|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
You are in: Talking Point | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Thursday, 1 November, 2001, 12:50 GMT
Has TV been dumbed down?
In the age of digital television many viewers have complained about the quality of programming currently on offer to license fee payers and multi-channel subscribers.
In an effort to compete with satellite television programming, terrestrial channels have, in the eyes of much of the public, been seen to lower their standards. Notable recent examples include Channel 4's hugely popular Big Brother and ITV's Popstars. The pitfalls involved were highlighted in the failure of ITV's rescheduling gamble on its coverage of the Premiership in an attempt to convert the sport into prime-time entertainment. The BBC's decision to reschedule its nightly news bulletin from nine to 10pm in favour of providing viewers with more entertainment is another example, although that move fared slightly better than its terrestrial rival.
I would like to talk about the quality of the broadcast media. My view is that TV in particular has been dumbed down to reach the maximum audience size with a reduction in quality. It is also hugely biased in favour of the youth market. Do you agree that broadcast media has been largely dumbed down? What changes can TV channels make to their programming schedules to improve output quality? This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Your reaction
Pat, UK
Artistically, TV is an incredibly weak format. You see programmes that MUST mass cater, with very limited budgets, no room for experimentation, tight commercial control and interminable ad- breaks. I crawl with embarrassment at the legions who tune into reality TV, whinging soaps and dire news programmes.
In recent years I have almost entirely ignored TV output and developed a taste for film instead - your local video shop will have thousands of hours of material far above the dross on TV, and without adverts too! Plan ahead, get a few weekly rentals and you will find that what was previously dumb will become totally unwatchable as you engage in a far stronger medium. It may cost a little more, but you get what you pay for - despite the protestations of some, concerning the licence fee (equiv of perhaps 4 or 5 plays a year, or 4 premiership football matches), TV is extremely cheap - you get what you pay for!
Yes, TV programmes are mainly directed at the young/and/or brain dead. Presenters appear to be selected on appearance (scruffy/common) rather than on their ability to speak understandable English. Viewers with a functional brain are rarely satisfied by inane game shows, Big Brother type egotists, Anne Robinson-type rudeness. Please give some credit to the intellect of some slightly older licence payers. After all many young people depend on their parents to pay their licence fee.
Kevin, USA
I had already largely given up watching British
television when I left the UK to work in the States
nearly four years ago - in my last months I watched
mostly BBC2 and Channel 4. At the moment, here in
the US, my main sources of entertainment are my
two computers - both of which have
DVD players. Television is reserved for watching the
incredible antics of the American televangelists begging
for money on the local terrestrial channel (at least the UK
hasn't sunk THAT low yet!)
Little I've heard from friends and relatives in the UK
has convinced me the programming has improved - or even
remained the same - since I left. Hardly anyone comments
about the "great program" they watched recently.
The dumbing down of TV is an example of the limitations of the free market economy. It is all very well to criticise TV executives, but ultimately they are responsible to their shareholders. That means the only thing that matters is ratings. There is, however, no excuse for the BBC! As the Beeb is more or less free from this financial imperative, it could focus on producing high quality programmes, instead of trying to compete with the likes of ITV and Sky.
Has television (and UK television in particular) been dumbed down? Of course it has. And the BBC is the worst offender. A 30 min soap on prime-time telly 4 times a week - endless commercials advertising said soap throughout the day ("Everyone's talking about it" - some hope. It gets huge ratings because there is nothing else on! The schedulers ensure this). The absolute prime example of dumbing down the BBC though, has to be morning and mid-morning television on both BBC1 and BBC2. How can anyone justify having programmes like "Real Rooms", "Garden Invaders/Kitchen Invaders" "Trading Up"(itself an idea stolen from Chanel 5's excellent "House Doctor"); and if I see another "Eastenders Revealed" (which is shown on BBC Choice every day!) I think I'll scream.
Even "Crimewatch" has been reduced to little more than reconstructions and abysmal presenting.
All we seem to get these days are vanity projects ("'horrible"), soaps and cheap-to-make "mocumentaries" (where reality plays no part in the programme) and quiz shows ad infinitum (and ad nauseam to boot).
