Re: Has the BBC ever apologised?

[John G]

So Lawrence how do you imagine the scenario with the fate of the Timeslip tapes in 1982, a time when tape was cheap and therefore no need to wipe it?

1. finnicky engineer looking and saying we cannot show that again because xy z is wrong with it.
2. manager saying we cannot keep that old stuff
anymore, its dated and taking up space.
3.chaotic workforce playing frisbies.

its not a quiz just be interested in your opinion

[Andrew Doherty]

There can only be one Twentieth Century this side of eternity.

The reason for recovering and keeping the existing archive is not just about giving enthusiasts pleasure in watching old programmes. It is about giving present generations, as well as future generations, the opportunity to discover why television became so popular, so quickly. It might also give those who see such programmes for the first time a taste for better quality television (e.g. live television drama as defined by the BBC Saturday Night Theatre and ITV Armchair Theatre).

The approach of television organizations in the early days was professional but without the “in your face” publicity machine.

That is why I referred to the “nostalgic reflections” in a previous thread.

That is one of my interests when recovering missing programmes.

I referred to the amount of archive material, which survived by the late 1970s as miraculous. Well, with all the reasons given for wiping and junking and the attitude that television was an ephemeral medium I am surprised that anything managed to survive at all.

Whatever the reasons (economical or practical) they were just plain wrong. Naturally, the licence payer should have been notified and had an opportunity to have a say in the matter. Not even very well known individuals of the time were made aware of this destruction of our television heritage. I will mention the name of Simon Gray, who in the early 1970s, wanted to show some extracts from his television work and found to his dismay that the dramas he had written were wiped. He, and along with other playwrights, protested to the BBC. As sheer luck would have it Harold Wilson had set up he Annan Committee circa 1975.

This committee, in response to such protests and the growing concern with respect to the keeping of television programmes, made recommendations that the television organizations should have an archive policy. The BBC, while the Annan Committee was taking evidence, stated that it would set up an Archive Advisory Committee. The BBC’s first Archivist was appointed in the spring of 1978.

I was first made aware of a problem, when by request of a person whose wartime story “ The White Rabbit” was being televised in circa 1967, had the BBC wipe the videotapes. At the time I thought this was a one off situation.

So, it would imply that the television organizations were doing something they knew the public would not necessarily approve of.

To be fair, the BBC acted upon the recommendations of the Annan Report.

Eventually, ITV followed suit.


Yours sincerely,

[Gareth R]

Andrew said:

Naturally, the licence payer should have been notified and had an opportunity to have a say in the matter

I think we're very lucky that licence-payers *didn't* have an opportunity to have a say in the matter, because if they had, so many of them would have cared so little that we'd have almost certainly lost even more than we did.

Remember, the licence-payers in the 60s and 70s were just as vociferous in their complaints about repeats as licence-payers are today. They wanted new shows, not old ones, and so their primary concern was that their licence fee paid for as many new programmes as possible. Even in the 60s the majority of them wouldn't have cared two hoots about keeping anything from the 50s, beyond stuff of historic national importance like the Coronation.

Then, as now, interest in archive television was very much a minority pursuit. In fact, it's probably fair to say that compared to today, the 50s and 60s were a time of virtually zero interest in archive television... and even nowadays it's a subject that attracts a small and very narrow demographic (basically, white middle-class males of a very definite type).

[Andrew Doherty]

There were those and still are those who don’t care. However, that does not mean all licence payers, then or now, don’t care. In my previous thread I wrote that the television licence payers did not know. I went on to highlight this by example. If something is going on without the public's knowledge, it is obvious that the public's approval or disapproval is not a possibility.

I should know because I was around in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and so were those I have spoken to on the subject.

Now, what has race, class and gender got to do with the recovery, archiving and preservation of television? Answer, nothing!

It is patronizing to interested parties who are not of your description given in your reply, Mr Gary R.

It should be pointed out that it is “the song and not the singer”, and the song in this case is missing television.

To use the phrase from a well-known television advertisement, "you hum it and I'll play it".

Yours sincerely,

[GarethR]

Andrew said:

However, that does not mean all licence payers, then or now, don’t care

Indeed, and if you read my post properly you'll note that I *never* say that *all* licence-payers don't care. It's only the *majority* who don't care - the minority do.

Now, what has race, class and gender got to do with the recovery, archiving and preservation of television? Answer, nothing!

Do you not find anything interesting in the fact that the recovery, archiving and preservation of television is an interest pursued almost entirely by white middle-class males?

It is patronizing to interested parties who are not of your description given in your reply, Mr Gary R

There'll be bloody few of them. Go to the next Missing Believed Wiped at the NFT, go to any Kaleidoscope event, stand in your local HMV noting who's buying the archive TV DVDs - the audience for this sort of stuff is almost entirely white middle-class males, most likely thirty- or fortysomethings, and all of a very distinct type. Yes, I'm one of them.

