ITV IS SLOWLY DYING

[johnstewart]

I don't think the reducing quality is exclusive to ITV; but would try and see it all in terms of proportion.

At the end of Thames one of ITVs problems was clear. Lack of or reduction of imaginative programming and repeats over the years
and the phasing out of traditional favourites. For many years the only repeat made available was 'MINDER'; regardless of merits; I don't think it was ever off the air even when new series were not being made. This was at the expense of imaginative repeats such as CAE OF WANDS which was becoming clamoured for; or MYSTERY AND IMAGINATION.

Since franchisers have favoured a gradual increase of cosmeticising the whole channel. Carlton appeared to do little with Thames' watered down later format.

With the current - Granada ? - franchise we have seen end credits shrunk or reduced to a single end card with little or no music and no atmosphere. To be fair ITV has seen an improvement since its huge error of around 2 years back; replacing all varied programming with one phone in show most of the night.

Since the controversy and fines the show 'NIGHT WATCH' has been introduced. Also in London we now get a one hour extended local news. So there's no fear of turning on to one show (and off again here); all night.

NIGHTWATCH does play on the same sensational documentary appeal as the late night police chase screenings. But it is a retrun of photo journalism and documentary which ITV once regularly screened (such as 'THIS WEEK').

In terms of Channel 4; well I recall on the current Programme Controllers appointment; he stated on Teletext 'Channel 4 will continue to push the boundaries of taste' and that was it. That appeared to be his commitance and vision. Prior to this I seem to recall Channel 4s function and delivery was to offer interesting alternative programming. So this really was where the rot set in there. Programmes like 'Jack*ss' which defied any value as art; or even watchable entertainment. As soon as I caught by accident two men vomiting into frying pans which they then cooked; the channel was switched off. And more recently channel 4 has prided itself in deliberately forgetting the watershed and putting T*ts and b*ms and worse pre watershed at a family viewing hour. That's sophistication and progress.

You could argue that the fault is British Government; not broadcasters. Surely if they became aware of the new Programme Controllers visions; and the output; they should have intervened and specified that it wasn't good enough and an agenda of quality should be adopted; whilst retaining alternatives to general programming.

With the BBC it ebbs an flows; good followed by bad periods. At the end of the 80s when Jonathan Powell scrapped 'Who' and replaced it with the substandard expensive flop 'ELDERADO' and dropped series of single plays the quality dropped to a low. You then had the
rise in quality with the screening of .MR WROES VIRGINS' and then another bad period in which most of the money seemed spent on adverts for BBC radio and its own programming.

The restationing of a new interpretation of 'DR WHO' has coincided with a good period including some interesting programming.

But now we are going again through a bad period in which it seems some heads of the Organisation appear to feel no commitance to accountability.

Decisions that reflect this include the decision not to show the GAZA charity appeal. A majority of licence fee payers and other bodies have objected but the internal decision made adhered to.

In the case of Jonathan Ross; Ross was measured I think and quite good in his role of presenting the film magazine shows. But since his wage rise and the Interview show there has been a deteroriation which I think by him representing the organisation he works for is staining the BBCs image for proffesionalism.

If many viewers to his show analysed its appeal; they would probably acknowledge its the format rather than the presenter they turn on for. They possibly enjoy watching celebrities being satirised and insulted.

Now the problem is that really since his pay rise; Jonathan has become a celebrity in his own right. But the problem is That Mike Parkinson pointed out not only is he not a credible interviewer; he no longer acts like a proffessional. And the worst thing is that money which could be spent on other skilled programme making staff and quality programme is being wasted on him. To me TV organisations are seeming to become like Government appears to also. Rather than a a co ordinated organisation of individuals seeking to deliver the best solution to their task; one increasingly populated by cliques in which friends favour others in the clique for those merits alone rather than their skills to deliver.

It seems at present maybe Ross is a ratings winner but hes been asked back; paid again for unproffessional behaviour and now apparently repeated this on the radio.

A move to generate proper television might be not to prerecord the show so it can be nicely edited or sanitised; but to put it out live and risk errors like the Bee Gees walk out on Clive Anderson which make for real; rivetting T.V.

As I see it there are plenty of others; such as BBC2s Louis Theroux who would make an ideal - and cheaper - candidate for a great interview show. Both in terms of quality T.V. and better spending this would make more sense.

[Eric Lawton]

Peter Elliott said :
Another major problem is how "seasonal" in nature TV has become. Right now we have that pathetic "Eurovision - Your Country Needs You" farce following on from the dreadful "audition for Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals" shows hosted by the obnoxious Graham Norton.


