So, are the BBC still destroying their archive?

[luke10811]

According to www.bbc.co.uk/archive/

"The areas where we tend to be more selective would be, for example, in a long-running quiz show, where it's really important to have examples of that, but we wouldn't necessarily keep them all for ever"

This really shocks me, I thought everything was kept nowadays!?! Can anyone clarify?

[Greg H]

No, as far as im aware they dont keep everything because of storage space issues. I think the BFI or NFT or something video tapes all of their output though. Perhaps someone can confirm this or set me straight?

[Andrew Martin]

May 19, 2008 5:25:27 GMT @luke10811 said:

According to www.bbc.co.uk/archive/

"The areas where we tend to be more selective would be, for example, in a long-running quiz show, where it's really important to have examples of that, but we wouldn't necessarily keep them all for ever"

This really shocks me, I thought everything was kept nowadays!?! Can anyone clarify?

Until the late 70s the BBC did not have any archival policy, since that time it has but that has never entailed keeping every single programme it makes or commissions. However all major genres such as drama, documentaries and comedy are kept in full, while other genres may only have examples kept. In practical terms these days it is something roughly like 20 years after transmission before anything is junked, because it takes time to judge the historical and cultural importance of programmes. There is also the factor in more modern times that so many programmes are made by independents companies, who beside owning the rights to the programmes will probably retain copies of their programmes, so it is far less likely that anything will be lost forever of today's output (even if every episode of "Homes Under the Hammer" or "Bargain Hunt" is pretty much the same as any other...)

[Peter Elliott]

May 19, 2008 14:43:57 GMT Andrew Martin said:

...so it is far less likely that anything will be lost forever of today's output (even if every episode of "Homes Under the Hammer" or "Bargain Hunt" is pretty much the same as any other...)

Or the hateful "Eggheads" for that matter... can't imagine anyone except that star panel themselves even being remotely interested in that show in 20 years time!

[eric lawton]

Dont know very much about Archive policies, so I apologise in advance to some of you Guys out there who obviously do.
Does the matter of "Not enough storage space" come into play ?
I should imagine now, that everything made today would be stored on discs and even hard drives. However, looking at the size of some of the film reels that are sometimes shown on the forum, is that a feasible excuse ? I mean, how big are the BEEBs storage facilities ?
All I know is its a damn shame that stuff is lost / destroyed or whatever.
Ive close on 100,000 hours of radio shows from the 50s to the present day. BBC Radio, Pirate Radio, ILR, Luxy etc. When the stuff was on reel to reel tapes and cassettes, it was a logistical nightmare. You wouldnt believe the space the damn things took up. Now, ALL my shows bar a couple thousand hours or so are on DVD discs in mp3 format. On average, 110 hours per disc. They still take a full wall in the bedroom up, and shortly will begin on a second wall once Ive fitted the racks.
Youre a very informative lot on the forum, love reading the posts. Please keep throwing these interesting snippets of info in our direction.
Cheers.
Eric.

[Kev Mulrenan]

On many docus these days you see poor quality footage taken from daytime tv. Obviously from home copies.

Plus the obligatory Before They Were Famous type shows.

I imagine even some companies can't be bothered to keep them all.

The difference now is that there are many independent tv companies that no doubt have their own archives.

Nowadays there will always be someone who appeared on the show as a contestant who will preserve it.

[StevePhillips]

May 19, 2008 18:19:19 GMT Kev Mulrenan said:

On many docus these days you see poor quality footage taken from daytime tv. Obviously from home copies.

Plus the obligatory Before They Were Famous type shows.

I imagine even some companies can't be bothered to keep them all.

The difference now is that there are many independent tv companies that no doubt have their own archives.

Nowadays there will always be someone who appeared on the show as a contestant who will preserve it.

That's because some companies will only sell the footage if you also have the clearances done thru them, as they can make more cash that way. If you want to use the footage under a CD&PA "fair use" clause (e.g. review) - not clear it - they leave you to source your own copies.

Plus Clips Sales often bump up prices with "research fees" and the like.... easier to use the VHS you already have in front of you.

[Andy Howells]

I think you also have to be practical, where do you draw the line on what should be preserved? Whats not of value now may be different in 40 years time (though I'd scream if my kids presented me with a Blu Ray box set of the complete How Clean Is Your House? when I'm 80).

Its interesting to see how everyone has got excited about the Crossroads finding, a much ridiculed programme of its time and now it seems, cherished!