I don't kid myself - archive television is very much a minority interest among a very narrow and self-selecting demographic. That's partly why so much was lost back in the day, and we can be glad that the disinterested majority never got a say at the time, because if they had, we'd now be missing an awful lot more than we are.

[John Miller]

Re: Gareth R - The disinterested majority comments: It's often quoted that the views of regular correspondants to Radio times 1969 - 70 circa continually complained about repeats in black & white and this was a key factor taken into account by the BBC influencing a concensus on future material. These correspondants were highly likely a small clutch of elderly ladies effectively a vocal minority, yet were thus assigned an inexplicable allotment as being a representative cross section. Re: Ian Potts - John Cleese, Edwin Apps, Dudley Moore, George Melly, Ned Sherrin, Michael Parkinson, Debora Watling & Pat Troughton all were disgusted at the junkings which in their words were 'stupid' and 'vandalism'. Re: Paul Vanessi - What people are getting at is that though TV companies across board recycled material the BBC was meant to be a public service & publicly accountable. Steve Roberts is amongst those who is demonstrating an intelligent, progressive & proffesional approach for the organisation he works for. Many others at the BBC adopt an arrogant know better than you attitude to those approaching when they are right or wrong. This doesn't help. In connection to your link with Dr Who, William Hartnell must be turning in his grave, I recently read he did a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 5 day week even when struggling with ateriosclerosis under hot studio lights. Pamela Salem of enetrprises was still allowing junkings of his material in 1977. Some of those with no brain would appear to be the BBC desk employees who refused to take an interest in Keith Badmans offer of missing TOTP material including Hendrix. Re: Andy Henderson - As the early work of playwright Alan Owun, Bob Dylans appearence in a one off play and Malcolm Bradburys work are entirely missing, applying the idea that 'art' was archived & ephemeral material overlooked is a misconception. Footage of first moon landing is missing which indicates that the archiving policy was definitely haphazard, not designed. Mistakes need to be acknowledged & learned from and a concientious attitude applied. If people in the BBC or on this forum don't care, go & be a bricklayer or look up internet porn instead. Pseudo intellectual frivolities should sit in a trash environment not in an area like this.

[Pamela Salem]

So, Pam Salem was do all this junking of history while dressed up as the witch from INTO THE LABYRINTH was she??? ;D

[John Miller]

Oops - Fill me in someone. The name I'm referring to is the name quoted by Ian Levine in his DWB article 1992 which quotes a Pam someone as being the BBC enterprises rep. in charge of overseas sales & returns in 1977 when he investigated Dr Who holdings with view to purchase. Apparently BBCs John Bridger and Sue Malden were, in contrast helpful & reflected the progressive approach I touch upon in comments.

[Kev]

I believe I have a small fragment of this Dylan appearance on audio. Cuts off sharply suggesting it was a reel to reel recording.

[John Miller]

Thanks Kev - BBC take note. Anyway be pleased still if anyone knows who I meant in Ian Levines staffing qoutes. My point was not to condemn individuals, though the person referred to was named, but to highlight the lack of jurasdiction & co-ordination of the overview policy. Sue Malden, Head of archive acknowledged this herself in 1981 Dr Who mag article where she states that there were problems in the existing BBC policies that needed to be addressed & modified particularly in context of the up & coming commercial tape market then developing. Scanning this forum I see some other point I'd like to feed back on. Re: Gareth R. Epstein possibly vetoeing BBCs right to Beatles clips. It is known that the Beatles obtained their own copies of some of the material on TOTP which must have entailed some kind of liason between them & BBC but suggests the opposite of a prohibitive climate. Certain Equity members (i.e. James Bolam) have attempted to block commercial releases of old TV in recent years but the over riding corporate in charge of that material seems to over rule & win against their individual opinion so question arises as to how much weight it would carry even if he did object. Re: Andy Henderesons comments on people wouldn't want to see all this old stuff seems an example of putting words into the buyers mouths. A lack of imagination over the years simply consigns a large proportion of the archives holdings to shelving where it could be put to commercial use. There will always be historians & researchers though, so surely a shrewd business move would be to develop Greg Dykes speculated move towards a 'publicly accessible library'. This could utilise non commercially viable material. Existing buildings could be used for the main library. A standing but reasonable entry fee would vet visitors & subsidise running. Additional surcharges could be added for specific searches or purchasable time coded viewing copies maybe of specified excerpts only if copyright were to be upheld. There you have a viable & reasonable business idea from someone who has nothing to do with the staff of the corporation.

[Andy Henderson]

John - could....if....should..... and other words we hear week in, week out on this forum. Again, I don't think aynone is in any doubt what should have been done (keep as much b/w material as possible).

Interest in old programmes; I stand by my conviction that repeating a night of b/w film recordings on BBC-1 would result in an extremely low audience.

Anoraks; The BBC could not justify the idea of satisfying the obscure archive cravings of an often anoraky minority who think it is their God given right to see ancient programmes.

