Sir
Here's the letter that I sent to the Independent yesterday, which I doubt they'll print (as it criticises them, and newspapers don't take kindly to this, in my experience). Don't worry, it's not about science, but something I do know about!
Sir: As a veteran of the BBC, John Humphrys is entitled to his views (Humphrys: BBC cost-cutters should axe new channels, 3 September). What I object to, as both a licence-payer and BBC freelance, is your illustrative panel listing BBC3 and BBC4's "hits" and "misses", based not on quality but audience figures. These are minority channels where new talent and more challenging ideas are tested. Why must they compete only in terms of ratings? This is fairly typical of the print media's double standards towards the BBC: it must provide a public service and also put bums on seats. Humphrys' Today programme is rightly judged by its quality, not its audience figures.
The original article is here, but it's the "sidebar" (scroll down to the end) I was moaning on about.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 6:44 PM
20 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
20 Comments:
John Harumphrys is exactcly the sort of bloke who has probably never sat down and watched BBC4. He has probably no idea what digital TV means. You are absolutely right - ratings is no reflection of their importance. Anyway I would like to point out that ratings for digital TV in particular is such an inexact science, that it is tantamount to guesswork. I am very grateful that BBC4 exists, it is the only BBC channel which programmes the sort of thing I like. We pay the BBC to make stuff which is worth watching, not to satisfy smug berks in newspapers or radio presenters. Besides, given the value of archive, many of BBC4's programmes will last in their relevance a lot longer than reality TV shows. And how do you measure that by 'ratings'?
I think the cause of BBC4 would be better served if those supporting it cut the 'package deal' tie to the 'other' minority channel, BBC3. 3's best offerings are repeats of Dr Who and the odd comedy, kind of sub-BBC1.
In contrast BBC4 does show some much better original programmes (at least the kind I like) and seems to me to be of a generally higher standard, kind of like BBC2 of a few years ago. It's a good foil for BBC2 and ought to be kept on.
Harder to make a case for 3 though, at least on current form. I wouldn't want to see 3 go though, as all the worst parts would end up on 4 no doubt.
It seems to be the season for elder statesmen of the Beeb to start recommending policy; Paxo was on that tack the other week in Edinburgh. Perhaps there's a Governer's position coming up - or is Melvyn Bragg retiring?
I agree with your letter. Apparently BBC3 gets a rather high audience for some programmes, probably mainly comprising of those repeats/sneak previews of BBC2 shows.
I love BBC4 but BBC3 should be renamed to The Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps channel.
I'm not sure how I feel about Three. It's had the odd gem, although 15 Storeys High, The Mighty Boosh, and Little Britain - its biggest successes in my opinion - all arrived via the radio route. I think some shows that could have found a reasonable audience given a sympathetic timeslot and a bit of a push on BBC2 have been seen by too few people on Three, which is a waste of our money. Plus the very presence of Three gives BBC2 an excuse to dump anything hard to sell in the Saturday or Sunday night wastelands.
BBC4 is great but I'd like to see more archive repeats rather than simply the repeats of the few new programmes. I do appreciate that repeats don't come for free though. And of course the very presence of BBC4 gives BBC2 the excuse...
Funnily enough I wrote a letter to The Independent (presumably the biggest "miss" amongst Britain's national papers?) yesterday too. It was a bit rubbish and mentioned a certain scientist - I won't reproduce it here.
I am staggered personally by the suggestions from those within the BBC that BBC4 should be axed, when in my mind it is at the moment the jewel of the corporation. Some of its original programmes have been wonderful - Charlie Brooker, The Secret Life of the Motorway, the fantastic way they blend archive shows with new documentaries, such as the children's TV series recently, plus the sci-fi series which was great. And the look at comic books coming up next week looks very interesting. Its seems to me that BBC4 is something they should be proud off, not suggesting be axed. Ratings and quality should never go hand in hand - 8 million mildly entertained people should not be considered better than half a million people who really connect with a programme and feel thankful they watched it.
BBC3 on the other hand, is not to my taste - agreed, it did give us The Boosh, which is probably enough reason for it to exist - but I am sure there are people out there who feel as strongly as to why BBC3 should exist as why I think BBC4 should be there. "The unique way they are funded" surely means these extra channels are exactly what they should be doing in this digital, multi-channel age.
