The depressing homogenisation of ITV

The proposals announced by Michael Grade today to reduce ITV's regional newsrooms, from 17 to nine, is yet another step in the steady ratcheting of the homogenisation of ITV.

In the 1960s and 70s, each ITV region was run by an individual, independent private company. They had their own logos, on-screen continuity "personality" announcers, news programmes, magazine programmes, start-up films, closedown films, advert "bumpers" (quick bits between the ads), idents, local personalities, regional puppets for kids' birthday dedications, individually painted boards for feature films etc etc There was even the additional bonus of local cock-ups.

Now what do they have that is particular to each region? Er.............

Well, all the regional stations are owned by one public company, they all have the same ITV logo, the same advert "bumpers", no on-screen announcers, unseen announcers from some bunker 200 miles away covering several regions, no regional idents and precious little regional magazine programmes. When you watch ITV in, say, Manchester and then compare it to ITV in, say, Penzance, it is almost exactly the same, with one exception, at 6pm you get local news. (Scotland is a bit of an exception in that you occasionally hear the odd Scots accent on the continuity announcements).

Grade's proposal is extremely depressing in that it is just one more step in completely erasing any regional identity for ITV's programmes. The sheer colour and variety, the charm and quaintness of the original ITV network was enrapturing and fostered a strong feeling of regional identity in viewers.

The Westward galleon, the Anglia knight, the Thames river scape, the Southern star...it all might have been a bit kitsch and cheap but it was all part of a regional fabric with a personality.

But the reduction in service of the plans is the most disturbing aspect.

Grade will be knocking the stuffing out of most of the regional news programmes, with a resultant diminution in the community life of this country.

It would be alright if we had a thriving community/town television system to take up the slack, but we certainly do not.

Imagine. Under the plans someone in Penzance will watch regional news hosted in Bristol (probably) which will include news from Gloucester. Someone in Newbury will be watching news from Kent. In half an hour, you really can't bring in sufficient places from the region to make people spread over it feel they are watching something local.

Trust me. I've watched BBC South for years. It's based in Southampton and I live in Newbury. They keep on banging on about places in Sussex. I haven't a clue what it's like there. Apart from Brighton, I have never been to most of the places they mention. They might as well be going on about Outer Mongolia, for all the relevance it has to me.

As is often said, people are either interested in what's happening at national/world level or what is happening in their town. They are not interested in what is happening in some provincial town 100 or 150 miles away from them.

This is actually a chance for Ofcom to show their mettle. I cannot believe they are going to approve this proposal. When you think of the days of ITA and Lady Plowden, who ruled with a rod of iron and ferociously enforced regional standards, it is just unthinkable that there should be such a retrograde step.

Shortly before he died, I interviewed Kenneth MacLeod for a website I used to run about Westward Television. Ken was a real ITV regional pioneer. He worked for Associated Redifusion and then for Westward. He was a real anchor man. Physically, in the nicest possible way, he looked as though he could anchor a medium size boat. He had talked his way, live on air, through so many machine breakdowns that he was a dab hand at the ad lib.

He explained to me that once there was a breakdown and he resorted to his old standby: He got out the contents of his poockets - bus tickets, cheques etc - and started talking about them: "I need to pay that bill tomorrow" etc etc. Once, he had to talk his way through a whole half-hour programme because the telecine machine didn't work at all.

So he was well immersed in the ITV regional system. He told me a few home truths. First of all, he said he was convinced that, if the ITV regional system hadn't come along, the BBC wouldn't have bothered with their regional programmes. That makes me fear that the BBC will follow ITV in diluting their regional television news programmes. Secondly, he was convinced that ITV would eventually have no regional identities at all.

His second prediction seems to be well on its way to fruition. Michael Grade's plans will make it a step nearer.

The public dismantling of Jim Davidson, aka "Hell's Kitchen"

Jim Davidson's career has been on something of a downward trajectory for some time. Once fêted by Margaret Thatcher, the toast of Conservative Association Dinners and host of The Generation Game, he is now somewhat sidelined in the entertainment world, if not in the twilight world of the Conservative party.

Last night on Hell's Kitchen the reasons why Davidson is now arguably persona non grata in mainstream entertainment were displayed with embarrassing clarity.

In summary, a series of exchanges with fellow contestant, Brian Dowling, resulted in Jim Davidson, in the words of the presenter Angus Deayton, "being asked to leave the show". I understand that this coincided almost precisely with the moment Davidson asked in writing to leave the show.