Its a crime that so much hasnt survived from the 50s, 60s and 70s but its equally a bonus when something turns up for the fans and collectors, I think the same be said in 40 years, except the survival rate for many shows is likely to be a lot higher whether a TV company retains it or not, and besides whose to say that anything your likely to want will be in a futuristic version of youtube?

[Deleted]

Yes, practicality comes into it but you need to have the same rules applying to everything for it to be fair. A lot of people would be up in arms if a selective archive policy were implemented for cinema, music or books but it should be an even playing field or all media; TV is certainly unique in this respect and that's the annoying part.

As you accurately say, Andy, it's almost a crime that so much is missing from the '50s - '70s but crimes have culprits and the buck has to eventually stop with someone somewhere and responsibility taken for the short-sightedness and wanton lack of vision shown in archiving (which isn't putting it too strongly, I don't think). Of course, policy HAS changed since those days (if for the wrong reasons) but - as history shows us - we seem doomed to repeat our mistakes and not learn from them, if we aren't careful. There are many dedicated individuals working in TV archives that care about preservation above and beyond the call of duty but the losses of the past could very easily occur again unless there is the will on the part of governments and official bodies to recognise the importance of preserving our arts and popular culture. They seem to have moved slightly in that direction but it's by no means enough of a move as yet.

[Andrew Martin]

The difference between books and films on one hand and television and radio on the other hand is that masses more material is generated for the latter two media. Television is still stored as film and tape and that takes up room - but people working in archives are aware of the value of archives, that is what we do all day after all, archive stuff. As I said above, prior to the late 70s there was no BBC archival policy and no Charter obligation to keep an archive, but now there are such things there is still no obligation to keep everything: there is selection. That said, the kind of things people seem to miss most from the 50s and 60s are the kind of things that are now kept in their entirety, and the less exciting, samey stuff is represented by examples. TV is gradually going to move (so we are told) into a 'tapeless environment' which in theory would mean that storage might become less of a space issue, though it will probably remain a cost issue; as I aslo mentioned above it is no longer the case that a broadcaster like the BBC would have the only copy of many programmes.

[Deleted]

Yes, if tape finally becomes obsolete, I can forsee a time when whole archives will take up very little storage space indeed (and if the archives and bodies such as the BFI have a bit of vision and hang onto everything NOW then the benefits will come for all LATER). Sure, space IS a big issue currently but in the past when much smaller amounts of programming were generated, (as in the late '50s to the early '70s, the period i'm really talking about - before this time, recording TV was less easy anyway and so should not be classed in the same category of junked material as a lot of it never existed in the first place) keeping - if not all then more - material would have been far easier. Despite this, it wasn't; there was on the one hand a severe lack of recognition of TV as worthy of wider preservation (by some) or on the other hand an almost willful neglect despite begrudging recognition of this basic truth (by others).

To bat it the other way though, true, TV does generate more material than other media do (and is one of the most influential / important), but these are the exact reasons why it SHOULD have been kept to a much larger degree previously than it was. The future could be bright though - if the will is there.

[Dave Andrews]

There is still the problem that (at the moment) archive media degrade and need to be re-recorded every so often. With digital media there is no degradation of info in copying, but even in ideal storage conditions if a DVD(R) or VT is left too long it will eventually become unreadable.

Re-recording requires a funding commitment by the archive ... and there will always be 'dynamic' 'suits' who see their way up the ladder by saving money, and cutting such budgets is one way. Every industry has them (not just broadcast/media/archive); they are the Spawn of the Devil (or Sperm of the Devil, if you're Paula Yates !)

[Deleted]

You're right, Dave, of course. Anything degrades with time. The time is coming though where potential loss is minimised and re-cloning of material becomes routine.

My argument that there could have been better TV archiving in the past though is not just that it could have happened if more money was thrown at it, but that we'd have a much more balanced collection of material now if there was more thought put into what was saved. We have excellent / comprehensive sport and documentary archives, for example, but fare awfully for popular music (within the same company). It would have been far better to keep the cream of everything across the board and less of specific categories that are ridiculously over-archived in comparison to others (and i'd have said the same at the time). There seems to be no sense to a lot of the decisions made (and with reference to the pop archives of the '60s / early '70s, it seems that other countries had more foresight in this area when in fact the UK should have been leading the way at a time when we were doing just that musically).

[John Fleming]

There may be no truth in this but I heard that an edict came down from higher echelons of the BBC in 1967 that TOTP was of great importance and should not be junked. If that really is the case then heads should roll.

[Andrew Martin]

The trouble is all the heads that 'should roll' - if that rumour even turned out to be true - will have retired long ago...