The Internet and beyond; even if they did open up the archive, they wouldn't start with b/w, but with educational and entertainment most often seen on DVD, not the surviving episode 13 of 'Alien Invasion in Bolton' or whatever.

Hard work; if Billy Hartnell sweated for 60 hours a week under the lights, so what! He wasn't the only one who did and he got paid well for it.

What was kept; I made a generalisation about programmes which were preserved and I stick by my conviction that there is a lot of material in the BBC Film Library which was obviously kept for posterity. That large majority is 'worthy material'. You can pick holes in that for weeks on end, but the fact remains that they regarded much of what we seek out now as prole stuff and not worthy of selection.

However, please carry on with the theories because that'll be another day or week wasted which could be put to better use - tracking down what remains.

Writing down your ideas and frustrations on here ain't going to bring them back.

[John Miller]

Andy - Oh yes it will. Theres a proverb that says even the changing of the angle of a Butterflys wing affects the whole of the weather system. I hear too much condemnation of people with sensible ideas who genuinely care about TV history and observe too much empowerment of cheese and wine assumptionists who haven't studied their subject matter with any conviction. If you read my e-mails properly you will note I am trying to enhance and elevate the profile of classic BBC products and strip away the dangerous 'cliquey' attitudes that are creeping into organisations like the BBC and NFA which threaten ultimately to endanger the needed stance of objectivity and will to preserve and look after TV history in a comprehensive manner for future generations. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I mine but there is a need for all to meet on common ground for an ultimate cause and drop aside sidelining specific old shows due to personal taste or making cut & dried sweeping statements about the status quo of the BBC archive or prioritisation. So I will stand by my case !!

[Andy Henderson]

So how will regularly regurgitating the same pleas and suffering on here bring back old programmes. If you think that, I'd say it was self delusion. For every polite letter sent to the BBC, you'll get an equally polite reply (unless it is your 42nd such letter).

If I spent as much time and energy on here as some people do, I'd never have found any film prints.

But, whatever, if it makes you delude yourself into thinking that writing on here or direct to the BBC counts and you're happy with that.....it won't waste anyone's time except your own.

Now if 3 million people wrote in asking to see a tramlined 16mm print of 'Hugh and I', there might be a chance oif a repeat, but that isn't going to happen.

[STEVE DAVIES]

I dont think the BBC will ever apologise, and in saying that neither will the guys who ran the ITV archives, if they do then the chappy who ran the Rediffusion archive will have a huge humble pie to scoff in front of us all (joke!!).
I think the BBC gets singled out a bit to much, mainly because they have stayed constant throughout broadcating, ie, never having lost the franchise etc.
The debate on this issue has a broader plain as well, we can not change history and we can debate and argue over what was kept and why till I'm in my grave hopefully many many years in the future.
What we can do is change attitudes - hopefully!!
Writing on this forum and other forums are not all bad, not every person who works in archives and broadcasting has all the solutions, just maybe a better hindsight or viewpoint in these issues.
I feel all tv companies regardless of the past decisions made by others could do more in trying to fill the gaps.
I, and others believed that the BBC should come clean about the junkings in order to reach out to the collectors in the land to return stuff.
Eventually it did, in the form of a tresure hunt appeal.
Maybe that was part down to a change of attitude brought about by the people internally, the BFI, collectors and maybe, just maybe forums like this.
We all know material is out there, both internally at the bbc and externally, recent finds can tell us this.
I think the bbc could do no wrong in more appeals, the knock on effects from the first are still with us today.
The chap who returned DMP2 originally saw the treasure hunt appeal and realised he may have something the bbc does not.
Some say it aint cost effective.
I disagree, Moonbase 3, Tomb of the Cybermen, Dads Army, DMP2 all found, and all out to buy at a store near you. Kaa-ching!!!!
(Except DMP2,BUT YOU GET MY DRIFT).
These appeals are not actually an apology as such, but an admitence of "past errors" say!!
And this could run the fine line of critisism the bbc seems to constantly get.
More correspondence with overseas stations on a regular basis would also silence some of the shouting.
I know people will say its been done etc. But there are a number of stations who have not replied, and the ones who have said they have nothing only return stuff years later and claim again they dont have anything (tomb of the cybermen).
People like Andy and Paul Vansesis rightly say leave it to the experts, but if it seems (and I stress the word seems) that little or nothing is done, who can actually blame people for taking it upon themselves rightly or wrongly.
People are offering material back to the bbc or a regular basis, the recent Out of the Unknown, Z-Cars finds, and a potentially missing William Harntell radio play either have been returned or offered.
Trying to meet people half way would also be an advantage.

Thanks for reading this, thoughts please.

[Laurence Piper]

Well, I can go on a fortnights' hols and come back to still find this thread struggling on!

You're right, John, about the ripples-in-a-pond effect; bad attitude all contributes to the trivialisation of TV as a medium worthy of preservation. The signs are there now (sadly even in words coming from some on this forum).