ITV.com gives the words used in the exchanges (there's a set-up video from YouTube below). It's worth reading. Suffice it to say that it involves Jim Davidson using the word "shirt-lifters", talking about a 'gay preen' look, accusing Dowling of 'playing the homophobic card' and, finally, starting some nonsense about "G.A.Y - good as you" which he later tried to imply was sympathetic to gay people. Bear in mind that this all happened after a hard day in the kitchen and a glass or twain of wine all round, with resultant hyperventilation stirred up by the televisual setting and, no doubt, skilful editing.

Paul Young (yes, he is still alive) played something of the umpire's role. He is a friend of Davidson and of a similar generation. Even he made clear that he thought Davidson was out of order. And in a moment of perspicuity and, indeed, perspicacity, when Davidson asked "What happens to us - where do we go?", Young said: "Well, we're the old generation, you and me, Jim. Things have moved on". Wise words.

Full marks to Brian Dowling. He stood his ground. Despite being very emotional and fighting to speak through tears and sobs, he refused to be encouraged away from Davidson by the ladies in the company. Dowling said his piece very effectively to Davidson, culminating in the statement: "You are the most offensive person I have ever met".

Thank goodness the producers had the good sense to ask Davidson to leave after all that and, it seems Mr Davidson also realised that he was on a hiding to nothing.

Concluding by saying "in fairness to Jim Davidson" would be going too far. However, it has to be said that nothing Jim Davidson said or did on that programme surprised me. He did what you would expect an unreconstructed right-winger to do. He did what you would expect Jim Davidson to do. He even asked: "What about white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males like me? Who cares about us? Where do we go?" As if white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males don't hold sufficient aces in life to be sensitive to others' feelings, like the rest of us (I'm a Celt).

None of what Davidson said or did cannot be found expressed in some corners of some pubs, clubs and homes in the country everyday. Like the Jade Goody/Big Brother stuff. But that does not excuse it for one second being blurted out on national TV without somewhat career-limiting consequences for the proponent.

(It seems Davidson is suffering from a mild case of Bernard Manning Syndrome, by the way. Having spent a lifetime making a career out of debatably offensive, or, at least, patronising, material (his act for many years majored on his friend "Chalkie", who was.....you guessed it) he is now viewing the public's arguable rejection of his previously lucrative views with complete bemusement.)

Above all, Davidson was just boorishly insensitive to Dowling. Having had a career in light entertainment, you would have thought Davidson would have shown at least an atom of sensitivity towards the chap.

Take one of the mildest things Davidson said to Dowling (who admittedly was drawing on all his considerable reality show skills): "If I was in a pub and you were there as well, I wouldn't talk to you."

It's the kind of thing you might think, but would you ever say it to someone unless they had actually said something outrageous and needed being taken down a peg or two? Of course not. And to say it to such an obviously sensitive fellow as Dowling (who incidentally has been unusual for a ex-Big Brother contestant in displaying a respectable amount of talent in television presenting, even if it is often doing that annoying ITV nightime polyfilla show with the gameboard to his right) is just not fair.

So Davidson gets his comeuppance. (As Harry Enfield's pub-berating character might say "Oi! Davidson! You're out of order!"). Unlike Jade Goody with India and Boris Johnson with Liverpool, somehow I don't see Jim Davidson doing an apologia tour of Old Compton Street, doing penitential stand-up in Heaven or, far more relevantly, apologising to the human race in general. That's the point. He is such an insensitive person that salvaging his mainstream career with some humility and grace is simply not in him, I suspect. Instead, we'll probably get the affronted "I didn't mean any offence...many of my best friends are gay" defence. But I live in hope of being proved wrong.

So, as Jim Davidson asked last night: "Where do I go?"

Answer, presumably Jim: where you've been recently. Dubai is it, some of the time? One suspects it may well be anywhere except mainstream British public life.

Has anyone got Martin Bashir's number?

UPDATE: You can see the clip of the “dust-up” from last night here on ITV's site - under “Latest clips” – “He’s a horrible man”.

The donkey work of family history

I have spent a great deal of time researching my family's history. Being a great amateur history enthusiast, it is good to see people taking an interest in history through genealogy - "family tree tracing".

It is therefore very gratifying to see the great success of the BBC's "Who do you think you are", which is now back for a new series. It is obviously getting a lot of viewers, as they are now attracting some very high calibre celebs - John Hurt is coming up in the current series, for example.

