Multi-channel means lower Television broadcasting standards,

Kimberley Hatherall 0501504

“With increasing competition in a multi-channel environment of audience choice British television broadcasting will inevitably fail to bring home the bacon.”

Addressing the concepts of quality, competition and choice, decide to what extent you agree with this statement.

Since the early introduction of television to our screens, and the launch of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) in 1922, it is of no surprise to see how the British television industry has grown. Following the subsequent growth of the 5 major TV channels we know today is the introduction of a new digital era with over 106 channels, 800 channels via satellite, and 30 channels through the BBC’s Freeview [(2005) British TV Channels [online] Available from www.wikipediatalk.wikipediaproject. Accessed 21 October 2005]. All of which are accessible from the comfort of our own homes and at the touch of a button through the latest media technology. With this considerable expansion of viewer choice and channel competition, have television broadcasters lost the ability to give us the television we really want? It could be argued that the wider range of programmes affect our standard of television by radically changing the principle concept of British broadcasting. Television today does more than just entertain, educate and inform. It gives people the insight to worldwide issues and allows us to form our own opinions about controversial ideas. However, I am going to explore this motion further and discuss whether this influx of television choice is detrimental to our television quality.

The End of a Monopoly Channel

Until 1955 the BBC had enjoyed being the sole network in British homes. John Reith, managing director of the BBC believed that broadcasting was a public utility. It was Reith’s belief that entertainment was not the sole purpose of broadcasting, but it should preserve a “high moral tone” and include “the avoidance of the vulgar and hurtful” [Scannel, P. (1990) Public Service Broadcasting, In: Buscombe, E. (ed.) British Television p47 (Oxford UP: New York)]. Soon after BBC2 was introduced offering more programmes of a more controversial level. It offered an alternative channel without hindering the quality or market share of BBC1 and let the new channel take the risk which resulted in a healthy audience percentage. High quality formal broadcasting was the BBC’s policy ensuring their market received truly quality programming in the interests of the public. Television broadcasting had great potential to enlighten and educate the public where they could take interest in issues they were excluded from before. Unfortunately, the Post Office funded the BBC and prohibited them to talk of any public controversy, disabling Reith to develop the broadcasting side. The BBC was regulated and intervened by the government due to the company’s monopoly status, signifying a more controlled channel. The government would decide what information could reach the public and the news was supportive of the right wing parliament. Hence, the introduction of the independent television company ITV offered viewers an alternative to the perhaps bias news channel.

ITV was launched as a commercial “extension to public broadcasting, not an alternative.” [Scannel, P. (1990) Public Service Broadcasting, In: Buscombe, E. (ed.) British Television p53 (Oxford UP: New York)]. It was subject to state regulation to ensure it provided good quality programming that informed, educated and entertained. The government were sympathetic to the need of commercial television based on the need for greater freedom and choice, rather than the sole purpose of profit-making through advertising – for both the television and advertising company. Nevertheless, the introduction of commercial television was widely criticised. In 1960 Sir Harry Pilkington set about examining ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“…a service comprehensive in character; the duty of the public corporations has been, and remains, to bring to public awareness the whole range of worthwhile, significant activity and experience” [Pilkington Committee 1962: 9]

The main concern was that television programmes were often aimed at the largest possible audience, appealing to a low level of public taste. Also, there was the possibility of following in the footsteps of the sleazy commercialised American TV through the introduction of advertisements and sponsorship. To steer away from this image, tight controls were enforced to regulate the amount of adverts shown and to ensure adverts were clearly separated from the programmes during ‘commercial breaks’. [Cooke, L. (2005) British Television: Culture, Quality and Competition, The Times Online, Accessed 27 October 2005]

