Is British telly crap?

[stavros]

Wasn't The Thick Of It first broadcast on BBC4? It seems too highbrow to rub shoulders with Two Pints, etc. That said, they stick The Sopranos on E4 which is bizarre.

Regarding comedy, unless you count The League Of Gentlemen as one, when was the last good new comedy sketch show on telly? It all seems shite based around crap catchphrases repeated ad nauseam; Tate, Bo Selecta, Little Britain.

 

[Mallard]

Obviously not cos 'Foyle's War' is back on

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't laugh out loud, but I do quite like it.

That's what I mean, though. Saying to yourself "Oh, that's quite clever" isn't really the same as laughing.

Totally agree with you about 'crap catchphrases repeated ad nauseam'. That isn't comedy, either.

 

[maya]

You've got the BBC... How on earth can that be crap?

The Beeb= best public service telly in Europe- Have you been to (for instance) Germany? (shudders)

 

[kyser_soze]

90% of TV output the world over is shite - there simply isn't enough money out there to fill the 10,000 channels with shows the quality of The Wire etc.

As for that hoary old chestnut about UK TV being uniformly shite when it comes to everything, there's still about the same number of actual quality shows being produced and shown on UK TV as there ever was - there's just so much more shite on that the truly excellent stuff gets buried. It's still the case that every time I go abroad I end up desparately trying to find a BBC world channel after having to cope with local output...

But never let actually bothering to look at the schedules get in the way of a good generalisation...

 

[Error Gorilla]

It's majoritively crap, yes. It always has been, hasn't it? Once in a while there's a lacuna of respite and we get something as good as The Thick of It but such moments are rare.

The case can certainly be made that factual programming has declined markedly; as a reporter for World in Action wasn't John Pilger once a regular fixture on primetime ITV? That would be unthinkable today, even on a programme dedicated to politics. Witness how a programme like This Week, which itself replaced the excellent Midnight Hour will attempt to bring in a larger audience through the presence of such august politcal commentators as Lily Allen, Mylene Klass and Toyah Wilcox. Horizon and Panorama now have to secure the largest possible slice of the BARB figures with the inevitable result that anything remotely challenging is replaced with sensationalism.

Charlie Brooker claims to have brought TV Go Home to an end when he witnessed the bizarre sight of Channel Five's Touch the Truck and realised that reality had become stranger than anything he could imagine.

I think that cultural ghettoes like BBC Four are part of the problem. This is what Lynsey Hanley had to say in the Guardian:

The BBC, in its wisdom, has decided that anyone with an interest in things beyond puppy weddings and car chases should now watch BBC4. If they're interested, they can go and find it. There is, after all, no barrier to doing so beyond owning a Freeview box. I think here of my mum and dad, driven crackers by inane programming on BBC1 but with no desire, or sense of entitlement, to watch the BBC equivalent of Radio 4. Victoria Wood lampooned it a few years ago, calling it "BBC Upmarket", but the really damnable thing is that it isn't. It's just the BBC as it should be, for everyone.

Someone up there decided, some years ago, that most of us were daft but that a few of us were really clever. The clever ones would find the channel for clever people, because they were clever. The daft people would get what they were given and like it, except a couple of times a year when we all got some "event TV" such as Planet Earth. The white people, black people and Asian people would all listen to their own stations and not one for everyone. We would forget that such an idea as making the popular good and the good popular ever existed. It's as though the BBC has forgotten - along with its reason for existing - just how powerful, and therefore responsible, it still is.

 

[Badgers]

Tricky one when I only really have knowledge of UK and US television. There is quality out there but it seems to be surrounded by miles of dross.

Now my wife and I have removed TV from our lives and I really don't miss it at all. I would not be without radio though!!!

 

[kyser_soze]

Actually the reason the BBC have dropped most intelligent programming from 1&2 is because of a decade of accusations from government and press and public that it was elitist while it attmepted to stick to it's Reithian heritage of providing programmes that actually forced people to think, but were neither 'accesible' or 'populist', but rather outdated, elitist and paternalistic and of no interest to 'the average person'.

