This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/mactaggart-lecture-tv-diktat-defend-bbc-ministers-talk-us-down
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Unless you want TV by diktat, defend the BBC | Unless you want TV by diktat, defend the BBC |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Eighteen years ago I took my son, who was about three, to the cinema for the first time. It was a long and execrable film called Flubber. As we came out I asked him what he thought, and he said: “It was good. It was like a big video you can only see once.” | Eighteen years ago I took my son, who was about three, to the cinema for the first time. It was a long and execrable film called Flubber. As we came out I asked him what he thought, and he said: “It was good. It was like a big video you can only see once.” |
| From that focus group of one, I determined two things. First, children are acutely aware of the limitations of their viewing environment, but, second, it doesn’t seem to spoil their enjoyment. As long as the content is good, they’ll put up with much. | From that focus group of one, I determined two things. First, children are acutely aware of the limitations of their viewing environment, but, second, it doesn’t seem to spoil their enjoyment. As long as the content is good, they’ll put up with much. |
| This is good news for those who make quality programmes. People will hunt them out, on whichever device is available. Hence Amazon and Netflix, and now YouTube pouring money into generating new content. Everyone wants to make television. | This is good news for those who make quality programmes. People will hunt them out, on whichever device is available. Hence Amazon and Netflix, and now YouTube pouring money into generating new content. Everyone wants to make television. |
| The bad news is, everyone wants to make television. Cheaper, user-friendly technology means we’re living in both the golden age of TV, and a global bucket of swill. For every Sherlock and Breaking Bad there’s a billion more people filming their brother squirt baked beans from his nose and anus. | The bad news is, everyone wants to make television. Cheaper, user-friendly technology means we’re living in both the golden age of TV, and a global bucket of swill. For every Sherlock and Breaking Bad there’s a billion more people filming their brother squirt baked beans from his nose and anus. |
| Related: Armando Iannucci steps down as Veep showrunner after four seasons | Related: Armando Iannucci steps down as Veep showrunner after four seasons |
| In this cacophony, it’s more important than ever that we have strong, popular channels, highly respected for their quality, that act as beacons, and provide a confident home for the best programme-makers. Faced with a global audience now, British television needs its champion supporters, it needs its cheerleaders. | In this cacophony, it’s more important than ever that we have strong, popular channels, highly respected for their quality, that act as beacons, and provide a confident home for the best programme-makers. Faced with a global audience now, British television needs its champion supporters, it needs its cheerleaders. |
| If Britain is at the top of its game in TV creativity, it’s because we have the best audience in the world. I think the British public yearns for good stories, stimulating argument, and original ideas. It knows bullshit when it sees it, soon tires of the same old same old and hungers for something new all the time. It takes the difficult, the idiosyncratic, and makes it popular. | If Britain is at the top of its game in TV creativity, it’s because we have the best audience in the world. I think the British public yearns for good stories, stimulating argument, and original ideas. It knows bullshit when it sees it, soon tires of the same old same old and hungers for something new all the time. It takes the difficult, the idiosyncratic, and makes it popular. |
| That’s why we in television should feel lucky to be born here, or to have come here to work. My biggest surprise about working for HBO was that it seemed very familiar. It’s quite a small, tight unit where I had to deal with only one, sometimes two, executives. They placed the creative voice front and centre of what they did. Notes were intelligent, and offered as suggestions only: if, very rarely, I said “No, I don’t feel that will work” they came back with good grace and said “Armando, it’s your show. You decide what’s best.” | That’s why we in television should feel lucky to be born here, or to have come here to work. My biggest surprise about working for HBO was that it seemed very familiar. It’s quite a small, tight unit where I had to deal with only one, sometimes two, executives. They placed the creative voice front and centre of what they did. Notes were intelligent, and offered as suggestions only: if, very rarely, I said “No, I don’t feel that will work” they came back with good grace and said “Armando, it’s your show. You decide what’s best.” |