The old monopoly had soon become a duopoly where both BBC and ITV had similar programmes screened and a roughly equal share of the market. The concept of one channel trying to target the entire nation with a schedule mixed with ‘something for everyone’ is slowly dying away. Instead, we have many channels specifically aiming at one market (e.g. The History Channel). ITV viewed programmes such as drama, comedy, light entertainment and documentary which were becoming increasingly ratings-led. Such an example was ITV’s extensive market research into the new soap ‘Heartbeat’. The company abandoned some storylines and emphasised others, dependant on which ones gained more audience appeal. The finished product gained a mass audience and top ratings but fulfilled nothing more than an insipid and light soap for Sunday evening viewing. Having said that, not all of ITV’s programming was dull. Quality drama series such as Prime Suspect (1991), Cracker (1993), Band of Gold (1995-6), Kavanagh QC (1995), and Touch of Frost (1992) proved that commercial TV could make top entertainment and quality viewing. [Cooke, L. (2005) British Television: Culture, Quality and Competition, The Times Online, Accessed 27 October 20005]

Broadcasting for ITV was ungoverned. It was neither answerable to the government nor the public, nor did it cater for public interests, needs or tastes. It was the most profitable programmes that were aired, regardless of their quality, or their disregard for public service. [Goodwin, A. and Whannel, G. (1990) Brunsdon, C and Caughie, J (eds.) Understanding television (London: Routeledge, p11-16)]. The future of broadcasting was chaired by Lord Annan, who raised the point that although the BBC should be praised for its “…responsible approach to public interest…”, it was clear that people began to object to biased programmes led by the government. He said “…broadcasters were not challenging enough…” and hid behind government and vested interests to produce “…programmes which bolstered up the status quo and concealed how a better society could evolve.” [Annan Committee 1977: 15]. In fact, the European Union at this moment is debating whether broadcasting could help the development of a society we should aspire to by airing cultural and educational programmes [Ursell, G. (2003) Creating Value and Value Creation in Contemporary UK television: or “dumbing down” the workforce. Journalism Studies, Vol 4, No 1, p31-46] Annan wanted to create a service that catered for the minorities and social groups that were previously excluded from BBC and ITV. Annan had a concept of ‘The Open Broadcasting Authority’ and thus, Channel Four was born.

The Rise of Channel Four, Five and More

The new channel was not to be seen as just another outlet of choice, but also as an experiment channel that aired innovative programmes hinging on cultural and artistic issues. It was designed to be a channel that offered “…extended choice…” to minority groups and give a complete overview of political attitudes and opinions. It would be a fourth channel that would “…somehow, be different.” [Isaacs, J. (1989) Storm Over Four: A Personal Account (eds.) (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson) p19-20] Channel Four remained ‘quality’ viewing because of its philosophy of small audience targeting. It appealed to interests and tastes not catered for by ITV and offered diverse programming, often radical in taste. With the financial support from advertising, but not in competition with ITV, Channel Four was not completely profit based. This signified a more market orientated channel.

But the weak introduction of Channel 5 seemed less popular with its American soaps and soft erotica. The ‘60 seconds’ news was aimed at those too busy to watch more in depth news programmes and targeted those who only wanted the headlines. But this channel certainly had a lot to answer for in terms of quality viewing, as in 1997 it became the least popular out of the 5 channels. [Pfanner, E. (2005) In Shift; BBC to Start Arabic TV Channel, International Herald Tribune [online]. Accessed 26/10/05]

And following Margaret Thatcher’s plan in the late 1970’s, proceeded the introduction of cable, satellite and digital viewing. They were justified to “…foster the UK electronics industry…” and satellite would “…help the UK aerospace industry.” [Goodwin, P. (1999) The Role of The State, The Media in Britain, Stokes, J. and Reading, A. (eds.) (London: Macmillan) p134]. The introduction of Cable arrived after Sky and together, the number of channels available to us rose from just 5 to less than 1000.