 

[Error Gorilla]

Actually the reason the BBC have dropped most intelligent programming from 1&2 is because of a decade of accusations from government and press and public that it was elitist while it attmepted to stick to it's Reithian heritage of providing programmes that actually forced people to think, but were neither 'accesible' or 'populist', but rather outdated, elitist and paternalistic and of no interest to 'the average person'.

My immediate response would be that this is a damningly patronising comment but I'm not sure if it's one you personally hold or are merely paraphrasing here. In the article I link to Lynsey Hanley demolishes this argument pretty comprehensively. From my own personal perspective, I'm neither elitist, nor middle class, nor have I enjoyed completing university education. I'd still rather not have my brains turned to mush because some hack in a Murdoch rag is under instruction to attack the BBC at every opportunity. I can see no reason why the BBC should chase ratings at the expense of quality, nor I can understand why they should wish to shunt anything remotely intellectual off into a digital ghetto. That's paternalistic alright, the assumption that its audience can't hack it and would flick over to The World's Most Amusing Monster Trucks on some distant digital outpost.

 

[kyser_soze]

In the article I link to Lynsey Hanley demolishes this argument pretty comprehensively

Doesn't demolish shit.

Sorry, but that article is a complete load of bollocks op-ed from begining to end. The comments about 1Xtra for example - the reason the BBC invested in 1Xtra was under pressure from government and lobby groups that were constantly saying that black music was under-represented on R1, that it was large enough to warrant it's own station...same goes for the Asian radio channel (the Asian TV Market has been served on radio and satellite TV for about a decade with Sunrise and a couple of other Hindi and other ethnic language stations, reflecting the fact that this specific demographic were majority owners of satellite TV way ahead of the rest of the UK).

My comments are a collection of comments, reports etc from about the last 25 years - a time frame that Lynsey Hanley is not even making a remote attempt to address when it comes to the changes in TV. She also fails to look at how satellite, digital and the internet have changed TV viewing habits from the time when Huw Weldon could decide what everyone watched because there were only 3 TV channels.

I too mourned when Tomorrow's World was taken off air - but then quite large swathes of it's populist 'Gosh look what's going to happen in the future' style of sub-futurology has been taken in part by the nunimous gadget shows, but also by what used to be produced as 'serious' science shows such as Horizon (which I refuse to watch on the basis of the amount of pseudo-science that gets broadcast on it).

This article was written by someone who's idea of TV and broadcasting and what it should be ground to a halt in about 1990, just before multi-channel and the internet really kicked off, coupled with a really serious lack of knowledge about the debates had across the press (including The Guardian, so please leave your predictable 'Murdoch scribes' comments at the door), the government and the BBC itself over about 2 decades, not to mention the changes in society itself which drove that debate (which is still happening - altho at least the BBC has some idea of where it's going in the digital era, even if mnay of the pronouncments are couched in mgmtspk bullshit)

This article is about on a par with a Daily Mail reader's letter.

 

[Fledgling]

Problem with british comedy now is that the shows that shoudl be good are just instead trying to copy the office's style of awkward-behaviour-as-humour. Just look at Lead Balloon; that's ALL that show is.

Imitation always happens, a trend starts and programme makers fall over themselves to exploit the formula and as time goes on the bottom drops out of the market. Plenty of cookery shows, reality TV shows and property programmes of varying quality. Of course all this is subjective, there is no definitive answer as to whether TV is crap. However I do get the feeling that TV is analagous to an old leaky ship which has been abandoned by many and few newcomers are persuaded to come on board. The Christmas Day schedule seemed a bit poor, they got exicted about a remake of To the Manor Born which a) leaves a lot of peeps clueless as they were born after it and b) was utter tripe anyway.