Now Peter, glad you have brought this up. Id say that 98% of the folk I meet in my personal life agree with you and I, in agreeing that Graham Norton is obnoxious. The likes of Norton, Ross, Brand etc have got NOTHING to offer me and the majority of other Folk I speak to.

If that is indeed the case........................how in the name of Sanity do they get these bloody jobs ?
Nortons got the flippin Eurovision now, For the last 10 years or so, watching the Eurovision makes me feel like Im being s**t on!
Norton introducing the blasted thing will make me feel like Im having my nose rubbed in it.

Thats it now.........Ill not be tuning in to it. Theres a documentary on one of the channels about Cat-sick. That'll be FAR more entertaining.

I TOTALLY despair about TV in our country now.

[Stephen Doran]

Agree Eric it seems Ross/Brand/Norton are liked by millions bar me.

[Peter Elliott]

Jan 30, 2009 17:02:11 GMT Eric Lawton said:

Now Peter, glad you have brought this up. Id say that 98% of the folk I meet in my personal life agree with you and I, in agreeing that Graham Norton is obnoxious. The likes of Norton, Ross, Brand etc have got NOTHING to offer me and the majority of other Folk I speak to.

If that is indeed the case........................how in the name of Sanity do they get these bloody jobs ?
Nortons got the flippin Eurovision now, For the last 10 years or so, watching the Eurovision makes me feel like Im being s**t on!
Norton introducing the blasted thing will make me feel like Im having my nose rubbed in it.

Thats it now.........Ill not be tuning in to it. Theres a documentary on one of the channels about Cat-sick. That'll be FAR more entertaining.

I TOTALLY despair about TV in our country now.

I despair too and not just about TV but almost everything!

I think I've only met one person who likes Graham Norton. I hasten to add that person is gay!

I detest Jonathan Ross but I do know many who actually do like him and watch his show but I haven't a clue how he ended up where he is now and I was disgusted when the BBC gave him that contract since it should had been spent on other things.

As for the Eurovision... my heart sank when the Lloyd Webber deal was announced and it sank even deeper when Norton snagged Wogan's job. I cannot stand the sight or sound of him and there is no way I can sit through 3 hours of him gurgling and gushing away as he does for the contest itself, so I'm another avid Eurovision viewer who will not be watching this year. Just a really bad choice.

I think the problem with the likes of Ross, Norton and Brand is that their egos are way over-inflated and they don't really have the talent or credibility to even have such egos in the first place. Whatever they do, it's all about THEM and the guests are minor irritants, stooges for their so called jokes.

Michael Parkinson quit TV for a good valid reason - he admitted that his shows had become nothing more than plug fests for his guests. Even the exclusive Paul McCartney interview in 1999 as enjoyable as that was, it was revealed he was doing his Cavern gig in the last five minutes hence Macca's real reason for doing that show... true he made Parky a promise many years earlier, but... It wasn't that way in the 70's as retired Hollywood legends would fly over and grant him a rare exclusive interview and talk candidly about their lives and careers. D=Sadly we now have this lame "celebrity culture" and I think that is having a destructive effect on TV. Why the hell do bimbos like Kerry Katona, Jordan... no sorry Katie Price and even Lily Allen get given their own shows? And please do not get me started on Jack and Kelly Osbourne!

[James C]

R.I.P TV!

[lee jones]

IHMO, ITV isn't slowly dying. The (old) ITV is dead, long dead x.x .

When I say "old" ITV I'm thinking of the ITV that existed before all the trouble of the late 1980s and early 1990s. I'm largely thinking about the thatcher legislation and the whole ridiculiousness of the begininngs of Satellite TV in the UK, namely what happened between Sky and BSB.

The BBC too certianly IHMO have come down a long way but I'll stick with ITV since the post title was in reference to ITV itself.

The first thing I've noticed is that Michael Grade hasn't been this TV magician people seemed to make him out as once he first joined ITV. Just because you have a famous name and uncle dosen't mean you're some sort of TV master. Michael Grade just dosen't seem to have really done all that much so far.

IHMO One of not just ITV but really the whole of TV is this idea that everything has to be a business, and the whole worship of money. Me personally I'd like to see a return to making TV programming that is made out of intrest of a subject or because the people making it want to make good programming rather than making TV shows just because it will add a few more pounds or dollars to the companys' profits and for the shareholders. It all just seems to be too driven by how much programme X or Y will make. Yay all hail the mighty pound. Result? You get cheapo TV done for the lowest common denomiator but which makes most money. Better known as "reality" TV.

