Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 5, 2012 15:43:07 GMT
An excellent article by Ed West at the Telegraph, with specific observations related to BBC output.
The Chinese are right to make their television less moronic. Why aren't we doing the same?
By Ed West
Settling down to watch the ever-excellent Sherlock on Sunday I accidentally stumbled upon the last few minutes of EastEnders, which mainly consisted of people shouting, screaming, crying and dying. Just what we want to see with half the country in the depths of metaphysical despair following New Year’s Eve.
I have nothing against trashy soaps. If people want to waste the 25,000 or so days they have on earth by filling their heads with rubbish, then that’s their call. I do, though, resent the fact that a de facto tax is used to subsidise artistically worthless and vaguely unpleasant television that encourages people to believe that it is normal to behave like adolescents in a permanent tantrum.
EastEnders, after all, is perfectly capable of surviving on one of the commercial channels, so why do the taxpayers need to subsidise it, any more than they need to subsidise, say, lad’s mags? It serves no social function, being neither enlightening nor informative, nor containing any sort of positive social message about behaviour. It does often have a political message, and although if I was a gay man growing up in the 1980s or 1990s I would appreciate the way it sensitively tackled the subject, commercial television does much the same in the US anyway due to market pressure; besides which, the very idea of state television being used to change people’s political opinions, even for good, is a sinister idea in itself.
The BBC generally has far too much power, and its political bias and disproportionate influence over news and opinion is the biggest obstacle to social reform. But it’s not just the slanted reports; the BBC may be the best in the world at so many things, especially documentary-making, but a lot of what it broadcasts is IQ-sapping trash of the kind Kurt Vonnegut warned about. The BBC must use its power to make the population more well-informed, enlightened, civilised and spiritually nourished – otherwise what’s the point of it?
Meanwhile in China the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television has ordered satellite broadcasters to cut entertainment programmes by two-thirds, with the number of prime-time per week down from 126 to 38.
As the Beeb reports:
Compare and contrast with British television (apart from the promotion of “socialist core values” obviously).
In Britain there is very little requirement for broadcasters to provide news, and when they do it is so dumbed down that in Charlie Brooker’s words, it provides “less mental nourishment than a baby's rattle” (he was writing about Live from Studio Five, which qualified as part of Five’s allocation of current affairs).
But while commercial television should be free to broadcast what it likes, within reason, we could at least make state television less moronic. If I were in charge of the BBC I’d sell off Eastenders immediately and replace it with an 800-part lecture series on the great thinkers of western civilisation; no fancy graphics or foreign backdrops, just an old guy in a bad suit and glasses talking to camera. Saturday night entertainment would be a load of rabbis sitting around discussing theodicy for four hours. Sunday would be entirely in Latin or Greek. No sod it, Aramaic. The licence fee would be cut by three-quarters, and every month the corporation’s managers and presenters would have to answer questions, live, about their political neutrality.
Whichever way you look at it, China is on the rise, the country’s economy growing at a staggering rate and its people have saved while Europe’s have squandered their grandchildren’s inheritance. For the first time since the time of the Crusades the West has a serious rival, and one that may not be entirely friendly, nor necessarily liberal or democratic. Nuclear weapons will ensure that things never get too nasty, but there will be serious economic rivalry still.
The upside of China's rise may be that the West is forced to grow out of its current adolescent stage of political development, because with test scores even in China’s most remote, impoverished provinces matching those of the most developed European countries, the East is sure to race even further ahead in the next few years. Britain, meanwhile, still considers the classroom to be a testing ground for social experiments, with educational excellence secondary to the aim of ensuring “equality” between individuals and social groups.
On the BBC this morning Nick Clegg was explaining how more money was to be spent on helping disadvantaged children catch up with the rest of the classroom, despite vast amounts being spent by Gordon Brown on similar doomed exercises. This went unquestioned, because the BBC believes that education is about creating social equality. The Chinese, meanwhile, have this quaint notion that education is about educating people, which is why their share of world GDP continues to rise while ours declines. Still, don’t expect the BBC to point this out – that would go against their core socialist values.
By Ed West
Settling down to watch the ever-excellent Sherlock on Sunday I accidentally stumbled upon the last few minutes of EastEnders, which mainly consisted of people shouting, screaming, crying and dying. Just what we want to see with half the country in the depths of metaphysical despair following New Year’s Eve.
I have nothing against trashy soaps. If people want to waste the 25,000 or so days they have on earth by filling their heads with rubbish, then that’s their call. I do, though, resent the fact that a de facto tax is used to subsidise artistically worthless and vaguely unpleasant television that encourages people to believe that it is normal to behave like adolescents in a permanent tantrum.