I think TV is nearing its end as a ubiqitous mainstream medium. Occasionally original programes will emerge and get a biggish audience but competing with internet and DVDs makes it tough to get high viewing figures. What may push it into near complete niche market will be when we can easily download all films and programmes online whenever, replacing DVDS and the majority of mass scheduling.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think TV is nearing its end as a ubiqitous mainstream medium. Occasionally original programes will emerge and get a biggish audience but competing with internet and DVDs makes it tough to get high viewing figures. What may push it into near complete niche market will be when we can easily download all films and programmes online whenever, replacing DVDS and the majority of mass scheduling

This is very true. How do you think the funding system will evolve to cope with these changes? I'm including BBC in this, but as I suspect the licence will remain in place, I'm more directing the question at commercial TV...

 

[john x]

Seems these days to be just an endless parade of list-programmes, consumer bollocks, nob-reality, soaps and sports.

Oh dear!

Travel the world and you will see that it is actually the BEST TV in the world!

john x

 

[PacificOcean]

Cranford.

That is my only word on the state of British TV.

 

[stavros]

To be fair to the BBC, they still do make some very good current affairs programmes with Newsnight, Question Time, Pamorama, and to a certain extent The Thick Of It and HIGNFY. I guess we can include Newsround in that too, in that nobody else does new for kids.

What is a bit weird is that they haven't seemed to have taken their cue from HBO when it comes to drama and comedy. When you think the darker, more risque stuff HBO has done, with Six Feet Under, The Wire, The Sopranos, Larry Sanders, Flight Of The Conchords and Curb Your Enthusiasm, it seems odd that the BBC wouldn't go more towards these more challenging areas. They've worked together on Band Of Brothers and Rome, but less adherence to the ratings figures would be nice.

 

[camouflage]

Oh dear!

Travel the world and you will see that it is actually the BEST TV in the world!

john x

I've only watched the telly in five countries, and I must say, I disagree with you. Documentaries about history, politics, science, art... one channel in France is showing BBC4 grade stuff even on a sunday morning! Over here it's 100 best Car Adverts and Time Team. Not on a sunday morning though, it's cartoons and god-telly and fuddy-duddies-on-a-couch-discussing-bore-politics on a sunday morning.

This thread has succeeded in reminding me that our Comedy's putting up a decent showing, but brain-food wise... I'm not talking just entertainment, I'm talking information, and all I can think of is the long decline of Horizon before it's final disappearance and the half-hour shock-docs that is all that's left of current affairs programmes like Panorama and Dispatches. God knows how long Unreported World will last, I hope it rages against the dying of the light coz it's a top show. Only a matter of time before it's replaced by Celebrity Knickers!

 

[The Boy]

I've only watched the telly in five countries, and I must say, I disagree with you. Documentaries about history, politics, science, art... one channel in France is showing BBC4 grade stuff even on a sunday morning!

Which channel would that be then?

 

[camouflage]

Can't remember, arte or something.

 

[bluestreak]

To be fair to the BBC, they still do make some very good current affairs programmes with Newsnight, Question Time, Pamorama, and to a certain extent The Thick Of It and HIGNFY. I guess we can include Newsround in that too, in that nobody else does new for kids.

What is a bit weird is that they haven't seemed to have taken their cue from HBO when it comes to drama and comedy. When you think the darker, more risque stuff HBO has done, with Six Feet Under, The Wire, The Sopranos, Larry Sanders, Flight Of The Conchords and Curb Your Enthusiasm, it seems odd that the BBC wouldn't go more towards these more challenging areas. They've worked together on Band Of Brothers and Rome, but less adherence to the ratings figures would be nice.

I agree with this.

Actually I don';t find british tv too bad at all. i don't feel the need to watch a lot of tv, maybe a couple of hours a week and what i do want to watch fills that timeslot nicely. while there's lots of shit on and i think we need to increase the amount of highbrow stuff in the mainstream, i don't reckon we're in as dire straits as some people think.

 

[Belushi]

British telly is much better than a TV in many countries where its truly dire. And British tv shows get shown all over the world - I've got a Polish friend who loves 'Keeping Up Appearances' and know Finns who are addicted to Emmerdale for example.