ITV I don't think will be around much longer - at least not in its current shape. I'm thinking maybe ITV might want to reduce its public service commitment completely at some later date, so ITV can just be "another channel" on satellite or free (view/sat). Times are tough right now, nobody has the first clue on weather the recession will deepen or suddenly pick up. So if ITV are feeling the pinch right now if things keep getting worse they're really going to feel it in the coming months.

Another possibility and I am not sure on this one is that at somepoint a weak ITV could be bought by some huge media corporate, maybe an american or european company. From what I can gather there's some sort of goverment legisation that prevents this happening right now? (Not sure). If that vanishes with (say) the next incoming goverment of whatever political stripe then ITV is finished. If that happens, it'll be stripped and gutted.

Or if things got really bad for ITV and even collapsing themselves down still didn't do the trick then ITV might just vanish altogether. Though I don't know how likely or unlikely that would be.

ljones

[Jeff Lewis]

I always felt the decline of ITV's signature department, drama couldn't decide what it wanted to be or how to react to changing times. Bringing in 'big name' soap stars on golden handcuff deals and not having specific projects already in mind just didn't work and hurt the station's creditability. They also allowed their brand name series to go on far longer than they should because they had nothing to replace them and they got stale. Suddenly the advertisers are dictating what type of shows should be made. It's probably too late now.

[Bob Savage (robstar)]

Remember the days of Lew Grade - he might only want to understand the idea of a show in a sentence (IE T eh Prisoner) but would take a gamble where the establishment (BBC) wouldn't - this creative difference made ITV! Another example would be thse Six Five Special Jack Good decided to produce the show against what the powers that be wanted he produced great viewing figures but the bbc didn;t like it, he went to ITV and eventually Hollywood. ITV used to be our glamourous version of HOllywood but has been ripped apart from it's own system (
franchises) therefore poor archive status. It's strength was it's local representation but like most things has succumbed to globalization. The only chance to redress this decline is to buck current trends and return to the true ethos of ITV with it's localized programming and companies insuring more creative and less management led decisions!

[Alan Turrell]

I don't know about anyone else but i'm a great believer in the television and music of the day reflecting the society of the day and there you have it.The only thing worth watching on tv these days is the weather forecast maybe the news and a bit of football .Other than that i listen to all my records and cds from the 60s and 70s and think how great it was then, sad really but true.

[johnstewart]

Jan 31, 2009 0:33:03 GMT lee jones said:

IHMO, ITV isn't slowly dying. The (old) ITV is dead, long dead x.x .

When I say "old" ITV I'm thinking of the ITV that existed before all the trouble of the late 1980s and early 1990s. I'm largely thinking about the thatcher legislation and the whole ridiculiousness of the begininngs of Satellite TV in the UK, namely what happened between Sky and BSB.

The BBC too certianly IHMO have come down a long way but I'll stick with ITV since the post title was in reference to ITV itself.

The first thing I've noticed is that Michael Grade hasn't been this TV magician people seemed to make him out as once he first joined ITV. Just because you have a famous name and uncle dosen't mean you're some sort of TV master. Michael Grade just dosen't seem to have really done all that much so far.

IHMO One of not just ITV but really the whole of TV is this idea that everything has to be a business, and the whole worship of money. Me personally I'd like to see a return to making TV programming that is made out of intrest of a subject or because the people making it want to make good programming rather than making TV shows just because it will add a few more pounds or dollars to the companys' profits and for the shareholders. It all just seems to be too driven by how much programme X or Y will make. Yay all hail the mighty pound. Result? You get cheapo TV done for the lowest common denomiator but which makes most money. Better known as "reality" TV.

ITV I don't think will be around much longer - at least not in its current shape. I'm thinking maybe ITV might want to reduce its public service commitment completely at some later date, so ITV can just be "another channel" on satellite or free (view/sat). Times are tough right now, nobody has the first clue on weather the recession will deepen or suddenly pick up. So if ITV are feeling the pinch right now if things keep getting worse they're really going to feel it in the coming months.

Another possibility and I am not sure on this one is that at somepoint a weak ITV could be bought by some huge media corporate, maybe an american or european company. From what I can gather there's some sort of goverment legisation that prevents this happening right now? (Not sure). If that vanishes with (say) the next incoming goverment of whatever political stripe then ITV is finished. If that happens, it'll be stripped and gutted.