| This is the secret formula. But here’s the thing: that’s exactly how the BBC worked some 15, maybe 10 years ago. The best US shows are modelling themselves on what used to make British TV so world-beating. To have a broadcaster have faith in you and leave you to get on with it was the very essence of British television, not just under the public-service remit, but in the commercial field as well. | This is the secret formula. But here’s the thing: that’s exactly how the BBC worked some 15, maybe 10 years ago. The best US shows are modelling themselves on what used to make British TV so world-beating. To have a broadcaster have faith in you and leave you to get on with it was the very essence of British television, not just under the public-service remit, but in the commercial field as well. |
| The best US shows are modelling themselves on what used to make British TV so world-beating | The best US shows are modelling themselves on what used to make British TV so world-beating |
| If public-service broadcasting was a car industry, our ministers would be out championing it overseas, trying to win contracts, boasting of the British jobs that would bring. And if the BBC were a weapons system, half the cabinet would be on a plane to Saudi Arabia to tell them how brilliant it was. | If public-service broadcasting was a car industry, our ministers would be out championing it overseas, trying to win contracts, boasting of the British jobs that would bring. And if the BBC were a weapons system, half the cabinet would be on a plane to Saudi Arabia to tell them how brilliant it was. |
| And yet, it’s quite the reverse. They talk of cutting down to size, of hiving off, of limiting the scope, with all the manic glee of a doctor urging his patient to consider the benefits of assisted suicide. At its mildest, this talk is a background hum in the form of government ministers telling us what shows we should be making, as if they were television’s chief commissioners of programmes; for example, John Whittingdale recently said in an interview: “Arguably, I’d keep David Attenborough.” (I’m not sure how practical that last wish is, given the natural life cycle of the human presenter. Unless we’re prepared to preserve him as the Russians do Lenin.) | And yet, it’s quite the reverse. They talk of cutting down to size, of hiving off, of limiting the scope, with all the manic glee of a doctor urging his patient to consider the benefits of assisted suicide. At its mildest, this talk is a background hum in the form of government ministers telling us what shows we should be making, as if they were television’s chief commissioners of programmes; for example, John Whittingdale recently said in an interview: “Arguably, I’d keep David Attenborough.” (I’m not sure how practical that last wish is, given the natural life cycle of the human presenter. Unless we’re prepared to preserve him as the Russians do Lenin.) |
| But then there was ministerial confusion on the subject of Strictly Come Dancing. Osborne called it “fantastic” on 5 July, only to clash with Whittingdale who called the show “debatable” on 14 July, but who then, no doubt under pressure from his chancellor, swivelled, calling it “admirable” by 19 July. It was such an elegantly performed U-turn, he really should go on the show. | But then there was ministerial confusion on the subject of Strictly Come Dancing. Osborne called it “fantastic” on 5 July, only to clash with Whittingdale who called the show “debatable” on 14 July, but who then, no doubt under pressure from his chancellor, swivelled, calling it “admirable” by 19 July. It was such an elegantly performed U-turn, he really should go on the show. |
| What worries me is that politicians now intend to act on their extremely subjective opinions. They are increasingly falling into the trap of thinking that, because they have won a parliamentary majority, they know how a majority of the public thinks. It’s a creeping imperial ambition that’s doing international harm to our stock. Variety and Hollywood Reporter now daily feature stories about our television service powering down, BBC4 becoming a shadow of what it was, BBC3 destined for online, proud boasts about redundancies, acceptance of cuts, Channel 4 toyed with over privatisation. To quote a question I’ve been repeatedly asked by the US TV industry: “What the hell are you guys thinking?” To them it looks like we’re going mad. | What worries me is that politicians now intend to act on their extremely subjective opinions. They are increasingly falling into the trap of thinking that, because they have won a parliamentary majority, they know how a majority of the public thinks. It’s a creeping imperial ambition that’s doing international harm to our stock. Variety and Hollywood Reporter now daily feature stories about our television service powering down, BBC4 becoming a shadow of what it was, BBC3 destined for online, proud boasts about redundancies, acceptance of cuts, Channel 4 toyed with over privatisation. To quote a question I’ve been repeatedly asked by the US TV industry: “What the hell are you guys thinking?” To them it looks like we’re going mad. |