Of course there's an "off" switch on the TV - but why should we have to use it? Since when has "If you don't like it, don't watch it" been any justification?
Schedulers seem to forget that it isn't just the unemployed, the infirm and the dumb that are watching TV.
David James, UK
I used to watch around 30 hours TV a week and had a fairly mundane existence. Now I watch about 3 (most of it BBC early morning news) and I have a vibrant social life, a band, and a higher level of intellect. What price TV?
Some people, having worked 9-5 Monday to Friday like to relax at the weekend watching programmes like Popstars that require little energy, because they want to relax. If you hate TV buy digital. There are hundreds of channels of documentaries that you can keep watching. Until then, accept that not everyone likes what you want to watch.
Amy, UK
Dumbing down, I'll say - examples;
1) Who wants to be a Millionaire - mindless poppycock
2) Constant football night after night - is it just cheap to buy in?
3) Eastenders - everybody is saying how rubbish it is.
4) The Bill - how do they get away with it.
5) Emmerdale farm - arrgh! pass me the arsenic
I believe that this is a result of several things - new channels (SKY/ Digital etc) leads to a dilution of quality with viewer numbers being the only arbiter of quality
2) Loss of a sense of community in the UK leading to nights in front of the TV watching trivial "eye-candy"
3) Inverted snobbery that people who want to see interesting/education programmes instead of soaps, are in some way odd.
4) Commercialisation of the BBC to attempt to produce mid-Atlantic garbage that will sell in the USA.
5) Catering to the lowest common denominator in the pursuit of viewers - e.g Channel Five's lightweight porn, and sensational true crime style USA documentaries
6) Pursuit of cheap TV - fly on the wall documentaries about - well anything you can think of.
Since the demise of such BBC programmes as Upstairs, Downstairs, The Forsythe Saga and the like, I've boycotted TV for 27 years. I've never seen Dallas, Dynasty, Coronation Street and have no idea what Big Brother is all about. My passion for radio is undiminished and I'm a regular listener to BBC and Ireland's very fine radio discussion show called The Last Word that interviews Robert Fisk, Richard Perle and other incisive commentators. Radio delves deeper than TV news and I'm spared the endless visuals of arriving dignitaries coming down the airplane ramp and greeting in/out of limos. I live without TV and count that a great blessing.
The evening news has been going downhill for years, it's more about personality than content, I personally don't care which newsreader reads the autocue. Eastenders, fine if you like that sort of thing - but four times a week is too much. I try to be selective about what I watch, and always remember - there is a power switch on the front of every TV - switch it off and read something instead.
A few points: 1) TV may be dumbing down but if we are honest we are a pretty dumb nation. Just look at the overwhelming popularity of tabloid newspapers. Millions are sold every day and they require the reading age of an eight year old. There is clearly a market for content that doesn't tax the mind. 2) Let's not get too glassy eyed about the past. There was a load of rubbish on back then as well. People get selective amnesia. I'm sure in 20 years time people will be using "The Blue Planet" as an example of how good TV used to be. 3) I do however think we look to the BBC to rise above the other stations - after all they do now have the same commercial demands placed upon them. I think it is safe to say that ITV is a laughable sham. Their vacuous, formulaic output never ceases to disappoint me.
However I think that Channel 4 has stolen the march on BBC1 & 2. Sure they have Big Brother etc. but, for instance, the Channel 4 news is far superior to the BBC's. I happened upon Jim Davidson's Generation Game on Saturday Night. His jokes consisted of mocking accents. He did bad parodies of a Chinese, Welsh and Italian accent all within half an hour. I'm not being some PC thug but I don't think the BBC needs to stoop to this level to get a few laughs. You wouldn't get such a third rate dinosaur on C4.
4) Good on the BBC for at least having this discussion! Hope someone at the top listens.
Most people get their "news" from TV news stations that are dumbed-down by pressure from advertisers.
Dumbing down of TV entertainment is not something I can get excited about (pick what you want to watch after all) but the UK is heading the way of the US, where the news programs are laughably poor. They fail miserably (and deliberately) at educating and informing the viewing public. Ignorance is a dangerous thing, especially when you believe you know everything.