EastEnders, after all, is perfectly capable of surviving on one of the commercial channels, so why do the taxpayers need to subsidise it, any more than they need to subsidise, say, lad’s mags? It serves no social function, being neither enlightening nor informative, nor containing any sort of positive social message about behaviour. It does often have a political message, and although if I was a gay man growing up in the 1980s or 1990s I would appreciate the way it sensitively tackled the subject, commercial television does much the same in the US anyway due to market pressure; besides which, the very idea of state television being used to change people’s political opinions, even for good, is a sinister idea in itself.
The BBC generally has far too much power, and its political bias and disproportionate influence over news and opinion is the biggest obstacle to social reform. But it’s not just the slanted reports; the BBC may be the best in the world at so many things, especially documentary-making, but a lot of what it broadcasts is IQ-sapping trash of the kind Kurt Vonnegut warned about. The BBC must use its power to make the population more well-informed, enlightened, civilised and spiritually nourished – otherwise what’s the point of it?
Meanwhile in China the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television has ordered satellite broadcasters to cut entertainment programmes by two-thirds, with the number of prime-time per week down from 126 to 38.
As the Beeb reports:
Broadcasters are also required to air at least two hours of news programming between 06:00 and midnight. They must each broadcast at least two 30-minute news programmes between 18:00 and 23:30.
"Satellite channels have started to broadcast programmes that promote traditional virtues and socialist core values," SARFT said in a statement.
Talent shows and reality TV are among the biggest casualties of the cuts. The list of restricted programmes also included talk shows and emotional stories that were deemed to be of "low taste", said the Xinhua news report.
In September last year, censors told Hunan Satellite Television to take the popular talent show Super Girl off the air. They said the show, which featured women of all ages in a singing contest, was "too long".
However the SARFT statement also said that popular dating shows, such as If You Are The One, and soap operas, such as Li Yuan Chun, produced by Henan Satellite TV, will still be on air during prime time on weekends.
If You Are the One, produced by Jiangsu Satellite TV, is the most popular dating show. It broke viewership records in 2010, prompting copycat programmes by other broadcasters.
The high ratings of such programmes and their relatively low production costs meant bigger profits for the satellite TV stations. But regulators, however, saw red over the sensationalist and "vulgar" content.
Compare and contrast with British television (apart from the promotion of “socialist core values” obviously).
In Britain there is very little requirement for broadcasters to provide news, and when they do it is so dumbed down that in Charlie Brooker’s words, it provides “less mental nourishment than a baby's rattle” (he was writing about Live from Studio Five, which qualified as part of Five’s allocation of current affairs).
But while commercial television should be free to broadcast what it likes, within reason, we could at least make state television less moronic. If I were in charge of the BBC I’d sell off Eastenders immediately and replace it with an 800-part lecture series on the great thinkers of western civilisation; no fancy graphics or foreign backdrops, just an old guy in a bad suit and glasses talking to camera. Saturday night entertainment would be a load of rabbis sitting around discussing theodicy for four hours. Sunday would be entirely in Latin or Greek. No sod it, Aramaic. The licence fee would be cut by three-quarters, and every month the corporation’s managers and presenters would have to answer questions, live, about their political neutrality.
Whichever way you look at it, China is on the rise, the country’s economy growing at a staggering rate and its people have saved while Europe’s have squandered their grandchildren’s inheritance. For the first time since the time of the Crusades the West has a serious rival, and one that may not be entirely friendly, nor necessarily liberal or democratic. Nuclear weapons will ensure that things never get too nasty, but there will be serious economic rivalry still.
The upside of China's rise may be that the West is forced to grow out of its current adolescent stage of political development, because with test scores even in China’s most remote, impoverished provinces matching those of the most developed European countries, the East is sure to race even further ahead in the next few years. Britain, meanwhile, still considers the classroom to be a testing ground for social experiments, with educational excellence secondary to the aim of ensuring “equality” between individuals and social groups.
On the BBC this morning Nick Clegg was explaining how more money was to be spent on helping disadvantaged children catch up with the rest of the classroom, despite vast amounts being spent by Gordon Brown on similar doomed exercises. This went unquestioned, because the BBC believes that education is about creating social equality. The Chinese, meanwhile, have this quaint notion that education is about educating people, which is why their share of world GDP continues to rise while ours declines. Still, don’t expect the BBC to point this out – that would go against their core socialist values.