BBC4 is great, and what BBC2 used to be. Tonight's Wolfendon drama was great, as was all the Stephen Fry specials. Although you could argue with the Beeb relegating arts programmes to digital channels.
I like BBC4 but like others find it difficult to forgie BBC3 for Two pints f Lager and then following up with two series of Grown Ups, a sitcom ITV would be embarassed about.
BBC Three's 9pm programme tonight was Help! I Smell Of Fish! I kid you not. On the whole, I quite like the channel, and Rush Hour was one of the best broken comedies I've seen in ages, but it does sometimes feel that the channel controller is Alan Partridge, or at least someone who thinks that shock value is enough.
But BBC Four must be ring-fenced. It's a national treasure.
According to the Independent Mr Humphrys doesn't own a TV.
But I only read the headline.
I don't like everything on either channel (although BBC4 is more often watched in my house than BBC3, which seems to have gone wilfully more downmarket since its launch), but neither should be axed. Somebody had their sights set on News 24 the other day. That shouldn't be axed either. BBC channels should be judged exclusively on whether they are providing a service. It bugs me equally that 6 Music has to be seen to be expanding its audience. Why? Isn't it enough that it's filling a hole that was previously unfilled?
Anyway, my main point was that the newspapers hate the BBC because they are all owned by private media conglomerates, so we shouldn't trust their coverage of BBC-related issues. Unfortunately, the national press is the only press we've got, so where else to read about them? (I expand upon this theme in my next Word column.)
There was a time when Three was brilliant. Drama such as Funland, Conviction, Bodies, Proof; Comedies like Outlaws, 15 Storeys High, The Smoking Room, Grass, Swiss Toni, Grease Monkeys, The Visit etc. I even enjoyed the repeats of The Practice.
BBC Four has given us delights like City of Men, Heimat, Engrenages, and closer to home The Thick of It, Lead Balloon yadda yadda yadda.
Is part of the problem the proliferation of digital TV, whilst there is quality programming on some channels, there are ubiquitous Quiz Channels, Shopping Channels and Pick a channel+1 to ensure the viewing figures are diluted over a number of channels rather than concentrated or focussed on one particular channel. It would be great if channels were concerned with providing a message and not let cost implications direct how it organises it scheduliing, but it seems to be fact of life. More4 are cutting back on their drama acquisitions (presumably due to high cost over cultish viewing figures).
Machine Levine
The BBC should be in the business of making programmes that appeal to as wide a range of viewers as possible. We know that when we look back at the programming when there were less channels available, that that meant catering to the lowest common denominator. Does John Humphries want a return to those days? It's really a question of whether more channels gives more choice or whether the budget spread more thinly won't pay for anything worth watching or listening to which ultimately results in less choice.
How can be taken seriously as a broadcaster when he holds such parochial views? I'm sure his precious radio programme could have all the budget it needs by simply closing down 6Music after all, surely Radios 1 & 2 cater for all the pop/rock output that anyone could want - that too would be idiotic. Personally I think at any system that gives enough choice to allow me to avoid pompous twits like Humphreys whenever his smug mug appears on the screen is a good one.
Ultimately the BBC output is there for us, "the consumer", and statements such as Humphreys' suggest that he is not really a consumer of the products that he would be happy to see withdrawn in order that his radio show is unaffected.
It would be interesting to know how many extra reporters that canceling Mastermind and replacing it with a repeat of an old sitcom would pay for. Well, I don't watch it so they may as well cancel it! I think that's how that argument goes anyway.
I would go to war to defend the great BBC4, but BBC3 is absolute shit, seemingly catering for mongs by mongs.
hay all u guyz no nuthing. 2 pints of larger an a packit of crispsz id the best programme on the BBC EVER
ahahahahaja
bye
Was that last comment a clever parody?
Dave, was that your letter in today's Independent? One-nil to you!
Yes, that was mine. They lopped off the last sentence, which was probably just as well.
How are the Independent's sales figures these days? If it's all about numbers doesn't that make The Sun a hit and them a miss?
Which reminds me that Annually Retentive was great too. It may have ripped off Larry Sanders but unlike the second series of Extras it recognised that having celebrities being shown in a bad light is only funny if there's truth at the heart of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home