Of course, the celebs don't do the donkey work. They are not the ones who spend days in records offices walking back and forwards between shelves, pulling out huge Geoff Capes-challenging ledgers, poring over endless microfiche, wondering around storm-battered church graveyards and straining their eyes to decipher some ancient priest's scrawl.

No, they just arrive chauffeur-driven, hair beautifully coiffeured, to gush with emotion at some wonderful discovery which the researchers took months setting up.

Not that I am bitter of course. The celebs are actually missing out.

The first celeb of the new series was Natasha Kaplinsky. Don't. I know. The Kaplinskster has never appeared on telly without a number of uncharitable epithets whizzing through my head. I am a Sophie Raworth fan myself.

However, my respect for the lady was much increased by the end of the programme. She mentioned that a news editor had suggested that she changed her name when she started her broadcasting career. I greatly respect the lady for not changing it.

Ms Kaplinsky's father was thrown out of South Africa aged 19 for supporting anti-apartheid protests. His family didn't support him.

But there were some harrowing discoveries waiting in what is now Belarus. Tales of family members, including two children, killed by the Nazis.

So, when, in future, La Kaplinska appears on my screen, I will not be running screaming from the room - much.

Dead donkey writers surpass themselves

The BBC deserves a pat on the back for "Outnumbered", a ground-breaking comedy involving children and lots of ad libs/improvisation.

As usual, all good telly has great writers and the credits for this one were "Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton".

As those names appeared on the screen, I was raising my finger and starting to form the word "Drop" in my mouth, but my wife beat me to it and said "I know, Drop the dead Donkey".

REVEALED: Bob Monkhouse's love child is presenting the weather on BBC TV

The slick hand movements. The comedic, chummy mid-Atlantic delivery. The clever little lines. The physical features.

It's all there.

The little pointy hand gesture at the end is the clincher.



Dan Corbett



"Dad"?

Good seat available for Iain Dale / missed comedy opportunity for Ann Widdecombe

Ann Widdecombe is standing down at the next election. So that's why Iain Dale was so compliant to Grant Shapps during the Ealing/Southall by-election. Joke.

More interestingly, Widdecombe turned down an offer from Sony to star in an advert with Alice Cooper where he would have appeared in a state of marital bliss with Miss Widdecombe.

It appears that Widdecombe turned her nose up at this prospect. Shame. Cooper is a committed Christain like Widdecombe, and the advert sounds as though it would have been hugely entertaining, in sharp contrast to the rest of Miss Widdecombe's celebrity output.

The Noddy shot - echo from a long-gone broadcasting era?

It is interesting that the latest policy statement regarding news broadcasting has come from Channel 5, bless them. I am not aware that Channel 5 have been implicated in any of the recent furores over television faux pas.

I heard some numpty on the telly describing Channel 5's policy change (saying they would not, in future, use "Noddy shots" and "walking along St Stephen's Green shots") as an inadequate response to the recent scandals.

But, in fact, it seems more of a leap into the twenty-first century. The noddy/St Stephen's walk shots were very much a child of the film era, when telly stations broadcast most of their news via film and had precious few cameras. There also tended to be longer film insert pieces in news programmes.

These days it's all digital and the insert pieces tend to be much shorter. We don't actually need to see the interviewer nodding or confirmation that the interviewee has a body and can walk five yards across St Stephen's Green without collpasing.

Feeling a bit bloated? (Annoying adverts #1956)

No, actually.

And I have never felt "bloated".

Also, I have never seen anyone pathetically rubbing their stomach and heard them whining like a incontinent beached-whale: "I'm feeling a bit bloated".

If people don't want to feel "bloated" they should stop eating too much food, particularly yogurt.

Matt Lucas and David Walliams get '£2 million a year from BBC to do very little'

Pendennis in the Observer suggests that the Little Britain duo are being paid something like £2 million a year to do very little for "quite some time". Oh, that's all right then. It's only licence payers money and they are soooooooooooooooo talented aren't they? It's worth paying them all that to keep them off ITV or Sky and preserve them for the 'national broadcaster', isn't it?

No, I thought not.

Further confirmation from the Edinburgh TV jamboree that the BBC is an understanding employer. BBC1 head Peter Fincham, fielding questions about the very handsome three-year contract (£6m we hear) given to Matt Lucas and David Walliams, said he doesn't expect them to do much for quite some time. They are on a BBC 'pause'. How lovely. Can we have one please?

