Survey

[french frank]

I've no doubt that they mean "popular" when it comes to Entertainment. Actually I have no real quarrel with that if it doesn't detract from doing the "Worthy" either where it is appropriate.

I think it was first the inclusion of the word 'only', and presupposition that 'the worthy' is in opposition to Entertainment; second, the choice of the word 'worthy' (in inverted comments) which implies what exactly? To me it reeks of the philistine (small p).

[Gordon]

I think it was first the inclusion of the word 'only', and presupposition that 'the worthy' is in opposition to Entertainment; second, the choice of the word 'worthy' (in inverted comments) which implies what exactly? To me it reeks of the philistine (small p).

Ye-e-e-s. That little "only" does carry a barb. But again I don't really quarrel with it if one takes a broad view of what "Entertainment" means. Am I not "entertained" by a late Beethoven Quartet? Or is that an unworthy word to use with that type of Art. "Worthy" is derogatory coded language for "too full of itself" but then that applies to certain celebrities does it not?

We have to face the fact that the majority of people out there are not interested in "culture" [see other thread about what that might mean] in the sense of High Art with a heavy layer of intellectualism about it. It's too hard and it takes too much effort and time and so it is a minority interest. They want light, ephemeral entertainment that is not heavy on the brain and easy on the eye and ear and softens the blows of the day after some stressful work and travel or unruly kids. What Weldon was saying was that it is possible to deliver that sort of thing with intelligence, wit, humour etc, and not be soporific or sensational. But it seems that the sensational IS what people seem to want after a day at work!!

[french frank]

Ye-e-e-s. That little "only" does carry a barb. But again I don't really quarrel with it if one takes a broad view of what "Entertainment" means. Am I not "entertained" by a late Beethoven Quartet?

Indubitably. But it's what They think 'people' are entertained by that matters. Having effectively removed that sort of 'entertainment' from public view, is it surprising that 'people' aren't entertained and They consider it merely 'worthy'?.

Or is that an unworthy word to use with that type of Art.

I don't think it is. Entertainment = ' The action of occupying (a person's) attention agreeably','That which affords interest or amusement'

1825 S. T. Coleridge Aids Refl. Pref. p. x, He, who seeks instruction in the following pages, will not fail to find entertainment likewise.
1683 Dryden Life Plutarch in tr. Plutarch Lives 80 It [history] has alwayes been the most delightful Entertainment of my life.

"Worthy" is derogatory coded language for "too full of itself" but then that applies to certain celebrities does it not?

I felt it meant the very opposite of entertaining. The boring sort of stuff that you have forced on you in school. Anything that isn't fun or light diversion. It's true that the 'majority' aren't interested in 'culture', but that isn't a reason for, for instance, removing the classical pieces from the Urban Classic Prom when broadcast on BBC Three. How will those who might be interested ever discover it? Surely, 'broadening horizons' is what PSB is about? It certainly makes that claim.

[Gordon]

Indubitably. But it's what They think 'people' are entertained by that matters. Having effectively removed that sort of 'entertainment' from public view, is it surprising that 'people' aren't entertained and They consider it merely 'worthy'?

and

I felt it meant the very opposite of entertaining. The boring sort of stuff that you have forced on you in school. Anything that isn't fun or light diversion. It's true that the 'majority' aren't interested in 'culture', but that isn't a reason for, for instance, removing the classical pieces from the Urban Classic Prom when broadcast on BBC Three. How will those who might be interested ever discover it? Surely, 'broadening horizons' is what PSB is about? It certainly makes that claim.

I can't disgree!! But how to find persuasive arguments against a strong trend of dumbing down?

[french frank]

I found this, proceedings of the House of Lords Communications Committee, 2009 (i.e. after the publication of the quoted White Paper).

It seems to me that the various definitions cited of PSB focus very largely on what might be called the "worthy".

Lord Reith: "to carry into the greatest number of homes everything that was best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement; and to avoid whatever was or might be hurtful"

Independent Television Commission, 2000: "all things to all people at least some of the time … with a strong emphasis on extending public knowledge, tastes and interests"

Communications Act, 2003: "the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming"

Ofcom: "(i) informing our understanding of the world; (ii) stimulating knowledge and learning; (iii) reflecting UK cultural identity; and (iv) representing diversity and alternative viewpoints."