The Impact of Competition on Choice and Quality

The obvious increase of channels available to us in contemporary television results in a major level of competition in the broadcasting industry. The debate of television standards suggests that it is not only the changes in programming that have affected quality, but the changes in television production too. A schedule of labour-saving activities by broadcasters leaves journalists producing work of a lesser quality than before. [Ursell, G. (2003) Creating Value and Value Creation in Contemporary UK television: or “dumbing down” the workforce. Journalism Studies, Vol 4, No 1, p3]. The impact of more television hours and channels have changed viewing patterns and increased the fight for more market share. Research has concluded that there has been a significant move towards more entertainment type programmes as competitors try to gain the most market share [Barnett and Seymour, 1999; McChesney, 2000] as broadcasters are increasingly viewing more pleasurable shows rather than intellectual. This is also reflected in educational and information genres where they are ‘funked up’ to make them more entertaining and desirable to watch. Documentaries such as ‘Holidays from Hell’ incorporate dramatic music, dramatisations and fast cuts – which result in a less authoritative and substantial programme. It could seem like Britain is a nation well entertained but less informed and educated.

However, these changes could be seen as more constructive than as a lessening of quality. Popular soaps such as ‘Eastenders’ have highlighted issues such as AIDS, homosexuality and racism in their scripts, making entertainment a subtle educational experience as well. In addition, Mike Best, director of Yorkshire Television, correctly points out “Regardless of whether it is a PSB or a commercial channel…the key aim of all programmes has surely to be to entertain.”

With increased competition and the desire to make higher profit margins, both the BBC and ITV were forced to make job cuts and redundancies resulting in an average of 10,000 people working in production for each company (ICT 2000 p 142). With an output of 50,000 hours per annum it would be absurd to believe all these hours were filled with handmade quality footage. Short deadlines and time restrictions also influence production to be slapdash as the team try to multiskill. Sometimes, the same news items are reeled several times during the day but fashioned in slightly different ways. [Ursell, G. (2003) Creating Value and Value Creation in Contemporary UK television: or “dumbing down” the workforce. Journalism Studies, Vol 4, No 1, p37-39]

There are certainly new pressures on broadcasting channels to deliver top-rated programmes with a lower budget and a more demanding schedule than before. This could be why top-rated, cheap programmes such as ‘Big Brother’/ ‘Pop Idol’ find it hard to create valuable television.

Conclusion

It is clear that television broadcasting has experienced many radical changes since it began. Perhaps these changes could be viewed as constructive as they innovatively keep up with our changing societal needs, and channels change to keep their competitive edge. Advanced technology, such as the introduction of digital television, has helped television move on to a new kind of viewing. Could you really imagine watching TV today from one channel only with no choice in what you are watching? The growth and development of television was, perhaps, inevitable.

But in light of the question at hand, it does seem apparent that the increase of competition has led channels to become more productive and under pressure to gain market share over their competitors. Channels that are profit-led are the most susceptible to producing nonsense, as tight budgets, minimal staff and short timelines force production to be cheap and sometimes of a lesser quality. I deliberate as to whether ‘free’ and competitive TV does mean curtains for quality television. Perhaps the effects of inadequate programming have not made a big difference yet, but I think if the classic scenario of ‘quantity versus quality’ continues television broadcasting will certainly “fail to bring home the bacon” in the foreseeable future.

Word Count 2066

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Webpage

anon, www.wikipediatalk.wikipediaproject. Accessed 21 October 2005].
Pfanner, E. “In Shift, BBC to start Arabic TV channel” International Herald Tribune.

Accesses 27 October 2005

Online Journals

Cooke, L. (2005) “British Television: Culture, Quality and Competition.”

http://www.journalsonline/thetimes.co.uk Accessed 27 October 2005

Ursell, G. (2003) “Creating Value and Value Creation in Contemporary UK television: or “dumbing down” the workforce”. Journalism Studies, Vol 4, No 1.

Oxford Journals Online. http://alcak.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/2/109

Books

Isaacs, J (1998) “Storm over Four: A Personal Account” (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson,)
Buscombe, E. (2000) Oxford Television Studies, British Television. (Oxford UP: New York)
Goodwin, P. (1999) “The Role of the State” (London: Macmillan)
Harvey, S. (1994) “Channel Four Television: From Annan to Grade” (London: BFI Publishing)

Also made use of:

MC108 Module Reader