Save BBC4's Storyville

Storyville on BBC4 has been responsible for broadcasting some of the finest political documentaries on British television.

Examples have been the superb behind-the-scenes story of the Bill Clinton presidential campaign and, more recently, the Bobby Kennedy story, which I blogged about here.

The two or three, sometimes four hour, format of these documentaries is unmatched on British television.

Benetta Adamson has commented on my blog:

Storyville is remarkable; you're quite right. It has had eight nominations in the prestigious Grierson Trust documentary awards this year alone! It is also under imminent threat from a BBC management planning to cut 60% from its already meagre budget. This will mean that it ceases to commission its own material and can only buy in completed films. As one of the BBC's most critically successful strands* this would be an act of cultural vandalism. This is a series which builds international links, with films from 68 different countries featuring the work of directors from first times to Oscar winners.

A petition has been launched urging the BBC not to make these cuts which has already attracted more than 2000 signatures from all over the world. Visit www.savestoryville.org for further information and a link to the petition.

The BBC needs such programmes as Storyville to maintain or rescue its reputation. In amongst all the quiz and reality shows, Storyville is essential and what the BBC does best.

Please sign the petition to save Storyville here.

Why I am switching to back Charles Kennedy to win

Charles Kennedy has put together a fantastic case to win.

I was initially seduced by Des Lynham and his Seven Sisters cliffs in Sussex. But, hey, they are chocolate-boxey and sentimental. They are falling apart anyway.

Hadrian's Wall? Come off it. A couple of thousand years old.

And don't even get me started on Blackpool Tower and Mr Cheap-as-Chips.

No. When you look around this kingdom of ours, there is only one choice to go for. The vast, hugely dominating, awesome Scottish highlands, as exemplified wonderfully by the Cuillins.

Oh! You thought the title was about something else did you?

Of course, I was referring to ITV's Britain's Favourite View.

Fearne Cotton: I'd have gone for Prince William if I was single

That'll wind up the Norfolk Blogger.

Reuters use "Titanic" film footage in Russian North Pole story

There's been a long string of "scandals" featuring broadcasting companies. This latest one takes the biscuit.

Reuters have admitted illustrating a story about the Russian North Pole undersea flag-placing with footage from the 1997 film "Titanic". A 13 year-old Finnish schoolboy spotted the similarity of the pictures.

Whatever next?

UPDATE: To be fair to Reuters, the use of the Titanic footage originated from a Russian television station.

Griff Rhys Jones secures his pension

We've just caught up on Mountain presented by Griff Rhys Jones (originally shown last Sunday on BBC1).

The whole programme was stunning. The photography of the mountains and the views from them was heart-stopping. The climb up Suilven (pictured left) and the view from it was just out of this world. What a staggering piece of geology!

For some reason, the very north of Scotland and the Highlands don't get a lot of publicity. So, this programme gave us a view of a relatively unknown part of the British Isles.

Rhys Jones is a brilliant presenter and met some fascinating people along the way.

Did Top Gear actually go to the North Pole? (2)

Dec's rambling makes a further comment here:

At the end of the show they show their coordinates as being 78° North. That is 12° and about 800 miles short of the true North Pole. Of course one could argue that they could had gone to Magnetic North, which moves and that is exactly where they did go. Unfortunately they did so 11 years late since they conveniently choose (sic) the position of Magnetic North from 1996, it is currently around 82° or 83° North. It was a bit disappointing, really all they did was go for a long drive in the snow to an almost random point 400 miles away.

Did Top Gear actually go to the North Pole?

Thanks to an anonymous commenter on my previous post, who asked whether Top Gear actually went to the North Pole.

The co-ordinates shown on their SatNav when they were said to be at the North Pole were: N78˚35’7” W104˚11’9”. Steoroid.com states that, at this "finishing point", they were 792 miles from the North Pole or 307 miles from the magnetic North Pole:

The North Pole is at N90 latitude, of course, and all the Longitudes at once. What’s the difference? According to the Great Circle Mapper, the difference is 792 miles, or 1275 kilometers. You can see the positions on a map, here.