The Committee goes on to say: "Ofcom's public service purposes are similar to those defined in the BBC's Royal Charter, which came into effect in 2007. But neither Ofcom's nor the BBC's set of objectives is sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between those programmes and services that merit public finance and special regulatory treatment and those that do not. Few programmes screened by any UK broadcaster would not satisfy at least one of the objectives."

Lord Burns: "provision of certain types of content … that the marketplace will not provide"

Committee again "...the interpretation of public service broadcasting as content that the market does not sufficiently provide is gaining increasing support. It implies a focus on defining the core elements of public service provision that should, as a matter of public policy, continue to be supported. Such elements might include, for example, national and regional news, current affairs programmes, the arts, children's programming, programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs and UK content."

Other broadcasters, apart from the BBC, are expected to provide 'public service content'. I have a hunch that that content does not include a special commitment to provide entertainment, whereas the White Paper gives entertainment an apparently overriding importance.

[Gordon]

Thanks FF for that link, I remember that HolCC report as it gave me a few moments of comfort that there was some kind of concensus on what PSB means but it also gave insight to the spectrum of views about it too. BTW although we tend to think of the BBC as the main exemplar of PSB, ITV and Ch4/S4C also come under the umbrella of PSB as well.

Back in 1954 the debate about the funding of ITV did go through a phase of considering its funding and of course advertising was selected but that advertising was strictly controlled by the new regulator, the ITA [later the IBA when Radio was added in the 70s] - there was a strong concensus that the UK should not adopt the American approach to advertising which was considered "vulgar" at the time!! Another one of those weighted words - is vulgar the opposite of worthy I wonder? Anyone who has seen US TV will know how infuriating their use of aggressive adverts and sponsorship are [actually that's where "soap opera" came from, shows sponsored by a soap powder company!!] just like the internet!!.

This link is interesting because it contrasts the recent [July] government strategy paper with the Lord Carter review "Digital Britain" of 2009 [is that the White paper you meant FF?] that had much to say about the future of broadcasting and PSB within it.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/08/16/public-service-broadcasting-in-digital-britain-a-step-backwards/

[french frank]

This link is interesting because it contrasts the recent [July] government strategy paper with the Lord Carter review "Digital Britain" of 2009 [is that the White paper you meant FF?] that had much to say about the future of broadcasting and PSB within it.

I was referring to the White Paper 'A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age' (§3.1.6 has the 'worthy' quote). This is the one that thunk up the Public Purposes and Service Licences and - set up the BBC Trust.....

[french frank]

The FoR3 submission was sent this evening (I quake ) - acknowledgment saying they will get back if they have any questions . Why, why, what would they want to know .....

[Gordon]

The FoR3 submission was sent this evening (I quake ) - acknowledgment saying they will get back if they have any questions . Why, why, what would they want to know .....

Well done and thanks FF, those submissions can be time consuming!! Will you be circulating it or will they publish the responses on some web site?

Don't worry, there will only be queries of they read it!! Seriously though, you never know, they may well read it but need clarification?

[french frank]

Well done and thanks FF, those submissions can be time consuming!! Will you be circulating it or will they publish the responses on some web site?

Don't worry, there will only be queries of they read it!! Seriously though, you never know, they may well read it but need clarification?

I think they said they may not publish all submissions, but that suggests they will publish some - my memory is that anything particularly 'sensitive' might stop publication (I don't think there was any secret tale-telling or mention of individuals in mine!). I don't think I can circulate it now it's in. The SCs are very fussy/stern about checking, rechecking &c before publishing - and it was for the committee, not the public.

My expert advice was that it will certainly be read but not necessarily by Committee members. I've done as directed (and advised) in condensing it in a summary of less than a page - which may be what members see - but they can refer to the whole thing (8 pages, as allowed) by checking the § ref nos. It was quite fun

[Gordon]

...It was quite fun

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!!!