 

[The Boy]

Can't remember, arte or something.

Oh aye. I remember when that was launched they shared the channel with another channel iyswim. It was la cinq in am and arte pm or the other way round.

 

[Arik]

Seems these days to be just an endless parade of list-programmes, consumer bollocks, nob-reality, soaps and sports.

Ok occasionaly theres something good on (something funny made in the US or something, or a shocking expose-a of... the toy industry or something). In Europe there's way more stuff about art, philosophy, history, science and establishment unsafe politics, a fair showing anyway.

I don't mean to come over all high minded or something but- sometimes British teevee reminds me of the film Idiocracy. Do you have to pay for all the teevee worth watching now?

No, British TV is not crap. Or maybe all TV is crap but British TV is less crap. We have REALLY noticed the difference coming to Australia. There seems to be no one regulating the commercial stations so they have copious amounts of ads, cross-promotion, re-runs, and cheap and shithouse American fucking cop drama shows. I want to write to someone and heartily complain but I'm not sure who.

 

[kyser_soze]

Blame Howard and his funding squeeze on ABC and letting Murdoch own pretty much everything for Oz tellys crap showing...

All I can say (considering I'm planning on moving there in about 3 or 4 years) is thank god for the internet and bittorrent (or whatever is around in 3/4 years!)

Foreigner - you're basically talking about one specialist channel in France aren't you?

 

[danny la rouge]

90% of TV output the world over is shite - there simply isn't enough money out there to fill the 10,000 channels with shows the quality of The Wire etc.

So tell the TV companies to stop this proliferation of channels. I wouldn't want new channels to stop trying, but why does the BBC need 8 or 9 digi channels? It doesn't, and we shouldn't pay for them.

 

[kyser_soze]

So tell the TV companies to stop this proliferation of channels. I wouldn't want new channels to stop trying, but why does the BBC need 8 or 9 digi channels? It doesn't, and we shouldn't pay for them.

Are you talking about radio or TV, or both? Do you not think the BBC has a duty to respond to the way TV viewing is changing? That even 10 years ago it would still be possible to get an audience for a TV show that scraped 20 million, whereas now getting even 12 -14 million is considered a ratings challenge, even to shows like EE? While you might not like it, over 70% of households are now multichannel in some way, either Sky, Cable or DTT. About the same % are connected to the internet, will have multiple TVs in their homes, Neilsen estimate about 15-20% of homes use some form of streamed, downloaded or digitally stored replay as their primary viewing, as opposed to watching 'on schedule'...

At the moment, general purpose channels don't work. Maybe the pendulum will swing back, or a brave and visionary DG will move the BBC back towards quality on the back of a government and public who don't mind paying a licence fee for shows that don't get tons of viewers.

Do you think the BBC shouldn't have one of the most content rich websites on the planet? That it shouldn't respond to it's historical lack of diversity by opening up streamed channels? Much like the writer of that Guardian article, I suspect that you haven't really thought about the modern media landscape, the way it's changed from a supplier-led and controlled to a far more even balance between content providers and viewers, and what it means for TV broadcasters (as opposed to production companies) who aren't just fighting against each other any more, but against distribution technologies.

 

[43mhz]

European TV is, by and large, utterly dreadful - Italy being the most hilariously dire.

FACT.

 

[danny la rouge]

Are you talking about radio or TV, or both?

TV.

Do you not think the BBC has a duty to respond to the way TV viewing is changing?

I think it has a duty to provide good programming, and that proliferating channels just because it can be done is stupid. It isn't responding to the way TV is changing, it is mistaking the notion that something can be done for the notion that something should be done.

A similar phenomenon is HD. It isn't being done in response to anything other than the fact that the technology is available. The technology isn't useful, but it's there so they want to use it. HD is a response to a question that wasn't asked, and it is going to cause more problems than it is worth. (Which is, in real terms, nothing).