Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post



Posted Tue Jul 1st, 2008 6:50pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
Tthe world is becoming increasingly "multi-channel" and the very idea of channel loyalty is fast becoming an anachronism. It only existed before because channels were a scarce resource. Now you can set one up on YouTube in a few seconds. As Fry says, laying out the arguments, it's the content that is the tricky part. But this leaves us with the dreaded "choice".

Fry compares this with a seedy, shoddy hotel entertainment system. This is clever, because that's probably the most soul-destroying example of something that offers you a choice that anyone could imagine.

But why not instead compare it with the British Library? More books than anyone could ever read, a vast mountain of (shudder!) "choice", and organised into subjects (oh the humanities!) But to our astonishment, we find that we are free to stroll from one subject to another; no one has nailed our legs to a shelf. And the creation of the content in that library is not directed by a wise central authority, commanding a budget of four billions and a staff as big as a medium-side commuter town - it is simply the sum total of all published writing in the language, good and bad. That is what broadcast media are turning into, and we are turning into intelligent browsers.

If people don't choose what they watch, if they are channel-loyal, like in the good old days before they had a choice, we would have a world in which most people just plug themselves into a feed of "edutainment" carefully designed by experts to give them a balanced Riethian (TM) cultural diet, and accept what they are given, without ever asserting anything approaching individual choice. Perhaps comforting to the experts who would then be employed to prepare that feed, but not in fact a better world at all. Which is the better of the following two possibilities?

1. Mum is doing the ironing and watching Holby City. Then it ends, and that bloody Yentob bloke comes on and is talking to some film director. It's boring, but mum can't be bothered to change channels because, you know, it's BBC1, you've got to be loyal to it, even when it tries your patience like this. So Yentob mumbles away for a bit using long words, the effect is mildly hypnotic, and then it's bed time.

2. Mum is doing the ironing and watching Holby City. It occurs to her that it is quite mediocre, and she switches over to BBC4, and to her delight there's a rather diverting programme about Jews.

How much better for people to be grown ups, to aspire to choose a better path for themselves, to overcome the temptation to eat nothing but sweets because they were brought up on nothing but cabbage, and instead occasionally decide to look around for some really interesting exotic new type of cabbage. Because as a free individual, they have chosen to do that. Rather than existing as the cultural equivalent of a veal calf, plugged into a telly-tube.

So given that, I cannot agree that we need a BBC1, in which the lowbrow rubs elbows with the highbrow in the ratio 95 to 5. That 95% of output that is indistinguishable from commercially produced bilge is a very high price to pay for the 5% that is occasionally diverting, and it is a price that we all must pay, just for the right to make the choice. That's a dreadfully silly situation to find ourselves in, surely.

We do need a BBC4, though. But then the question remains, how should it be paid for?

"And if you want content to be anything more, any scintilla of a soupçon of a hint more than what market forces demand, if you sincerely want content to be occasionally uplifting, ennobling, educative, innovative, top down, nourishing and of bountiful, beautiful benefit to Britain and its citizenry, then yes, absolutely, the only source of financing for that is the licence fee."

I say again - is that true of books? What's so different about television programmes? There are lots of trashy books, because they are cheap to make and they find a ready, undemanding audience. But this doesn't preclude the creation of great works, and doesn't stop people from finding and being nourished by those works. Is a license fee needed to allow cultural transcendence to occur in the publishing world? Perhaps anyone who owns a bookshelf should pay £130 a year to go towards the creation of a mixture of books - 95% of which would be undifferentiated dross, but the point is, you see, they'd be sold in the same bookshop as the 5% of "quality" books, so occasionally one of the plebs would buy a Yentob book by accident. No, I'm not honestly convinced either.

Can it be truly said of the license fee, as it is sometimes said of great things, that if it did not exist today then they would have to invent it? No, it cannot. When channels were scarce, the idea of them being filled with game shows must have seemed like a terrible waste of a new medium. But today, a game show is a relatively expensive way to fill the vast expanse of bandwidth available, when you can simply install a camera in a house and watch the occupants arguing about nothing. There is so much bandwidth available, there will always be room for something better, nobler, more soul-nourishing, to find a way to its audience. A mixture of the high and the low, in decidedly unequal proportions - that's what the world naturally is; it's not something that only the BBC can provide.