If you think UK TV has been dumbed down, wait till you've seen German TV. That makes Big Brother seem high-brow!
John Thurman, UK
Although not a TV viewer I catch the occasional glimpse of French TV, most of which could redefine the word 'dumb'. Having grown up in the UK during the "golden years" of the 70s I used to have an idealised image of the quality of British television. However, on my infrequent visits to the UK I am obliged to sit through the occasional show. I'm afraid to say that most of what I've seen could push French TV pretty far on the rubbish scale. However, the one saving grace of British TV is that there are still quality programmes to be found, certainly very rare, but worth keeping a TV for.
Good television is often expensive. The reason so much American television is appallingly bad is that it is made on the cheap, with 1/4 commercials, 1/2 reruns, and 1/4 junk-TV. Spreading the available funds (either from advertising or from the government) thinly over dozens of commercial TV channels will almost inevitably reduce quality. The best we can hope for is that new technology can make production much cheaper.
The news reports have certainly been dumbed-down. I am heartily sick of reporters talking to us as if we were children who can only understand the strange baby-talk which they inflict upon us. If the current conflict and other military matters are to be reported as they should be, is it too much to ask that the reporters at least acquaint themselves with correct terminology.
There is no such aircraft type as a "fighterjet"! It was not the "Kursk submarine" that sank, it was the "submarine, Kursk"!
When discussing public transport they should be aware that trains run on railway lines and stop at railway stations. They are not on train tracks at train stations. What next - "choo-choos"?
Please, Get it right!
For the people who say that television was better twenty or thirty years ago. You seem to have forgotten about On the Buses, The Minstrel Show and Bernard Manning with a primetime slot!
One thing I find particularly sad is that you don't get new drama by young and talented British playwrights. The major channels are unwilling to take risks with the viewing figures. So we get endless costume dramas; Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, all the classics endlessly done over and over again in new and more lavish big-name productions. Why not spend less on these, and use the money to stage new and cutting-edge drama by our wealth of young talented writers? The productions need not be expensive, with stars taking the major roles. I remember the BBC always used to have a drama slot for this kind of material. Give us something different, not endless "classics" which are then repeated ad nauseum throughout the year.
There seems to be a definite "lowest common denominator" move occurring in TV. It is very hard to find drama of any kind worth watching and unless you are interested in police and crime stories or the likes of Eastenders you might as well forget it. I am sick of the continuous rows that seem to be the only type of conversation that happens. People are not normally at each other's throats 24 hours a day. And as for the plots I would think they serve as entertainment for some but for me I would rather be working! They think its all over has been ruined by the bad language of Jonathon Ross. It seems even the BBC can only produce comedy and even that is hit and miss. Can we go back to black and white films and more Horizon please?
Pete Morgan-Lucas, Wiltshire, UK
Research shows the brain is in the same state when watching TV as when asleep. There is no difference in what is being watched. It's pure snobbery to think there's a difference between a soap opera and a documentary. You're passively consuming an entertainment. If you want facts, why not read an encyclopaedia? Because it's not as "entertaining" as watching TV is why not. All TV is trash. Vive la trash.
Of course it's dumbed down, as programme makers and schedulers pander to the mindless masses. There are a few decent shows still, thank goodness, but a quick look at the Saturday evening listings is enough to send anyone down the pub.
P Kemp, Australia
TV programmes in the US have always been "dumb", since the inception of broadcasting. The only difference today is that the quality of TV news has gradually declined to the state of tabloid journalism, and there are simply many more channels of stupidity.
As TV declined in quality and content I threw out my television. Then I spent my time at college, as a mature student, studying to gain a university degree. When I gained new employment, I was amazed that the only conversation people had was about what they had seen on television. As I had not watched TV for two years, I had no idea what they were talking about. What boring lives some people lead and how disgusted I was to find that the quality and content of TV 'entertainment' had declided even further, with mostly imported soaps and filth that once would have been x-rated. Even the advertisements are pornographic. I have no desire to watch television at all.
