"Yes. Television has definitely got better."

[Tokyo Sexwhale]

No, I think the Jimmy Carr/Justin Lee Collins types are worse, thinking about it. Because they think they're better. At least with Noel Edmonds, nobody went around saying 'You have to admit he's very good at what he does' and 'You have to admit it's great TV'.

In fact: "Noel's House Party is the most important programme on BBC Television".  (Alan Yentob, incoming controller of BBC1, spring 1993 - just before it won a BAFTA).

I always got the impression that Noel Edmonds did/does actually have a high opinion of himself and his work.

[The Mumbler]

A repeat of Abigail's Party got *19* milliion viewers on BBC1 in 1979.

I've still never seen it.  Is it worth tracking down?

It's a bit (only a bit) over-rated, unfortunately - and it is a bit sneering at the working class aspiring to being middle-class.   But it's certainly worth seeing.  It's on DVD now.

[The Mumbler]

Personally speaking, I never thought there was a lot wrong with Noel's brand of Saturday night family entertainment - until it became obvious he was becoming overly reliant on the appearance of Mr Blobby.

Worth pointing out that Blobby's early appearances were indeed supposed to be parodies of the worst kind of annoying interrupting character (he was just used in some of the Gotchas to begin with).  Then, the marketing machine took over, and Noel, I have to say, got a bit carried away...

[LordSnooty]

There's no point picking out ratings of programmes from the past and holding them up as examples of decline - as has been pointed out by others, today's huge range of other channels and other entertainment options means that you are comparing apples & oranges.

Abigail's Party & 19m viewers - can I ask, when in 1979 was it broadcast? Was it during the ITV strike? If so, it further proves that it's difficult to compare then & now. To The Manor Born will forever reside in a 'top 10 viewed programmes ever' list, purely because the other side were on strike.

Full House was a fairly middling sitcom from 1985 starring Brian Capron & Chris Strauli... yet it pulled in 15m or so for its first series, I think. Perhaps you could chalk that up as an anomaly, it wasn't that good was it?

[Mr. Analytical]

lack of in-depth, intelligent arts coverage.

 Not six months ago I remember seeing I think it was the South Bank doing a one hour behind the scenes thing about Henry the Fifth with Michael Gambon.  No talking, no commentary, no explanation, just one hour of a director and actors discussing the motivations of the characters in Shakespeare on stage during rehearsals.  

 Lalla gave an example of a Wagner opera on TV in 1982... well they did they whole ring cycle last year on TV presented by Portillo.

 There are a number of art strands up and running, some more populist than others but nonetheless they're there.

 What constitutes good arts coverage anyway?  in fact, is it even possible to have a reasonable yardstick by which to measure the quality of TV?  A lot of discussion of art TV tends to boil down to "I don't like the Late Review/Culture Show/South Bank show" but that's not much of an argument is it?  I don't like opera... does that mean that putting on an opera shouldn't count as art coverage?  even an animal can sit and listen to classical music but that doesn't make it intelligent or challenged.

[Evil Knevil]

Slightly off topic.

It wasn't until the South Bank Show was recommissioned in (2000?) that I found out it was a real show, and that Melvyn Bragg was actually a real person.
I'd first heard of the South Bank Show through Spitting Image and had assumed it was a composite parody of middlebrow arts coverage.

[LordSnooty]

Given that SBS was usually on directly after Spitting Image, are you sure you never even knew of its existence?

[Evil Knevil]

Given that SBS was usually on directly after Spitting Image, are you sure you never even knew of its existence?

I only really watched SP when it was on repeats -or latterly on satellite ( I was young!)

[Ciarán2]

lack of in-depth, intelligent arts coverage.

 Not six months ago I remember seeing I think it was the South Bank doing a one hour behind the scenes thing about Henry the Fifth with Michael Gambon...

But you know, you have to trawl back almost six months.

What constitutes good arts coverage anyway?  in fact, is it even possible to have a reasonable yardstick by which to measure the quality of TV?  A lot of discussion of art TV tends to boil down to "I don't like the Late Review/Culture Show/South Bank show" but that's not much of an argument is it?  I don't like opera... does that mean that putting on an opera shouldn't count as art coverage?  even an animal can sit and listen to classical music but that doesn't make it intelligent or challenged.