There are repeated - naturally amusing - digs at the freakshow element of Channel 4 programming. But no serious discussion of the future of the BBC can avoid the subject of BBC3. Just look at it: 'Glamour Girls', 'My New Face', 'Snog Marry Avoid', and endless programmes about how fat teens are rubbish at stuff so we can have a good laugh at them. Why is this any better than the very worst of Channel 4?

Back to top

Matt G


Posted Tue Jul 1st, 2008 11:36pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
What an utter joy it was to download nad listen to this excellent podgram. A thoroughly barnstorming performance. Hurrah for Steven Fry and Hurrah for the BBC!

Back to top



Posted Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 8:18pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
I live in the US, having moved here from Australia six years ago. And being Australian, I grew up with my fair share of BBC broadcasting by default, thanks to the ABC's love for the 'mother country'...I grew up knowing there was no real news if it wasn't the BBC news, and my broad tastes in TV shows owe a lot to the BBC... irreverent comedy like the Pythons, Fry & Laurie, the Goodies, Red Dwarf, Black Books and the Mighty Boosh to masterpiece theater productions like Pride and Prejudice, to glorious Sci fi like Doctor Who and Torchwood, and sweeping documentary epics like Simon Schama's History of Britain. Even confined on one channel like the ABC, the breadth of programming when you step back and look is remarkable.

Thank you Stephen for sharing this speech with us. Even for those who aren't tied to the influence of the BBC's programming, I'm sure most of the people who are inclined to listen to you wax lyrical have benefited in a small way from the BBC...sharing this issue with all of us lets us realise what's at stake, and what stands to be lost. It's broadening, is what it is...and while already impressive in my girth, this broad could always stand for more broadening, mindwise.

Sorry for that longwinded two-cents. Reimbursements available upon request.

Back to top



Posted Sun Jul 6th, 2008 12:44pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
Stephen's mentionings of Channel 4 had me a little nostalgic... remembering when I didn't trust anyone who didn't watch C4, back in the days of Brookside, Whose Line Is It Anyway?, Film On Four, and the cream of US comedy.

I think the last time I watched C4 was when Ugly Betty first arrived, I watched to see what the fuss was about (good fun, although not something I'd set the video for). That must have been at least two years ago - it does make me a little sad that C4 seems to have changed.

Has it really changed? Or have I just got old & fusty? The only commercial terrestrial TV I watch now is Five, and that's only once a week for House.

Back to top



Posted Tue Aug 5th, 2008 6:59pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
I have just seen Mr Stephen Fry's speech about the BBC and its future. I felt the need to express my relief that someone could so eloquently, intelligently and succinctly make a case for the retention of a publicly funded television license. I only hope that this sane message will reach the would be profiteers of a weakened Auntie Beeb and of course Daily Mail readers and that we can hope for a continuation of quality, quirky British programming often at its best.
Well Done Mr Fry.

Back to top



Posted Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 10:50pm Post subject: Stephen's newest podgram...broadcasting speech
The question of the license fee is something that is becoming increasingly contentious in a world where there are so many alternative channels of entertainment and information available to us. I agreed with a lot of what Stephen said in the podcast. I am very close to Stephen in age, and I too have much of the BBC output over the years embedded in my consciousness at an almost subliminal level. I can remember William Hartnell as Dr Who, although I was a little young for the very first episode, and many of the other names he mentioned brought back fond memories. However, I would also take the point that there has been much over the years that was mediocre at best, and sometimes quite awful. However, on balance, I think that the license fee can be justified if you look at series such as Life on Earth, which are incredibly expensive to make. It is hard to see how such series would ever have been made under circumstances where making a return on investment is the prime driver in programming decisions. When the bottom line is what counts, then people will always tend to the safer option, in an attempt to guarantee a return.

Back to top