The BBC: An Existential Crisis?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

AUNT has been badly knocked about in recent years, decades even if we include Birt et al. Brian Sewell is his usual acerbic provocateur in this piece; alas i agree with him .... something i did not contemplate hereto!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/15/bbc-factual-tv-insult-brian-sewell

[amateur51]

AUNT has been badly knocked about in recent years, decades even if we include Birt et al. Brian Sewell is his usual acerbic provocateur in this piece; alas i agree with him .... something i did not contemplate hereto!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-brian-sewell

I find that I like Brian Sewell (as in "let's get Brian over for dinner") even when I disagree with him, because I usually learn something, if only about myself.

On this occasion I agree with him, though it saddens me to say so. Could the origins of the slide into mediocrity be the current failure to discern from the outset whether a topic is really 'radio' or 'television'. The recent Archive on Four programme about modern dystopias was treated almost as a television programme with voices popping up unannounced - on television a less obtrusive naming would fade in & then out.

The recent two-part TV series about tea with Victoria Wood I found fascinating but it was a travelogue as Sewell says and could probably have been produced as one programme if they'd lost the travelogue aspect. Was Victoria Wood's presence vital? Of course it wasn't vital to the subject matter but would any of us have watched it without her? Would she have done it for half-fee? I wonder I don't know if the budgets for this sort of programme are substantial but if so, are big budgets part of the problem?

[Sir Velo]

Great reading. Had me LOL several times to the bemusement of a colleague! This, among many paragraphs, needs broadcasting:

"I know many people who groan at the mere mention of Fiona Bruce. What Michael Palin does, he does perfectly well but it isn't serious television. It's tomfoolery. He goes to Outer Mongolia and sleeps in a yurt, but you don't learn anything about Outer Mongolia's politics, economics, future or past. You're merely having an adventure holiday by proxy. It's unambitious and complacent. The BBC plays it far too safe. It's got little Alistair Sooke on everything now. He has a certain gauche, boyish charm but – and this isn't professional jealousy – he doesn't know anything. The BBC clearly think it's good to have programmes presented by people with no knowledge or experience. 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."

[french frank]

You wouldn't ask a conductor to go on Gardener's Question Time.[/B]"

Unless they know something, of course. I propose John Eliot Gardiner or Maria Joao Pires for Farming Today.

[kernelbogey]

Loved it all and agreed with all of it. The walking about and arm-waving is what I hate about these 'factual' programmes. I sometimes think about getting a television set - but every time I look at a factual programme online via iPlayer, I get irritated by the same things as Brian Sewell. The 'density' of information in these programmes is maddeningly, shamefully and frustratingly small.

(Sadly, I think Sewell would be taken seriously much more widely if he didn't have that upper-class nineteen-fifties accent....)

[Serial_Apologist]

Loved it all and agreed with all of it. The walking about and arm-waving is what I hate about these 'factual' programmes. I sometimes think about getting a television set - but every time I look at a factual programme online via iPlayer, I get irritated by the same things as Brian Sewell. The 'density' of information in these programmes is maddeningly, shamefully and frustratingly small.

(Sadly, I think Sewell would be taken seriously much more widely if he didn't have that upper-class nineteen-fifties accent....)

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

[teamsaint]

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

I thought it was voluntary, like so much else in the big society.

working in libraries, tax for the rich, telling the truth, asking people if you can spy on them, ......

[Thropplenoggin]

I thought it was voluntary, like so much else in the big society.

working in libraries, tax for the rich, telling the truth, asking people if you can spy on them, ......

And there I was thinking this was a euphemism for obesity.

[teamsaint]

And there I was thinking this was a euphemism for obesity.

you are thinking of the Big Mac society, '@Noggo, I suspect.

It was introduced by Macmillan after decades of rationing in a pathetic vote grab attempt.

It has nothing to do with Stephen Fries.

[Thropplenoggin]

you are thinking of the Big Mac society, '@Noggo, I suspect.

It was introduced by Macmillan after decades of rationing in a pathetic vote grab attempt.

It has nothing to do with Stephen Fries.

[ahinton]

you are thinking of the Big Mac society, '@Noggo, I suspect.

It was introduced by Macmillan after decades of rationing in a pathetic vote grab attempt.

It has nothing to do with Stephen Fries.

You mean there's more than one of these?! Well, one learns something useful at least once daily on these boards!

[teamsaint]

more than one of what, AH?

shouldn't it be "There are"in any case?

[ahinton]

more than one of what, AH?

Stephen Fry.

shouldn't it be "There are"in any case?

That might depend upon how many of them there be - i.e. one or more than one!

[Ferretfancy]

I find that I like Brian Sewell (as in "let's get Brian over for dinner") even when I disagree with him, because I usually learn something, if only about myself.

On this occasion I agree with him, though it saddens me to say so. Could the origins of the slide into mediocrity be the current failure to discern from the outset whether a topic is really 'radio' or 'television'. The recent Archive on Four programme about modern dystopias was treated almost as a television programme with voices popping up unannounced - on television a less obtrusive naming would fade in & then out.

The recent two-part TV series about tea with Victoria Wood I found fascinating but it was a travelogue as Sewell says and could probably have been produced as one programme if they'd lost the travelogue aspect. Was Victoria Wood's presence vital? Of course it wasn't vital to the subject matter but would any of us have watched it without her? Would she have done it for half-fee? I wonder I don't know if the budgets for this sort of programme are substantial but if so, are big budgets part of the problem?

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.

[french frank]

more than one of what, AH?

More than one Stephen Fry - as in: