BBC's role
29/06/04 12:00 Permalink
Today the BBC will map out its role for the 21st
century and promises much in the way of public
service and a bid for its funding. I have a few
suggestions of my own.
1. Scrap the idea of 'public service broadcasting' because nobody actually knows what it means. Instead, tell us how many entertainment programmes you're planning to make, why they're going to either pay for themselves (in terms of merchandising - the new Doctor Who will be expensive but BBC Worldwide will bring in a lot of money as a result if it succeeds) or why they need to be made from the public purse.
2. Tell us how much news and documentary you're going to make. Then tell us why they're going to be worth watching.
3. Give us more compulsive reasons to switch to digital TV, if that's where you want everyone to go. Yesterday, for example, I didn't feel like watching the tennis match that was on BBC1 so I had a look at the Grosjean match instead. On Saturday evening I watched one of the alternative groups at Glastonbury, and I could do this only with the red button. Tell us more about this stuff, it's good value and not everyone knows about it.
4. Tell us about BBC Worldwide and why a publicly-funded body has to make a profit, or indeed why it can't be hived off like the commercial enterprise it is.
5. Above all, reassure us that you'll continue to play to your strengths. If the country goes to war on a false premise we want to know about it whether or not some silly sod of a judge exonerates everyone but you in a report; we want interesting programmes with no obvious commercial appeal that we'll want to watch anyway, and we want a channel that sticks with a failing programme (like Only Fools and Horses in the early days) and gives it time to find its feet. Actually you've been falling down in that a bit just lately - Andy Hamilton's last sitcom about a sports PR man could have been a classic but it was shunted about then dropped.
Works for me.
1. Scrap the idea of 'public service broadcasting' because nobody actually knows what it means. Instead, tell us how many entertainment programmes you're planning to make, why they're going to either pay for themselves (in terms of merchandising - the new Doctor Who will be expensive but BBC Worldwide will bring in a lot of money as a result if it succeeds) or why they need to be made from the public purse.
2. Tell us how much news and documentary you're going to make. Then tell us why they're going to be worth watching.
3. Give us more compulsive reasons to switch to digital TV, if that's where you want everyone to go. Yesterday, for example, I didn't feel like watching the tennis match that was on BBC1 so I had a look at the Grosjean match instead. On Saturday evening I watched one of the alternative groups at Glastonbury, and I could do this only with the red button. Tell us more about this stuff, it's good value and not everyone knows about it.
4. Tell us about BBC Worldwide and why a publicly-funded body has to make a profit, or indeed why it can't be hived off like the commercial enterprise it is.
5. Above all, reassure us that you'll continue to play to your strengths. If the country goes to war on a false premise we want to know about it whether or not some silly sod of a judge exonerates everyone but you in a report; we want interesting programmes with no obvious commercial appeal that we'll want to watch anyway, and we want a channel that sticks with a failing programme (like Only Fools and Horses in the early days) and gives it time to find its feet. Actually you've been falling down in that a bit just lately - Andy Hamilton's last sitcom about a sports PR man could have been a classic but it was shunted about then dropped.
Works for me.
|
Classic DJ-ing
24/06/04 11:59 Media
issues Permalink
Granted, it's not particularly a journalism issue,
it's media in general, but I'm really quite pleased
that Classic Gold, the radio station, has
reinstated Tony Blackburn.
It had sacked him because he kept playing records by
Cliff Richard, who's a bit off-message for them. He
is now allowed back, and so is Cliff.
I'm not a Cliff Richard fan. I'm not a Tony Blackburn fan. But if you hire Tony Blackburn there's no point in getting angry with him when he starts behaving like Tony Blackburn. Particularly if you're going to back down the following day and end up looking a complete chump.
I'm not a Cliff Richard fan. I'm not a Tony Blackburn fan. But if you hire Tony Blackburn there's no point in getting angry with him when he starts behaving like Tony Blackburn. Particularly if you're going to back down the following day and end up looking a complete chump.
BBC recommendations
23/06/04 11:58 Media
issues Permalink
OK - there's loads out there about the Telegraph and
its purchase, and how Conrad Black is going to try
and stop the Barclay brothers buying it.
More interestingly, today the BBC has unveiled its plans to revamp its news services in the wake of Hutton.
I'm stunned. There's a lot of good stuff in there of course - a journalism college is to be welcomed by anyone with a commitment to quality, and single-sourced stories will be used only when they are truly in the public interest.
OK, rewind that last sentence and read it again. They will run stories from single sources only when the item is in the public interest. The Hutton Report, you'll recall, was about a single-sourced story and the source, when identified, tragically took his own life. And Lord Hutton criticised the BBC for running the story at all.
The story was about how the claims that we were under imminent threat from Iraq with their weapons of mass destruction were at best exaggerated.
Is it just me, or has that story turned out to be completely true? And if so, what could be more in the public interest than the idea that our country was taken to war under a completely mistaken premise?
And bearing this in mind, why hasn't the Hutton Report been put in the nearest shredder along with m'lud's reputation, rather than still getting treated as a serious statement on the press by so many?
More interestingly, today the BBC has unveiled its plans to revamp its news services in the wake of Hutton.
I'm stunned. There's a lot of good stuff in there of course - a journalism college is to be welcomed by anyone with a commitment to quality, and single-sourced stories will be used only when they are truly in the public interest.
OK, rewind that last sentence and read it again. They will run stories from single sources only when the item is in the public interest. The Hutton Report, you'll recall, was about a single-sourced story and the source, when identified, tragically took his own life. And Lord Hutton criticised the BBC for running the story at all.
The story was about how the claims that we were under imminent threat from Iraq with their weapons of mass destruction were at best exaggerated.
Is it just me, or has that story turned out to be completely true? And if so, what could be more in the public interest than the idea that our country was taken to war under a completely mistaken premise?
And bearing this in mind, why hasn't the Hutton Report been put in the nearest shredder along with m'lud's reputation, rather than still getting treated as a serious statement on the press by so many?
Causing offence
22/06/04 11:58 Media
issues Permalink
I was watching the BBC's 'Comedy Connections'
programme last night. It was about the story of The
Goodies - the comedy team. One thing in particular
caught my attention; the presenter's (or her
writer's) reaction to the use of the word 'nig-nog'
to refer to black people in one of the scripts. It
was a predictable condemnation.
In most contexts I'd agree, but this was a little different. The episode under discussion was a satire on South Africa in the 1970s. The boers had finally got rid of all the black people and had to find someone else to bully. Tim ends up acting as a cleaner - he admits this is beneath him but "all the nig-nogs have gone" (TIM BLOCKS HIS MOUTH UP).
The commentator suggested that it was a pity the Goodies' language didn't match their satirical, liberal intentions, but I think it did. What Brooke-Taylor did was to use one word that highlighted the British double-standard - the outrage we all felt at apartheid combined with a then-common willingness to import black people as a cheap workforce whilst unofficially denigrating them, insulting them and watching the National Front run riot. It stands as a period comment.
In much the same way there was a recent furore about Only Fools and Horses. Grandad, in one of the episodes, refers to a 'Paki shop'. The BBC has excised the 'p' word from its print. Here there is a related issue - people of Grandad's generation at the time would probably have used the word in that exact context, so as a piece of characterisation it stands up OK. That episode is a 1980s period piece and if its terminology makes us wince then fine - that's one way in which we can measure our progress as a society.
The real issue with the Only Fools episode, it seems to me, is that it still gets presented as current programming instead of the 20-year-old archive piece it actually is. And that says more about the state of our current TV productions than any liberal hand-wringing ever did.
In most contexts I'd agree, but this was a little different. The episode under discussion was a satire on South Africa in the 1970s. The boers had finally got rid of all the black people and had to find someone else to bully. Tim ends up acting as a cleaner - he admits this is beneath him but "all the nig-nogs have gone" (TIM BLOCKS HIS MOUTH UP).
The commentator suggested that it was a pity the Goodies' language didn't match their satirical, liberal intentions, but I think it did. What Brooke-Taylor did was to use one word that highlighted the British double-standard - the outrage we all felt at apartheid combined with a then-common willingness to import black people as a cheap workforce whilst unofficially denigrating them, insulting them and watching the National Front run riot. It stands as a period comment.
In much the same way there was a recent furore about Only Fools and Horses. Grandad, in one of the episodes, refers to a 'Paki shop'. The BBC has excised the 'p' word from its print. Here there is a related issue - people of Grandad's generation at the time would probably have used the word in that exact context, so as a piece of characterisation it stands up OK. That episode is a 1980s period piece and if its terminology makes us wince then fine - that's one way in which we can measure our progress as a society.
The real issue with the Only Fools episode, it seems to me, is that it still gets presented as current programming instead of the 20-year-old archive piece it actually is. And that says more about the state of our current TV productions than any liberal hand-wringing ever did.
More Telegraph
21/06/04 11:57 Media
issues Permalink
Interesting to see The Observer coming down in favour
of a Barclay Bros takeover of the Telegraph
yesterday. Of course it doesn't matter what anyone
else says, the decision will be announced any day
now, but it's fun to speculate.
Also interesting to read, in the same paper, Peter Preston's piece on UKIP and how the press had been unable to sway the voters against supporting them. I'm not a UKIP supporter. I'm not anti-European either. If I were either of those things I'd be against UKIP because they've leeched support from the Conservatives who'd have stood a chance of actually doing something - and I'm not a Conservative either, if anyone wants to know. Nevertheless I find it encouraging rather than disillusioning that the public showed signs of thinking for itself rather than being spoonfed by the tabloids.
Maybe in 1992 it wasn't the Sun what won it after all.
Also interesting to read, in the same paper, Peter Preston's piece on UKIP and how the press had been unable to sway the voters against supporting them. I'm not a UKIP supporter. I'm not anti-European either. If I were either of those things I'd be against UKIP because they've leeched support from the Conservatives who'd have stood a chance of actually doing something - and I'm not a Conservative either, if anyone wants to know. Nevertheless I find it encouraging rather than disillusioning that the public showed signs of thinking for itself rather than being spoonfed by the tabloids.
Maybe in 1992 it wasn't the Sun what won it after all.
No Mail for Telegraph
18/06/04 11:56 Media
issues Permalink
You may have heard already that the Daily Mail and
General Trust is not going to pursue ownership of the
Telegraph.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand it would have been a good match - the most right-wing broadsheet and the most right-wing tabloid under the same roof. On the other hand should right-wing writing be pigeonholed like that? Certainly I find the Evening Standard and Mail have some commonality in attitude and stance, and it would be a pity to drag another paper into the same stable - as someone who disagrees with much of what they say it's too easy for me to think 'oh, that's what they would print' if they're in the same company.
There are other reasons it would have been a bad idea, though, quite apart from the financials that will have destroyed the deal. The Independent has gone exclusively 'compact'. The Times is giving out vouchers, free/subsidised books and no doubt other inducements to buy the compact rather than the broadsheet edition. The Guardian will no doubt make some sort of move at some stage but it's not saying what. So, supposing you're the owner of the tabloid-format, right-wing Daily Mail. Is there any good business reason to buy into what's currently a right-wing broadsheet but will almost certainly come under pressure to become a right-wing tabloid and compete with your core product? I think not.
I have no idea who's likely to get the Telegraph in the end, but I can imagine a lot of relief around Derry Street that it's not going to be the Mail.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand it would have been a good match - the most right-wing broadsheet and the most right-wing tabloid under the same roof. On the other hand should right-wing writing be pigeonholed like that? Certainly I find the Evening Standard and Mail have some commonality in attitude and stance, and it would be a pity to drag another paper into the same stable - as someone who disagrees with much of what they say it's too easy for me to think 'oh, that's what they would print' if they're in the same company.
There are other reasons it would have been a bad idea, though, quite apart from the financials that will have destroyed the deal. The Independent has gone exclusively 'compact'. The Times is giving out vouchers, free/subsidised books and no doubt other inducements to buy the compact rather than the broadsheet edition. The Guardian will no doubt make some sort of move at some stage but it's not saying what. So, supposing you're the owner of the tabloid-format, right-wing Daily Mail. Is there any good business reason to buy into what's currently a right-wing broadsheet but will almost certainly come under pressure to become a right-wing tabloid and compete with your core product? I think not.
I have no idea who's likely to get the Telegraph in the end, but I can imagine a lot of relief around Derry Street that it's not going to be the Mail.
Public disorder
17/06/04 11:55 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Memo to members of Big Brother House in the UK: If
you're ever going to start a fight, if you're ever
going to risk being charged with assault, if you're
ever going to create a public disturbance,
try
not to do it while the cameras are running so the
viewers have to call the police in...
Full story here.
Full story here.
Visa matters
17/06/04 11:50 Media
issues Permalink
It's the sort of story that had my blood boiling at
first. The story at
this link
tells how freelance journalist Elena Lappin was
detained in the US for not having the right sort of
visa. She was shouted at, kept uncomfortable and
cuffed.
Now, nobody is condining poor treatment of the innocent of course. But are we really living in a world in which professional freelances aren't expected to find out what's expected of them in terms of paperwork if they want to work in a particular country? When I visited the US in 1991 for a story I certainly needed and obtained an I-Visa, and yet Lappin is under the impression the legislation was dormant until March 2003.
I'm not convinced by this. Most hacks I know - granted a lot of them are technical writers and therefore go to the US a lot - have been well aware of the need for an I-Visa for many years. The correct story from Lappin is surely that the US Authorities will treat you badly, but only if you screw up royally in the first place.
Now, nobody is condining poor treatment of the innocent of course. But are we really living in a world in which professional freelances aren't expected to find out what's expected of them in terms of paperwork if they want to work in a particular country? When I visited the US in 1991 for a story I certainly needed and obtained an I-Visa, and yet Lappin is under the impression the legislation was dormant until March 2003.
I'm not convinced by this. Most hacks I know - granted a lot of them are technical writers and therefore go to the US a lot - have been well aware of the need for an I-Visa for many years. The correct story from Lappin is surely that the US Authorities will treat you badly, but only if you screw up royally in the first place.
A link
16/06/04 11:54 While
I was media training... Permalink
Tomorrow I am media training. This means briefing
people on how to handle queries from the media in all
shapes and forms.
It's interesting work but before I get too blase about it I have to remember some of the stuff that actually happens when people get it wrong. Here's a link drawn from the real life experiences of a number of journalists.
It's interesting work but before I get too blase about it I have to remember some of the stuff that actually happens when people get it wrong. Here's a link drawn from the real life experiences of a number of journalists.
Tennis rant
15/06/04 11:54 Media
issues Permalink
It's that time of year - Wimbledon is upon us. I
shall enjoy this. Alongside the regular rugby,
football, golf and other sporting magazines in the
newsagents', you'll be able to buy a tennis magazine
or two. For about a fortnight.
Then they'll go away again - whereas the rugby, football, golf and other sporting magazines will be there all year round. I have nothing against these sports and applaud the fact that their enthusiast have more than one magazine to choose from. But for the tennis fan it's really annoying...
Then they'll go away again - whereas the rugby, football, golf and other sporting magazines will be there all year round. I have nothing against these sports and applaud the fact that their enthusiast have more than one magazine to choose from. But for the tennis fan it's really annoying...
A small correction
11/06/04 11:52 Media
issues Permalink
A small apology to anyone who believed my report -
and that of the BBC - the other day, which said that
BSkyB was going to launch a free to view digital TV
package.
It turns out that it'll be free only for the first 24 months, then they'll have a think about it.
Take the words 'ado', 'nothing', 'about' and 'nothing' and arrange them into a well-known phrase or saying...
It turns out that it'll be free only for the first 24 months, then they'll have a think about it.
Take the words 'ado', 'nothing', 'about' and 'nothing' and arrange them into a well-known phrase or saying...
Nothing's for free
09/06/04 11:52 Permalink
You've got to laugh at some things, and the kerfuffle
about to erupt between the BBC and Sky is among them.
The subject is the BBC's Freeview service, which is
about to get competition from Sky
according to this link.
So Sky thinks it's good news that loads of people, probably including me, will shortly abandon its subscription service in favour of a one-off payment for a new box (if it has an equivalent of Sky+ as I'm utterly addicted). And the BBC thinks this is good because it's more digital TV viewers who won't have to pay.
Look, guys, both services involve buying a new bit of kit that often costs three figures. Could we all stop referring to this as a free service when it isn't?
So Sky thinks it's good news that loads of people, probably including me, will shortly abandon its subscription service in favour of a one-off payment for a new box (if it has an equivalent of Sky+ as I'm utterly addicted). And the BBC thinks this is good because it's more digital TV viewers who won't have to pay.
Look, guys, both services involve buying a new bit of kit that often costs three figures. Could we all stop referring to this as a free service when it isn't?
Times a-changing
08/06/04 11:51 Media
issues Permalink
I note The Times is going to make its compact edition
national, and is ramping up its printing presses to
cope. I'm almost happy to take bets on just how long
the broadsheet lasts, although the Murdoch empire is
adamant it's not going.
The Independent, meanwhile, has quietly killed its broadsheet edition off. What, you hadn't noticed? See, told you they'd done it quietly...
The Independent, meanwhile, has quietly killed its broadsheet edition off. What, you hadn't noticed? See, told you they'd done it quietly...
Questions of privacy
Now it may just be me, but I'm not actually all that
interested in whether Lord Coe has fathered an
aborted child out of wedlock. That's beside the
point. The important question is whether it's in the
public interest that he did so.
Personally I can't see why it should be, but the Sunday Mirror clearly disagreed. The judge's view was that Coe's ex-girlfriend Vanessa Lander had the right to expression and the papers had the right to publish.
It all seems rather distateful, though, when the 'right to expression' has to be coaxed out by a reported five figure sum. Not so much a right, more a bid to make some fast bucks.
Personally I can't see why it should be, but the Sunday Mirror clearly disagreed. The judge's view was that Coe's ex-girlfriend Vanessa Lander had the right to expression and the papers had the right to publish.
It all seems rather distateful, though, when the 'right to expression' has to be coaxed out by a reported five figure sum. Not so much a right, more a bid to make some fast bucks.
Turn your back for five minutes...
01/06/04 11:48 Media
issues Permalink
OK, back from hols and I find the BBC has appointed
Mark Thompson as director general in my absence.
I think I approve. He's a BBC man and has a solid record in consumer journalism, having worked on Watchdog. I'm no great fan of that particular programme, it's always appeared a little glib and makes a lot of mistakes in a number of areas (I've certainly spotted them jumping to wrong conclusions in the IT area, and a lot of colleagues who specialise in other areas tell similar stories) but it's journalism, it's not afraid of a bit of controversy so he's not the desperately safe (ie dull and pro-establishment) pair of hands the doom merchants were afraid we'd get.
I wish him luck.
I think I approve. He's a BBC man and has a solid record in consumer journalism, having worked on Watchdog. I'm no great fan of that particular programme, it's always appeared a little glib and makes a lot of mistakes in a number of areas (I've certainly spotted them jumping to wrong conclusions in the IT area, and a lot of colleagues who specialise in other areas tell similar stories) but it's journalism, it's not afraid of a bit of controversy so he's not the desperately safe (ie dull and pro-establishment) pair of hands the doom merchants were afraid we'd get.
I wish him luck.