Not sure what you're getting at with the animal reference there. What's good arts coverage? I suppose that's a fair question. I suppose it's hard to do justice to "high brow" culture in the TV medium. I know there are some great things out there, I remember a great documentary on Paul Gaugain last year, and there are some great schools programmes on Channel 4 on poetry and the visual arts. You could do all this stuff at prime time though, if you wanted to. There isn't enough of it to sort the great from the bad, to stumble across a TV programme which deals with things like literature/art at all is a marvel.

It is kind of ridiculous for me to be whingeing about this, admittedly. TV not being "cultured", being just "brainless entertainment" - hardly news. It seems the people who decide what programmes we get to see are terrified to put something intelligent or thought provoking on. Unless you think reality TV or something is thought provoking or something. And of course it is thought provoking. But I just want more choice. I think that's ELW10's argument isn't it?

All that said, I've just got hold of the "Nathan Barley" DVD. I wasn't prepared to pay €30.99 for it in HMV, so I've rented it from Laser. I think I might like it, actually! So prepare for a horrendous bump of one of those NB threads once I've digested it!

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I often wonder why people bother arguing passionately that 'things are the same as they'e ever been, no better and no worse'. I can understand people arguing that TV is better, or that it's worse, but why would they insist that things are 'just fine'?

In fact, I'd argue that refusing to let TV rest on its laurels is quite a healthy thing - isn't that what contributed to the great TV of the past? The fact that, even when there was lots of good stuff happening, people still said 'Come on, it could be so much better than this'.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

There are exceptions, as there bloody well should be.  Peep Show on Channel 4.  I really enjoyed The Thick Of It after not really giving two hoots for the first instalment.  

But do you think those shows are somehow good in spite of the shitty TV climate, rather than because of it? They do, after all, conform to many annoying 'This is the way we do TV now' conventions (smartarse camerawork, film-look, naturalistic acting, etc) - it's just that the quality of the material often manages to shine through. They still remain the only 'type' of sitcom you can get away with on BBC2/C4 these days.

[Ciarán2]

I was thinking about that Monty Python sketch earlier about the new BBC schedule where everything is Sport. You know the one. "And if you like drama, there's Sport." So I suppose that was a dig at playing it safe TV programming in the late 60s. And maybe people jump to the conclusion that "there was no golden age" based on bits of satire like that. And they'd be wrong to do that, of course.

"And if you don't like television, there's Jimmy Carr..."

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

And at least there weren't sitcoms called My Pakistani Mother-In-Law Shows Her Knickers At Jewish Poofs..."

Little Britain? The Worst Week Of My Life? Extras?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

And re The Office - yes, that's a case in point. The first series was trailed extensively (including teaser trailers), but - as soon as the BBC got the sense that it had a vague cult following - the hype machine went into overdrive. And part of that hype involved lying about the 'low profile' of the first series - claiming, for example, that it went out late at night (false) and kept being taken off the air for sport (once).

Now people might say 'Yes, but they need to do this because there's so much competition out there'. It doesn't change the fact that it's an objective, non-emotonal, non-rosy REASON why we no longer get slow-burning sleeper comedy shows which develop at their own pace.

[Clinton Morgan]

at least half of the shows you've listed wouldn't appeal at to me at all.  

Half? That's still leaves a heck of a lot you would enjoy.

I'd watch all of them.

[Mr. Analytical]

IIn fact, I'd argue that refusing to let TV rest on its laurels is quite a healthy thing - isn't that what contributed to the great TV of the past? The fact that, even when there was lots of good stuff happening, people still said 'Come on, it could be so much better than this'.

 Actually I'd say that your view (that TV used to be better) is far more an example of that than arguing that TV's always been the same.  You're arguing that instead of sitting on our laurels we should go back to the way TV was made 20 years ago and do that...

 I'm saying that TV 20 years ago was shit and it's shit now so clearly, instead of sitting smugly convinced that everything's great or moaning like a reactionnary that things have all gone to pot, let's move forward and evolve and actually create something new and better.  We both want change but your position is reactionnary and nostalgic rather than forward looking.