Or if things got really bad for ITV and even collapsing themselves down still didn't do the trick then ITV might just vanish altogether. Though I don't know how likely or unlikely that would be.

ljones

I agree that the decline in quality of ITV has been over a number of years. I seem to recall in the 90s I felt 'CRACKER' was a noticeable decline; or that period. It wasn't so much the genre; theatre has always involved tragedy and murders. But I felt the accent there began to placed on sensationalism; how much evidence of violence and gore should be shown; albeit imitation; on screen; plus sexual imagery. I will admit really excess in that type of imagery in contexts of contemporary real life Britain type situations on TV I feel is a much greater problem than when its in a fantastic situation where people wouldn't identify or suspend belief as much.

Anyway I did feel that period was a marked decline in ITV.

[johnstewart]

Jan 31, 2009 8:15:58 GMT Alan Turrell said:

I don't know about anyone else but i'm a great believer in the television and music of the day reflecting the society of the day and there you have it.The only thing worth watching on tv these days is the weather forecast maybe the news and a bit of football .Other than that i listen to all my records and cds from the 60s and 70s and think how great it was then, sad really but true.

I personally think it doesn't just reflect but influences. That might not be true for earlier decades but i do recall there was a period in the 80s when it became fashionable to rent films on video from stores. At that stage I noticed a lot more Americanisms; as in the main bulk of the films; and expletives became adopted as normal language.

Recent surveys have also pointed out that younger people now take soaps seriously and look to them for lifestyle models. So it would seem there are a lot of people out there for whom TV and the media is not a snapshot or portrayal of modern Britain; but almost a blueprint for its values and motivations.

[johnstewart]

And of course another concern is that more skilled people might lose their jobs; and cuts made to quality BBC programming or Archive related projects again when economies need to be made.

And a lot of that money would have been spent on Jonathan Ross..

[Peter Elliott]

Jan 31, 2009 15:31:11 GMT johnstewart said:

Recent surveys have also pointed out that younger people now take soaps seriously and look to them for lifestyle models. So it would seem there are a lot of people out there for whom TV and the media is not a snapshot or portrayal of modern Britain; but almost a blueprint for its values and motivations.

And I find this both disturbing and depressing.

I felt there was something seriously screwed up about ten years ago when Deidre got jailed in Coronation Street. It provoked such an uproar that people were campaigning and putting FREE DEIDRE posters in their windows.

Excuse me, but isn't Deidre a fictional character that doesn't exist? Why was so many people getting into a lather over someone that is the figment of writers imaginations yet if it was a real life neighbour wrongly jailed, people would not be anywhere near as bothered?

The fact that youngsters use soap characters as "role models" then is disturbing... they really are wonderful role models aren't they, forever sleeping around, and getting involved in all manner of dubious things... and then some wonder why today's youngsters are the way they are.

I find it sad then that too many people take fictional characters far more seriously than they do actual people in their towns with flesh and blood. If they showed as much concern for real people as they did soap characters then I'm sure we would be living in a better, happier and more balanced society.

[Deleted]

I find that soaps are one of the things that best illustrate the sharp decline in TV standards and quality, particularly with reference to how all the long-running examples (e.g. Eastenders, Coronation Street, Emmerdale) have changed over the last 10 - 15 years. The appeal of these kind of programmes used to be so-called "ordinary" life and the motivations of the residents of a given town / street / area etc. Storylines would typically be about everyday characters and normal situations that the viewer could identify with. That was the appeal.

Family problems, relationship difficulties, marriage breakups, job problems, business hassles etc. etc were the mainstay of those programmes. All of these series now are completely unbelievable and injected with souped up degrees of sensationalism; "ordinary" storylines of the type mentioned above are the exception now.

Brookside seemed to set a precedent; where once it used to deal with issues such as trade unionism, pregnancy etc. in a completely realistic way, the writing was on the wall by the time of the "body under the patio" storyline. Whereas though, this was handled quite well, other soaps then wanted to do the same but they picked up on the sensation aspect without the believability. Before we knew it, everything was murders, organised crime, arson attacks, bodies in tea chests, etc. Previously credible characters suddenly behaving totally out of character, people changing partners at an incredible rate, every non-descript character suddenly had a devastating hidden agenda / dark past / dangerous secret etc. etc. The amount of episodes per week was also increased to saturation level (which must also take part of the blame for the state of affairs as there was now far more screen time to fill with story).

The Bill turned from compulsive police drama to sensational soap. In recent times, there has been a distinct move back to self-contained storylines and the police behaving more like police again. The soaps might do well to follow the same route but it may be too late though as it's now hard to accept these characters in the old mode again. The makers have de-sensitised the viewer to accept such high levels of sensationalism as the norm now that anything slightly more realistic seems mundane by comparison. It's not a situation that can be reversed overnight.

[Stephen Doran]

Sorry but i find many soaps hard to believe esp the continuous bed hopping eg Corrie,Eastenders