Why do we bother? Why do programme makers bother? There are talented people around who put their entire energies into producing TV to a standard that we couldn't possibly begin to imagine even just 10 years ago. They have budgets cut for a popular show and they still manage to make drama that seems of the same brilliance as it ever was. And then some just-out-of-media-college dork decides to plaster inappropriate technicolour graphics over the top of this masterwork at its climax. You might analyse this travesty into oblivion - it is not a conspiracy to force us into a particular mode of watching, it might just be a deliberate policy based of flawed focus group research - it is most probably a mistake made because of the never-ending push for "value" in everything. The result of course is a descent of the once-professional flagship channel of a much-envied state broadcaster into the litter-strewn alleys of multiple digital broadcasting. Do you get the feeling that the TV company no longer respects the viewer - that they just do not care any more as long as they get the number of viewers up to a specific level? Even in the face of multiple alternatives, the BBC is still by far and away the best programme maker, the best supporter of independent programme makers and despite the views of a strange, dribbling minority of detractors, the broadcaster which reflects most closely the general views of the population. The fact that they can instantly turn suspense created with the simplest of dramatic devices into instant outrage and the inappropriateness and crassness with a simple button press on the control desk manned by some twonk who thinks he is a little bit dangerous, a little bit wild, who has the attention span of gnat with ADHD, is the start of the end ... if we do not stop it now.
We need to complain about DOGs. We need to complain about IPPs. We need to complain about credit squeezing. We need to complain about talking over the end credits for which our money has been paid to embellish with stylish and appropriate music. Leave that sort of behaviour to other channels. Question the responses that we get in reply to deluges of complaints. They say that viewers find DOGs useful. They do not. There are two types of viewers - those who get annoyed by DOGs and those who don't. There are no viewers who say "You know what's missing from this channel? A little ID in the top corner so that I always know what I'm watching." If DOGs either annoy people or leave them indifferent then in one fell swoop you make a large group of people happy by simply removing the DOGS. The standard response takes us as fools. We are not fools - we are the viewers and listeners - the entire and only reason for the existence of the BBC. The BBC is not there to provide employment for idiots - though it does - it is there to provide programming that people like. We are allowed to be annoyed at what programmes are on - if we don't want to watch something we must switch it off - but when the processes of programme making are visible AND annoying then they must be changed.
My vision of the barrage of complaints is probably wrong but I see a buzz of activity amongst the arty meetings that decide what us plebs deserve to watch - the general filtering down of diktats to the masses of button-pushers out there - the ones who spends days designing the annoying subject of my ire. In darkened rooms, the machines are re-configured, the light falling coolly on the faces of the technicians as they check their documentation, ticking off the steps they need to do to ensure that nothing outside the programming ever crosses the screens again. In reality, I suspect there will be a few meetings, a flurry of Birtspeak and a memo about referring such decisions up for higher approval.
Apologies for the rant and for it being the subject of two consecutive posts. It might seem a bit over-dramatic but I mean it. Support the BBC except when they are absolute prats.
I suppose we could always just suggest that responsibility for DOGs and IPPs should be given to Siemens.