 I don't accept that Tv used to be better so I'm hardly going to be in favour of going back to the way things were.  You're just begging the question.

[Clinton Morgan]

I object to the last line of that advert because it's television being much too self defensive for its own good. It reminds me of the Licence Fee advert John Cleese did. Everybody in the pub just named programme genres. Which leaves me in a, "and?" frame of mind. This why I did my mini-parody of bookshops getting better because they sell different types of books. I wouldn't have been offended if the disembodied head(s) said something like, " There's a whole new world out there for you on digital." It may be bollocks but it wouldn't be as smug as, " Television has definitely got better." It's nothing to do with being nostalgic for on-screen television presenters, silent films at Christmas time on Channel 4 and simultaneous broadcasts with Radio 3.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't want TV to be just like it was in 1982 or 1959 or 1994 or whatever - as I say, a second-rate version of a brilliant show would be pointless. Fig 1: Broken News.

I just want to see types of shows reinstated (the 2005 equivalents thereof), and something of the attitude of the past re-ignited. I'm always going on about the dearth of anger in comedy, or the drearily functional/spoonfed dialogue you get in drama, or the fact that you never hear experts talking about stuff properly, or the fact that the arts is presented like local news - why are they reactionary views?

It's not about nostalgia - if it was, I'd just be content with watching old stuff on video. I want television to move forward and be exciting again.

[Mr. Analytical]

why are they reactionary views?

It's reactionnary because you're not arguing for something new, you're arguing for a return to the old ways on the basis of a golden age that might never have existed.

It's like someone arguing that we go back to the days when we could all leave our doors open and we all knew our neighbours and the local bobby would come round and wag his finger at unruly kids keeping them in line

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

It's reactionnary because you're not arguing for something new, you're arguing for a return to the old ways on the basis of a golden age that might never have existed.

It's like someone arguing that we go back to the days when we could all leave our doors open and we all knew our neighbours and the local bobby would come round and wag his finger at unruly kids keeping them in line

Why is complaining about

the dearth of anger in comedy, or the drearily functional/spoonfed dialogue you get in drama, or the fact that you never hear experts talking about stuff properly, or the fact that the arts is presented like local news

a 'return to the old ways' in the pejorative sense? I'm just arguing about things being good.

25 years ago, BBC2 could broadcast a highbrow play and not care too much about whether it got decent ratings. It could also broadcast a comedy show without worrying about whether 'the characters' would catch on. They would commission 60-minute essays by Robert Hughes about art and broadcast them in primetime. These are GOOD ATTITUDES, and they've disappeared. Why is arguing for their revival seen as some kind of Luddite thing?

The Ash Atallas and Peter Bazalgettes and Mark Lawsons of this world are far more reactionary - they're the ones who have carved out little niches and want things to stay exactly the same. Worst of all, they're sold as being 'mavericks'.

[Marty McFly]

It's like someone arguing that we go back to the days when we could all leave our doors open and we all knew our neighbours and the local bobby would come round and wag his finger at unruly kids keeping them in line

and why is this a bad thing? ideally i'd love to go back to those times.

only with the internet.

[gazzyk1ns]

Heh, this is my retort to my mates living in London when they call me a Yokel for saying that the Jubilee line extension looks like something out of Star Trek. My parents have lived here for 26 years and they've never locked even one of the three external doors to this house. There are 8,000 people in this town and we live in a terrace, there are 40 houses on my road and there's a similar bigger one joined on to it. Yeah, I know, the insurance claim will be invalid the day they do get burgled. I'd certainly not even consider not locking up.

Not bothering with any of it does save a lot of hassle, though. A couple of weeks ago I was given a key to the house of someone I was working for  - I got in, felt around for a light switch because it was really dark, and pressed a button which set off the house alarm. I rang the owner of the house and told her what had happened - she said "Oh don't worry, it's only the panic alarm, it'll stop in half an hour. The neighbours are used to it.". Functional.

[Rev]

and why is this a bad thing? ideally i'd love to go back to those times.

