Was anyone here part of the junking team?

[Alistair Murray]

I was just curious to know whether any regular posters/visitors to this forum were part of the junking team c. 1972-78. If so, could you share any thoughts about it, and what were you thinking of when you junked programmes? I don't mean that in a disparaging way, I mean did you really feel that it was disposable entertainment, rather than something of cultural value?

[Gary Critcher]

There never was a 'junking team' when I worked in VT Catalguing at TVC.
It was just a small part of your job.

[Anthony Harvison]

Feb 12, 2010 9:36:31 GMT Gary Critcher said:

There never was a 'junking team' when I worked in VT Catalguing at TVC.
It was just a small part of your job.

But certainly only people from one department of the BBC would have had it as being part of their job? I mean the dinner ladies likely didn't also wipe episodes?

[Peter Stirling]

I doubt if this illusive junking team actually existed.

What the problem was, there was nobody responsible for looking
after already shown materials.
So you had a scenario where old materials were shoved from pillar to post eventually getting in somebody's way who was trying to make a new programmes, so they might ring around , get no answer because that creative team had long since left the building. So what do you do if you need an office/workshop and all these old reels are cluttering up your space which nobody has a clue about?

The other problem which has been overlooked is video tape degradation. In the 1960s we have to remember what a new technology videotape was . A tape made only a couple years previous could throw up all sorts of errors when replayed , which engineers did not the have experience or technology to correct at the time. So the tape would be deemed useless,wiped or thrown out. Obviously you only needed one bad tape in a serial
to make the whole serial useless for broadcast again. This is believed to be what happened to the Adventures of Don Quick show.
With hindsite of course had the tapes been kept , 21st century technology would have probably rejuvinated them?

Then there was the B/W problem. In the 1970s there was a huge difference between the cost of a B/W and colour TV licence, therefore those with colour sets felt they were being cheated if they kept seeing old repeated B/W programmes.
So you can imagine Verity Lambert sorting out the Thames archive
in 1975 saying "its in B/W nobody is gonna want to see that again"

[Deleted]

I think you're right in that the problem was that nobody was specifically looking after already broadcast programmes, Peter. There was nothing officially designated an "archive", only a working library. There are other points to make though.

Firstly, not everyone was considering videotape to be a short term medium or we wouldn't have wonderful archives overseas of complete runs of Beat Club, Ed Sullivan Show and many other series and programmes on VT (both b/w and colour). These were kept in their original form and not transferred to t/r for preservation (as UK broadcasters tended to do in rare cases of something being deemed worthy of keeping).

It is the case anyway that odd episodes of series were found to have degraded over time (this carried on into the 625 line and colour eras rather than being a problem limited to b/w and 405 line). But I can't see this as being a general reason why something was junked (i.e. "oh, this has got a damaged episode - let's just junk the lot!") As we know too, something being made in b/w was not the only reason to discard; junking carried on well into the colour era so the excuse given that something had limited future use due to it being b/w doesn't hold water at all.

I've heard that Don Quick was destroyed by a botched transfer, although various stories circulate. I'm sure if only one episode was damaged, LWT would not have junked the whole run as other series have such episodes in them and these still generally exist.

Verity Lambert was primarily concerned with making new programmes and - if the story is true - shouldn't have been put in the difficult position of having to dispose of fellow creative people's past efforts (not should ANYBODY, for that matter!) She should still have known better though - it could just as easily have been someone junking her best work. I wonder if she'd have liked that any more? Again though, it's people in influential postitions unilaterally making unenlightened and far reaching judgements on other people's (ours and historians) behalf.

[davemachin]

I couldn't have put it any better Laurence! There are a lot of untruths trotted out. Some of the main culprits are:

'old tv was junked as it was in black and white and nobody wanted to see that anymore' (if that was the reason why large chunks of the archives were junked then we would have virtually no b/w programmes at all and everything from day 1 of colour onwards existing).

'there wasn't room to keep everything' (if that is the case then what was kept should have been properly selected and from a wider range of material rather than Shakespeare plays, classic adaptations, classical music and general elections).

'nobody saw video as a lasting thing. If a programme was preserved, it was put onto film' (if that is so, why are there whole huge archives of programmes overseas on videotape dating right back? As you say Laurence, many archives seemed to keep their tape).

Just my few pennies worth thrown in but it does annoy me that these myths are frequently repeated without being challenged.

Dave

[Gary Critcher]

OK lads, here's how it was.
I worked in the VT Cataloguing Deprartment at BBC Television Centre from 1983 to 1989. We were actually part of the Film & VT Library based at Windmill Road, Brentford. Part of our work was to input all the new VT recordings onto the in-house computer system called VTOL ('Video Tape On-Line'). The system could be accessed from all around the BBC.
Our job included keeping the system up to date i.e.when edits were done of programmes, when studio recordings were made, telecine sessions, anything, you name it, it all had to put into the system under the appriate programme numbers.
Another part of our job was to go through huge computer print-outs that were produced at certain intervals (maybe six monthly or annually), through which a Department Head would go through, physically marking on the paper which tapes were to be wiped and which were to be 'archived'. We then had to change the information on VTOL to aline with that. This also meant that at certain points tapes were removed from the shelves (either at TVC or Brentford) and were sent up to TVC and were physically wiped and re-used (I'm talking 2" and 1" here).
So, there WERE people looking after programme material, it remains to be seen whether, in your opinion, they kept the right stuff!!

[Deleted]

I'm sure you're right regarding the period after 1983, Gary, but we're all talking about much earlier (the '60s / '70s, am I right, chaps?) and definitely pre-1978 (when an official archive policy of sorts was put into place) when there was no "archive" as such and it was, by all accounts, a free for all with the left hand not knowing what the right was doing.

[Gary Critcher]

ah, ok then.

[davemachin]

Yes, no offence to you or the more recent BBC setup Gary. We were talking about the sixties and seventies junkings. I don't know why the person starting this thread would think anyone reading this site would be an ex BBC employee from 30 or 40 years ago though!

Dave

[johnstewart]

Another point is that so far as I know; the technicians would be in charge of tape stock. The sales divisions selling programmes would have different staff dealing with film duplicates.

And also the Library say at the BBC might have reviews on long term holdings as so far as I know again; in the short term any film material for a show was sent to the Library for safe keep. But it might not be intended to be held permanently.

So it's complex. Bob Pratt was in the technical dept of the BBC and is one of the staff who was alarmed at the bulk wipings and made an effort to hide bits away.