| I collect political phrases. And the one I return to again and again is a sentence from Tony Blair in 2004, one year on from the invasion of Iraq, and in defence of his decision to invade. He said: “Do I know I’m right? Judgments aren’t the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I only know what I believe.” | I collect political phrases. And the one I return to again and again is a sentence from Tony Blair in 2004, one year on from the invasion of Iraq, and in defence of his decision to invade. He said: “Do I know I’m right? Judgments aren’t the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I only know what I believe.” |
| To quote a question I’ve been repeatedly asked by the US TV industry: 'What the hell are you guys thinking?' | To quote a question I’ve been repeatedly asked by the US TV industry: 'What the hell are you guys thinking?' |
| That concluding phrase is a stunning reversal of about two-and-a-half-thousand years of rational inquiry. Normally, we believe what we know. Normally, we seek evidence, and form conclusions on the basis of what we find. The problem of “I only know what I believe” is now putting pressure on public-service broadcasting to conform to the political norms of the party in power, no matter how slim its majority. | That concluding phrase is a stunning reversal of about two-and-a-half-thousand years of rational inquiry. Normally, we believe what we know. Normally, we seek evidence, and form conclusions on the basis of what we find. The problem of “I only know what I believe” is now putting pressure on public-service broadcasting to conform to the political norms of the party in power, no matter how slim its majority. |
| The government has recently “warned” the BBC to be balanced in its coverage of the EU referendum. Why? If there’s clear cause for this warning, the government should point it out. If there isn’t, why the need for a warning? And how now are BBC reporters to proceed, subconsciously cowed into a fear that any too-probing an analysis of a sensitive point, say, the economic consequences of immigration, will lead to censure, or reprimand? | The government has recently “warned” the BBC to be balanced in its coverage of the EU referendum. Why? If there’s clear cause for this warning, the government should point it out. If there isn’t, why the need for a warning? And how now are BBC reporters to proceed, subconsciously cowed into a fear that any too-probing an analysis of a sensitive point, say, the economic consequences of immigration, will lead to censure, or reprimand? |
| Related: BBC has a duty to run Met Office forecasts | Letters | |
| The BBC is a mirror into which Britain gazes every day: it reflects the country, sometimes flatteringly, but also truthfully. It must surely keep asking questions about that country, digging around, startling, annoying. | The BBC is a mirror into which Britain gazes every day: it reflects the country, sometimes flatteringly, but also truthfully. It must surely keep asking questions about that country, digging around, startling, annoying. |
| Meantime, politicians should say openly what they believe. If they distrust the BBC, they should say it. If they just don’t like it, they should say it. Not commission charts and experts to arrive at that conclusion for them, filleting information and statistics down to look like incontrovertible fact. | Meantime, politicians should say openly what they believe. If they distrust the BBC, they should say it. If they just don’t like it, they should say it. Not commission charts and experts to arrive at that conclusion for them, filleting information and statistics down to look like incontrovertible fact. |
| Let’s stop playing games, let’s talk properly, and honestly, about what we value and want to preserve in the BBC. The question shouldn’t be how do we cut it down to size, but why should we. | Let’s stop playing games, let’s talk properly, and honestly, about what we value and want to preserve in the BBC. The question shouldn’t be how do we cut it down to size, but why should we. |
| • This is an edited extract of the MacTaggart lecture Armando Iannucci gave in Edinburgh today | • This is an edited extract of the MacTaggart lecture Armando Iannucci gave in Edinburgh today |
Previous version
1
Next version