It is no wonder I spend most of time watching UK Gold and other Sky programmes which we all so often need, to break away from the trash which is produced now.
I hope I never meet some of the people who go on about TV dumbing down, because I suspect they are extremely dull and self-righteous. There has always been rubbish on TV, but there's excellence too - what about the Simon Schama and David Starkey programmes, not to mention many documentaries and news programmes? There have also been some excellent one-off dramas on ITV recently, and the BBC still manages to pull out high-quality costume drama once in a while.
Giving up TV because you don't like the dross is like giving up novels because you don't like Mills and Boon. Be selective by all means, but don't blame the medium when the problem is content, and take off your rose-coloured glasses for long enough to realise that there was never a 'golden age' of TV, and the quality is out there if you look for it.
To heck with sticking with the 3 or 4 free channels. They're the worst of all. Would anyone like to buy 3 TV's? You pay the packing and shipping charges.
I remember a time when Americans used to laugh at Britain for only having three or four TV channels. Funny, with those three or four channels there was always something on worth watching. I now live in Canada, which like the US has nearly 100 channels to choose from, most of which are feeds from the US. It is dreadful TV with advertisements every 10 minutes and nothing at all worth watching. Really awful, low quality rubbish. I no longer pay for cable here and make do with the three or four free TV channels available. As a result I watch TV for an hour a week at the most. Thanks to Sky and Digital, Britain will soon have that same quality TV.
Resist it, people - do not pay for rubbish or watch the adverts. They will get the message eventually. Think about it, you are paying twice the subscription fee and then they make you watch adverts? There is something not right about that.
Janet Anderson, Italy
As a child/teenager I remember watching TV as a family with many programmes aimed at both children and adults. Today there are few family programmes other than game shows which we avoid.
Eastenders and other soap operas on several times a week plus an omnibus. Dumbing down? Positively yes!
In my view it is irrelevant whether the content of a programme is intellectual or not. If more people are watching the change in programmes then obviously more are happy with what is on TV. As we all pay a TV licence then it follows that terrestrial TV firms should strive to suit the majority
As TV declined in quality and content I threw out my television. I then spent my time at college as a mature student studying to gain a university degree. When I gained new employment I was amazed that the only topic of conversation people spoke about was about what they had seen on television. As I had not watched TV for two years I had no idea what they were talking about. What boring lives people lead and how disgusted I was to find that the quality and content of TV 'entertainment' had declined even further.
Danny, USA
UK TV may or may not have been dumbed down - I'm too young to know what it was like 20 years ago but one thing is for sure - it is miles better than TV in Australia.
As TV has got worse, my viewing has diminished and I get a large proportion of my news and current affairs from teletext and the internet. I thought that when BBC2 came on air the justification was that it would be up-market, but now it is worse than BBC1!
The good news is that the Internet will soon be providing TV-type channels directed at specific interest groups. It'll be interactive, too, so the viewers will have direct input into program quality and content. So we will no longer be at the mercy of the television networks.
Of course it's dumbed down. The mindless with money who make up an increasingly large percentage of the population have more spending power, thus programmes are made to appeal to the shell suit wearing masses in order to attract advertising money.
Broadcast media has been dumbed down for several years now and this has been the result of bean counters taking over the world. More investment is needed in the industry to revert it back to the standards that it use to have.
John Slater, UK
You bet it's dumbed down and the main reason is that the audience has been pre-dumbed down by 20 years of lack of education. The TV producers are only catering for the lowest common denominator. The terrestrial channels currently seem interested only in Soaps, DIY, cookery, or reality TV. The occasional decent game show and half decent sit-coms are an oasis in a desert of mediocrity. Even the once legendary detective or drama programs have been diluted to an insipid PC soup so as not to offend anyone. Oh for the days when we could watch shows like "The Sweeney" or "Boys from the black stuff"; sit-coms like "Porridge", "Love they Neighbour". The most watched channel in my house at the moment is UK Gold - a saviour.
