that is always a genuine excuse for simple things like providing a news bulletin free of loaded delivery.

Only yesterday I was astonished to hear that simpering newsreader Anna Botting ( of Sky News) reporting that the sentence handed down to Stuart Hall was being reported to the appropriate authorities because he had only been given a 15-month sentence for child-sex offences. That was half-news, half-opinion. She should have simply given the fact of the length of the sentence and then added that some considered it too lenient and are taking the matter further.

Such shabby and amateurishly careless delivery is all too prevalent when it comes to factual broadcasting these days. Let's hear much more of the fearless Mr Sewell!

I agree, and there is plenty of it on BBC news bulletins. There was a report on BBC radio news yesterday which essentially told us that the NHS emergency and A and E were underfunded and over stretched, which of course are part of a story/script, rather than any kind of objective truth.

[MrGongGong]

Surely it's obvious that TV is Theatre ?
Sometimes it's overt , sometimes not
but that's what TV has become
so to criticise it for not being like something it's not (an academic lecture ?)
is a bit ridiculous ........

Whenever there's anything on TV that is about something one knows about (in a Sewell stylee )
then one sits there going "no no no"
It's ALL like that
probably always has been ....... "She's gone, get over it"

The best thing BS ever did was this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Exotic-Beatles-Various-Artists/dp/B0000083CY

[Sir Velo]

Surely it's obvious that TV is Theatre ?
Sometimes it's overt , sometimes not
but that's what TV has become
so to criticise it for not being like something it's not (an academic lecture ?)
is a bit ridiculous ........

That's all a bit laissez-faire innit? If telly has morphed into junk vision, it can change back again.

If no one ever protested or complained about anything we'd all be living under a mountain of concrete, with wind farms sprouting out of every available square inch of ground, we'd all be doffing our caps to the local squire etc..

[french frank]

But the production team had obviously decided pace Brian Sewell's view of the Beeb - to turn this into entertainment. Kynaston sounded uncomfortable with the whole barmy enterprise and I felt embarrassed that a Radio Three supposedly intellectual programme should descend into such crowd-pleasing Michael Palin-style jollification.

This was evidently one of the R3 programmes which the BBC Trust designates as 'not to the taste of all listeners'.

The Trustee who led the review of Radio 3 is listed as 'Creative Director of All3media' which produces such programmes as these Factual and Factual Entertainment. Then there's the Comedy and Entertainment progs which you can check for yourselves if you're curious. That explains many things which aren't immediately obvious ....

[MrGongGong]

That's all a bit laissez-faire innit? If telly has morphed into junk vision, it can change back again.

If no one ever protested or complained about anything we'd all be living under a mountain of concrete, with wind farms sprouting out of every available square inch of ground, we'd all be doffing our caps to the local squire etc..

Not really
because there are plenty of other places where one can find things these days
TV is Theatre , most people like things with a narrative thread
most people don't like Ligeti, Xenakis and Bax
that's fine as long as those of us who do aren't denied access to them
which we aren't

Some TV is great
much isn't
which is probably same as it ever was (the Byrne strategy ?)
but maybe different things are great than used to be ?

[amateur51]

Ams

I think the slide in mediocrity has come about over the last twenty years since the dismantling of the old production departments and their replacement by commissioning editors who see everything merely as product. Departments like Music and Arts, Documentaries, Drama, Current affairs certainly suffered from a certain lumbering bureaucracy, and decisions could be slow, but they had the advantage that decisions about quality were made by people who were really dedicated to their subject.
If a younger programme maker need advice on a project, there were seasoned producers on hand to advise and criticise. This could be irksome for the impulsive, but it worked.
One other fact is that older filming methods required forethought. In order to reduce costs and time, a director need to have devised a formal structure before filming began. With digital video all this has been dispensed with. Instead the programme is shaped at the editing stage, and lots of material, good and bad, is junked.

Many thanks for these insights, Ferret

[amateur51]

I've just been listening to Night Waves in which Matthew Sweet supposedly interviewed David Kynaston whose magisterial history of post-war Britain is extended by a new volume, Modernity Britain: Opening the Box, 1957-1959 (Bloomsbury).

Someone, presumably either Sweet or his producer, conceived the notion - I will not grace it with the word 'idea' - of treating large parts of the interview as a post-modern 1950s-style quiz show, asking the modest academic to identify slogans for chocolate bars, brassieres and other products.

Kynaston, when allowed to speak uninterrupted on the subject of his book - which one might naively have supposed to be the purpose of his being invited onto the programme - had fascinating things to say about this period: the dominance of working-class (65% of population) culture, Labour's failure to address the inequality of the public schools, the romanitcisation of working class culture by public school boys in the government, and so on.

But the production team had obviously decided pace Brian Sewell's view of the Beeb - to turn this into entertainment. Kynaston sounded uncomfortable with the whole barmy enterprise and I felt embarrassed that a Radio Three supposedly intellectual programme should descend into such crowd-pleasing Michael Palin-style jollification.

Shame on them.

I'd made a note to listen to this Kernel - I've now screwed it up & thrown it away

I'll get the book from the library instead - how old-fashoned of me

Matthew Sweet can be terribly lightweight and worse ... he's everywhere!

[french frank]

Not really
because there are plenty of other places where one can find things these days

What about those who aren't familiar with such things - especially music - and wouldn't know where/how to seek it out? Why not seriously educative introductions, not frivolous ones which assume people who are ignorant of such things are also stupid?