A-ha, I hear you saying: they must have gone to Magnetic North, then? Yes, I thought of that, but it still doesn’t add up: throughout the program, they always referred to the North Pole: no mention of the word “magnetic” that I can recall, though I could be wrong about that. There’s another problem: they didn’t actually go the North Magnetic Pole.
The latest coordinates I can find for the location of the North Magnetic Pole are those from 2005, which were estimated at 82.7°’N 114°4′W. This is quite a long way from the show’s “North Pole” location: 307 miles, to be exact, according to another Great Circle Map. To be fair, however, the North Magnetic Pole has been near the location they used in the show: in 1994, according to the this map and other historical figures I looked up.

How does that compare to how far they actually went? They started at Resolute, in Nunavut, which is at 74°41′40.27″N 94°50′23.64″W. I know they didn’t go in a straight line, but if they had, another Great Circle Map tells me how far the crow flew: 308 miles.

In other words: their trip to the North Pole took them almost exactly halfway to the North Magnetic Pole.

Bernard Manning presents his own obituary - dead body, underpants and all

I have just got round to finishing my viewing of "Bernard Manning - From Beyond the Grave". A bit late, I know. This was Manning's own televisual obituary - presented by him.

I started with a reasonable view of Manning based on testimonies from the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson. I ended with a poor view of the man. Yes, he worked a lot for and gave a lot to charity, we were told. Yes, it seemed he was cherished by his friends and family. The message he recorded to be shown to attendees at his funeral was eloquent and touching. But he was a racist and his language about other races was disgusting. He had a rant during the film about being British and that other races born in Britain aren't British, adding the charming adjoinder: "just because a dog is born in a stable does not make it a horse".

He was very successful, though (although his career plummeted in the nineties). You have to ask questions about audiences who supported him over the years. I am pleased to say I wasn't one of them. I turned the telly over as soon as he came on.

It is strange that when Billy Connolly effs and blinds it seems funny. When Manning did it, it just seemed coarse.

The film was remarkable. Unnerving, I would say. If anyone ever thinks again that it is a good idea to show on television the recently deceased body of a 77 year old man who had diabetes, angina and was recovering from a stroke then my advice to them would be: don't.

Manning had a propensity to sit around dressed only in his underpants. Fair enough. But his propensity to allow camera crews to film him in such a state was unedifying.

It is very unusual for someone to present their own obituary. I see that Manning also wrote obituaries of himself for the tabloids. Why? Noone else does it. Doesn't it speak volumes that he felt he had to present his own version of his life?

Do we need to see the moment an Alzheimer's sufferer dies?

Andrew Pierce in the Telegraph raises some searching questions about ITV's decision to broadcast the last moments of the husband of a lady called Barbara Pointon.

Like all these things, it depends how it is treated in the context of the broadcast programme. If it is done in such a way as to highlight the tragedy of Alzheimer's Disease, helping to raise funds for research into it, then it may well be a good thing.

But one can't help but wondering if this is bringing out the worst type of voyeurism in the viewing public.

Have US televised police car chases gone too far?

Two TV helicopters have collided in Arizona, USA, while covering a police chase.

It was a very tragic accident that involved the deaths of four people. I don't wish to make light of it.

But is there a lesson here? Five helicopters were videoing one pick-up truck which was being chased by police.

...All for the entertainment of television viewers, some of whom pay to be paged whenever a pursuit is being shown.

If you want an emblem to typify the insanity of American television, then this is it. I don't think there is any suggestion that the driver of the pick-up truck involved was the USA's Number Wanted Man. He was no O J Simpson.

So is it worth up to five helicopter crews covering such chases, risking, and in this case causing, deaths?

And does the televising of such chases actually encourage the exhibitionist tendencies of alleged criminals so that they drive just that little more recklessly for the cameras?

Top Gear North Pole race - sheer quality!

Last night's Top Gear Polar Special was a treat. If you missed it, it's repeated this Sunday on BBC2 at 8pm and there are clips here. If you have BBC iPlayer you can watch it there, this week.

Basically Clarkson and May raced to the North Pole in a Toyota 4x4, while the Hamster was pulled by a team of Huskies. The Hamster deserved to win. Unfortunately Clarkson and May got their first, but not before they had been through a gruelling couple of days struggling through an ice boulder field.

Highlights were: Clarkson's innovation of a "bumber dumper" toilet add-on on the back of the Toyota. And Clarkson getting a nut frozen to his lip - he screamed like a girl (sorry girls!) until May applied some boiling coffee to remove it. Very funny.

UPDATE: The question has been raised as to whether Top Gear actually went to the "North Pole", or, assuming they did, which "North Pole" they went to. See later postings on this subject here and here.