Martin, England
I am particularly annoyed by the dumbing down of news presentation. Bring back the days of one newsreader instead of one reading a summary of the headlines, then another reading the headlines and others pontificating on details whilst interviewing yet more journalists!
What is getting worse in that the media (especially TV) just seem to be talking about themselves these days - the presenters of chat, cooking, gardening or other shows just invite each other or other presenters or 'personalities' like Big Brother contestants. They have created a little world of their own far away from the rest of the world...
Steven Hill, USA / UK
No. The programmes are just suitable for me. I like scanning channels. I welcome the current quality and quantity! Now they make people active. Dumb are those who watch one program for more than 5 minutes!
There are two reasons why this should be. First, there is a finite amount of gifted talent available and imagination is not unlimited. There is nothing to be done about this, other than maximise the output of the most talented by encouraging them earlier in their careers. This introduces the second problem, the issue of safety first. As enunciated most clearly by the late Dennis Potter, the BBC has for many years been reluctant to take risks in its productions. For example, Potter was convinced that the BBC of the 1980s and 1990s would not have made his classic "Pennies from Heaven". Production costs are now so high that there is more to lose if such innovative programmes don't attract many viewers. This leads schedulers to go for the cheapest pap that attracts the biggest audiences.
The only channel to avoid this tendency is Channel 4. With a smaller market share to protect, Channel 4's policy of excellent niche programmes has paid off handsomely.
JM, Hoboken, USA
I feel that this "dumbing down" as far as our TV program quality is concerned, goes hand in hand with the "dumbing down" that is happening with people in general. There will always be a place for silly, insignificant "brain numbing" TV. I myself enjoy it sometimes. However, when this type of programming becomes the norm (which it has) I fear it is a sign of the quality of the intellect of our citizens (at least those who spend most of their time watching this stuff). We as a society will suffer for it, if we haven't already. So, turn off your TV and make your own "Real World". Enjoy life and educate yourself!!
LBW, Reading, England US television is the worst. Please let UK networks buy out US TV companies, so we can raise the standards.
As has been mentioned, TV programming here in the USA is in a terrible state, although the previews for next season's Survivor in Afghanistan, starring Osama Bin Laden look promising.
It's easy to slag off lowbrow American comedies, but the Yanks can still produce intelligent, literate entertainment such as The West Wing, Sex and the City, Frasier, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Simpsons, and Homicide. It's been a long time since we had a UK production of similar quality.
Oh please, try living in the US where dumb and TV have gone hand-in-hand since the 1950s. Most of the quality stuff we get happens to be British anyway. Does cable give more choice? Here, it means 13 different retired generals pontificating as to how to win the war against terrorism. Ant the cost? $35 odd a month in fees. Before cable, we had three different retired generals. The cost? Commercials for soap powder and feminine hygiene products.
Helen, UK
There seems to be an endless supply of "people" programmes, like Neighbours from Hell, Big Brother and so on. These provide cheap escapism, masquerading as entertainment. These shows could not be considered to be stimulating or educational and the entertainment value is debateable. It is regrettable, particularly in these dark days that the quality comedy programmes of yester year seem to be extinct. Good drama seems to have been replaced by trashy American true story movies, particularly on Channel 5.
Trying to keep up to date on what is happening in the world of today, I have been monitoring the different networks, but after starting with CNN and having to listened to some of the most irritating and ill- informed individuals pontificating on various issues, I decided to use BBC World news as one of my sole reference points. But I have now reached a stage where I am extremely disappointed in some of the presentations, with some so-called specialists being interviewed who make some incredible analyses, news presenters reduced to commenting on people's body language, and special editions that end up causing more confusion than is already the case - all I am reduced to is the internet - what a sorry state of affairs. Let's just keep it simple.
You should try living in the US and then you'll know what dumb TV means.
Leigh got it exactly right!
Peter James, England Certainly I find it difficult to find any good shows or movies on TV today. In my point of view it looks like while the world becomes more liberal in its thinking, the television channels become more conservative. No reason to, as some good old shows become extinct.
|
|
Other Talking Points:
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Links to more Talking Point stories
|
 |
|
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy ~RS~a~RS~international~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
|