His point was that those times never existed.  C'mon, catch up.  The 'everyone used to leave their doors unlocked' thing is a favourite of mine, as it conjures up an image of some truly half-arsed burglars.  'I went to rob the house, but they'd only bleedin' gone and locked the front door, 'adn't they?  Whassa career criminal to do?'  You can leave your door unlocked these days too, you know.  Try it tomorrow.  You probably won't get robbed.

Someone will be along shortly to put this thread back on the rails.

[Jemble Fred]

TV is surprisingly good at the moment, in nearly every area except, of course, comedy. But documentaries and dramas, although not in more plentiful supply or of a better quality than in the past, are doing very nicely indeed just at the moment, IMO.

[LordSnooty]

In the area of comedy, no-one in this thread (that I've seen) has questioned the wider sphere of comedy - could it be argued that the current malaise is due to a general lack of talent? In every area, be it stand-up/performance, radio or TV, I see talk of a lack of energy and few stars setting an example. Can TV be blamed for a dearth of comedy hits? Are the comedy teams out there at all who are doing angry satire, outlandish sketches etc? TV can't broadcast them if they're not there. What happened to Sort-It-Out Man? I always thought that was one of the more original and lively comedies of recent times, even with inevitable Trigger Happy comparisons.

[Mr. Analytical]

[25 years ago, BBC2 could broadcast a highbrow play and not care too much about whether it got decent ratings. It could also broadcast a comedy show without worrying about whether 'the characters' would catch on. They would commission 60-minute essays by Robert Hughes about art and broadcast them in primetime. These are GOOD ATTITUDES, and they've disappeared. Why is arguing for their revival seen as some kind of Luddite thing?

The Ash Atallas and Peter Bazalgettes and Mark Lawsons of this world are far more reactionary - they're the ones who have carved out little niches and want things to stay exactly the same. Worst of all, they're sold as being 'mavericks'.

 For the first paragraph, that sounds a good deal less reactionnary than what you were saying earlier.  I'm still not convinced that these attitudes were as widespread as all that or that they didn't result in some crap TV.

 I'm not too bothered about no art programmes being put out at prime time (that is if you don't count that rolf Harris thing that went out at sunday tea times  which despite the fluffy presenter actually spoke quite a bit about art history and technique) but I think we can all agree that the fact that reality TV now pushes everything out of prime time is not a good thing  for TV as a whole.

 The more precise you get in your complaints the better it is.  Just moaning about the good old days makes you sound like a retired Colonel writing to points of view.

 As for Lawson being a maverick... really?  I've never heard that.

[LordSnooty]

In today's multi-channel world, it's easy to see why the BBC must chase ratings, at least in some sections of its output. Otherwise, what's the point of having the BBC? It's hard to justify the licence fee without some mass appeal shows. This is different to the landscape 20 years ago, because then there were only 3/4 channels, and BBC shows could expect a "default" high rating, as could ITV shows. Today, that's no longer the case. I'm sorry if I sound like a modern TV corporate shrill, but in my view this is true.

[Mr. Analytical]

Shouldn't it be "TV has gotten better" anyway?

 I loathe the BBC's ratings chasing.  Basically someone needs to make clear what its purpose is.  If it is there to provide a public service then ratings are not an issue.  Frankly, as I've said before, I'd rather not pay a license fee and have the BBC have adverts if all it's going to do is be crassly commercial.

[LordSnooty]

Ratings are an issue when the average Joe in the street resents paying upwards of 150GBP a year for a broadcast service with little or no programmes of interest to them. The Beeb must always strike a balance. As should public service-mandated ITV, come to mention it. As for "gotten", that's an Americanism - link

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

'Striking a balance' is the worst thing the BBC can do though - that's why you get the middlebrow mulch.

It should have a mixture of ratings-chasing populist stuff and bloodymindedly obscure, fuck-the-ratings highbrow stuff, but at different times.

That's what BBC2 used to do - you'd have a Beckett play, followed by The Young Ones, followed by the snooker. Brilliant.

I understand why the BBC have to walk a tightrope between populism/public service, but I don't understand why they can't say 'Fuck the ratings' for an hour every now and again.