Pat Holland

Thinking about the effects of neoliberalism on television, I've recently
had reason to re-visit some of the programmes I looked at  when I was
working on a book about the 1980s.

In particular I remembered a fascinating series transmitted across May
and June in 1990 called *The Television Village*. In it residents of a
village in Lancashire were given a glimpse of the television future: the
future we now inhabit.  It was very effective then, but looking back it
was prophetic -and not just about developing technology.

In the summer of 1990, UK-specific satellite broadcasting had just
arrived. BSB (British Satellite Broadcasting) with its 'squarials' was
battling for viewers with Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television and its
dishes. The merger which created BSkyB was not yet in place.
Nevertheless it was clear that the future was multi-channel.  Already
there were many satellites up there and cables were relaying the
signals.  At the same time a new Broadcasting Act was in the pipeline.

*The Television Village* was made by Granada for Channel Four.  They
planted huge satellite dishes on the outskirts of the village, and
volunteers' houses were wired up to receive what seemed like an amazing
number of channels: 30 in all! These channels would have been available
to subscribers, but were delivered without cost to participants, who
were invited to give their reactions.  In an early version of
*Gogglebox,* a diverse cross section of villagers of all ages -including
the local vicar- viewed a selection of the material on offer -including
the 'adult' channels.  Just like the stars of *Gogglebox,* they could
frequently hardly believe what they were seeing -and gave vent to their
reactions.  Unlike *Gogglebox * they were then invited by the producers
to offer considered opinions and careful judgements.

But Waddington wasn't chosen by chance.  By coincidence it was in the
constituency of the Conservative MP David Waddington, who also, as it
happened, was Home Secretary in charge of the forthcoming 1990
Broadcasting Act.  This was the Act, which, we all know, introduced
'lighter touch' regulation; an 'auction' amongst bidders for ITV
franchises, and decreed that Channel Four should become more commercial
and sell its own advertising.  In the words of Ray Fitzwalter, executive
producer of *The Television Village,* it was 'perhaps the worst piece of
legislation of the last 50 years.'

In the last programme of the series David Waddington attended a
community meeting to hear the villagers' responses. I watched my VHS
recording of the programme -and despite the fuzzy images- it still
strikes me with a stark immediacy, as Waddington makes his personal
views on television crystal clear:  basically it was all rubbish.  He
told parents who were concerned about controlling their children's
viewing in the future free-for-all atmosphere that "a lot of our
children watch far too much television in the present set up. Bearing in
mind the appalling amount of rubbish that they watch at the present time
I doubt very much that they could accommodate much more rubbish".  The
impression was that, since it's all rubbish, a bit more rubbish doesn't
matter.

He was pleased to announce that the Government was 'putting a bit of a
squeeze on the BBC', and, to the woman who responded that the licence
fee was good value -a view that was confirmed now that she's watched the
alternatives ('there's some terrific programmes' she said, followed by
applause) he replied with a tortuous, but emphatic, statement of the
neoliberal approach that characterised Thatcher's governments across the
1980s:

>  "If you have the technology to provide more choice for people, and if
> there are companies who are prepared to offer that increased choice,
> they're only going to offer that increased choice if there's going to
> be money made out of that increased choice.  There's no way in which
> we can put back the knowledge of the new technology which has been
> acquired: there's no way in which you are going to get people stopping
> searching for new opportunities to give people new choice".. In other
> words, if there's a way of making money, 'people' will do it willy
> nilly -and that's good for the other 'people' even if it is choice
> amongst different types of rubbish. Waddington concludes, '"if the
> people are prepared to pay for the rubbish then it's up to the
> people."

There is a bizzare dislocation here between the logic of the market and
the everyday engagement with the broadcast output the inhabitants of
Waddington had been watching and reacting to. Looking at the programme
again I found the Home Secretary's frankness about his values and his
lack of respect for the people to whom he was talking, so exaggerated as
to be almost laughable -if it weren't so serious in its consequences for
UK broadcasting.

So spin forward 27 years and replace Waddington with Whittingdale. In an
environment where hundreds of pay-television channels are available
rather than just 30; where even more 'people' are searching for 'new
opportunities to give 'people' new choice', and where it is taken for
granted that the BBC must continue to be 'squeezed', we have a new BBC
Charter and the BBC is 'held to account' by Ofcom.  John Whittingdale
may not be Culture Secretary any more -but his approach is clearly
visible, pursuing a project which began way back in the 1980s with the
infamous Peacock report which aimed to shrink the BBC.  Instead of
seeking audience appeal and competing with other broadcasters, Peacock
insisted, the BBC should stick to worthy 'public service' programmes
which would fill in the gaps left by the popular commercial channels. 
Its role would be to compensate for 'market failure'.

The years have tempered the stridency of the message -but the impulse is
the same. Whittingdale's 2016 White Paper was full of fulsome praise for
the BBC while undermining the Corporation at every step. Afraid of
naming 'market failure', 'distinctiveness' has become the key word. 
Just avoid rubbish, because 'people' are prepared to pay for that.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Pat Holland** is the author of *Broadcasting and the NHS in the
Thatcherite 1980s: the challenge to public service* with Hugh Chignell
and Sherryl Wilson Palgrave 2013. See also:
[http://www.nosuch-research.co.uk/](http://www.nosuch-research.co.uk/){target="_blank"}

 

 


Thinking about the effects of neoliberalism on television, I’ve recently had reason to re-visit some of the programmes I looked at  when I was working on a book about the 1980s. In particular I remembered a fascinating series transmitted across May and June in 1990 called
<em>
 The Television Village
</em>
. In it residents of a village in Lancashire were given a glimpse of the television future: the future we now inhabit.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

RUBBISH: FROM WADDINGTON TO WHITTINGDALE