No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Contemporary British television
Abstract
Introduction British television was often referred to in the past as 'the best in the world', but now the very idea of thinking of television as intimately bound to a sense of national pride seems almost quaint in a period where, especially for many young people, television is losing its special role as a focal point for a shared national culture. But the contribution of television to a unified British culture was of the utmost concern when the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) first started a television service in 1936, building on the approach it had established as the only radio broadcaster. While the BBC was always expected to be loyal to the nation-state in times of crisis or war, it was also structured to be at one remove from direct government control so that it could not be used simply as a propaganda tool for whoever was in political power. This ideal of political impartiality and unbiased information contributed to an ethos of television as a public service that was also free from commercial pressures, financed not by advertising but through a directly paid licence fee, offering improving education as well as entertainment for the masses. When Independent Television (ITV) was introduced in 1954, its reliance on advertising for finance was also offset by stringent public-service regulations to ensure it also fulfilled these broad aims.
“No penséis en términos de un principio y un final. Porque, al contrario que algunos entretenimientos con una trama guiada, no hay cierre en la vida real. En absoluto” (1.9.). Así se despide Creighton Bernette de sus alumnos hacia el final de la primera temporada de Treme (HBO, 2010-). Con aliento realista, fotocopiando “la vida real”, la serie creada por David Simon entona una balada armónica sobre la regeneración de Nueva Orleans gastando un ritmo lento, glacial, y un tono contemplativo que deja respirar los ambientes y sonar los instrumentos. En las antípodas su sitúa Community (NBC, 2009-), una sitcom disparatada, intertextual y repleta de guiños metaficcionales. En el episodio más celebrado de su tercera temporada, todos los personajes están reunidos en torno a una mesa para jugar al Yazhtee. Antes de tirar el dado para resolver quién abandona la partida, Abed Nadir advierte: “Solo para que lo sepas, Jeff, así estás creando seis líneas temporales diferentes” (3.4.).
Tanto en la escena que desvela la premisa del episodio “Remedial Chaos Theory” –seis variaciones sobre un mismo relato– como en el comentario sutilmente autorreferencial del trágico protagonista de Treme se condensa la evolución que el relato televisivo ha sufrido en la última década larga: sofisticado, innovador, complejo, de largo recorrido y destinado a un espectador educado narratológicamente. Desde esquinas complementarias –a veces enfrentadas–, propuestas como Lost, The Wire, Mad Men, Arrested Development, 24, The Good Wife o Fringe han aupado la televisión anglosajona al Olimpo narrativo, convirtiéndola en un dispositivo privilegiado –una máquina perfecta– para contar historias. A lo largo de este ensayo analizaremos por qué.
This article considers Channel Four Television (Channel 4) as a historical object that combines two ‘faces’ or logics. The first face is the ‘public service’ tradition of broadcasting inaugurated by John Reith at the BBC. The second is the ‘private services’ or ‘cultural entrepreneur’ tradition, which embodies a more corporate and commercial ethos. It is suggested that Channel 4 under its first Chief Executive Jeremy Isaacs was a distinctive ‘blend’ of these two faces, both of which can be traced to the extended ‘Sixties generation’ that made Channel 4 happen. Under Issacs, Channel 4 was a setting in which these two faces were in broad balance, providing a mutually reinforcing ecology of ‘public interest’ entrepreneurialism, and the result reinvigorated both television and the wider media culture of the day. The paper suggests that this balance was inherently unstable, and that the history of Channel 4 has seen the growing dominance of the private services face and a corresponding marginalisation of the public service tradition. In conclusion, some reasons are posed for this shift and its impact over the long term.
I know what the story is. I've read the story. But what is it trying to say? What is it about? Why are we doing this story vs. this story, vs. even another story? Why? What are these characters really saying to an audience? What are we trying to have them think or feel about a story ... ? It's the most terrifying question in this town.
This essay suggests that Ofcom, like those who routinely avoid the ‘terrifying question’ noted in the citation above, appears to lack the skills and the will to address some of the key issues of content and of purpose in British broadcasting today. Thus, while this new body is distinguished in its ability to assemble and publish a wide range of statistics about the industry, it may plausibly be accused of knowing ‘the cost of everything and the value of nothing’. Its key operating paradigms appear to rule out an engagement with the splendid and slippery issues of quality and of value and to be incapable of dealing with questions of cultural significance. The standard cultural studies proposition – that cultural context in large part determines the production and circulation of meanings – is banished from its lunar landscape.
After coming to power in 1997, the UK’s New Labour Government considered various policy responses to ‘convergence ‘- a perceived communications revolution blurring the boundaries between previously distinct media sectors. The approach decided upon is embodied in the Communications Act 2003 which has ushered in a sweeping programme of regulatory change in the communications industries and is the most comprehensive legislation of its kind in British history. This article assesses the major provisions of the Act, touching on how it has been implemented so far by Ofcom (Office of Communications), and it analyses the implications of this landmark legislation for the future of UK communications and, especially, broadcasting policy.