Divisive TV

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ????/Bob - were people not adequately catered for

> prior to these programmes? Did anyone sit around

> in their pants and bemoan the lack of daytime tv

> shows that mock and decry the poor and

> disposessed?

>

> No, didn't think so.

>

> Your logic is false too if it is simpl "if people

> will watch it then we must put it on". There

> should be harm tests for public broadcasters. They

> have responsibilities that come with the right to

> show programmes.

You arssumptions are false - I think you're talking about JK only (which I think is pretty pants I#d agrre - but still defend it's 'right'.

The OP is reffering to the posh/poverty 'porn' shows - Benefits Street etc. If I'm honest watching the benefits ones especially I tend to have more sympathy and understanding of/with the people in them as the programmes progress rather than voyeuristic sneering.

On the posh side I thoroughly enjoyed the 3 parter on Tatler

PS - both of these are evening shows, as are most of their counterparts

[Otta]

Yeah I was going to say that most of these types of programmes (another one was with Nick & Margret from The Apprentice looking at the benefits situation and meeting people on low incomes) seem to be on in the evening.

[Blah Blah]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely you mean both these things add nothing to

> quality of 'your' life, which isn't quite the same

> thing. Some people - quite a lot of people - enjoy

> them, no matter how much you wag your finger and

> tell them they shouldn't.

No I mean what I say. I defy anyone to give an example of how Jeremy Kyle and his show does anything to enhance the world for the better. There is universal crap.

[TE44]

Otta, I missed that from op,phone keeps cutting off. I agree can't see any connection with no vote.

Saying that though I do think these programmes encourage divide and resentment,whilst real questions and concerns of the public go unanswered by this goverment, who do have the powers to help change. I agree with poster who said regardless of the aim of these programmes, some people may have a little more understanding and sympathy

while others may think, they deserve to be put in a sitaution where there lucky to have food banks.

[PokerTime]

Bob I was talking specifically about the business of terrestrial broadcast television who are the people that make and buy up the reality shows referenced by the OP. They can?t compete with the budgets of HBO for example, because they don?t have the same international market. You?re comparing American studios to UK television broadcasters and the vast majority of drama and films made by American studios don?t get distribution outside of America either. You can?t look at the odd successful drama and think that reflects the industry as a whole. It doesn?t.

People do not watch live tv in anything like the numbers they did. Every now and then a drama will attract a large audience, but it?s not enough to command the advertising revenue required to make the drama on the first place. And a broadcaster has to fill every second of its broadcast time. More channels, more content, equals smaller audiences across the board, and that?s before you even get into the competition from streaming and catch up services, who can cherry pick what they offer. And as anyone who works in television knows, the hours are a killer and the rates of pay have gone down over the last 20 years, not up.

Here?s just one example of pricing differences for internet broadcast rights and terrestrial broadcast rights. If you use a piece of archive Pathe footage in a programme, you intend only to distribute via the internet, it will cost you around ?150 for the copyright. The moment you show that programme on a TV channel, that same clip costs ?800 in copyright. I can give lots of examples of budget differences that are prohibitive to TV broadcasters in making quality documentary or drama. It?s not a level playing field.

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Surely you mean both these things add nothing

> to

> > quality of 'your' life, which isn't quite the

> same

> > thing. Some people - quite a lot of people -

> enjoy

> > them, no matter how much you wag your finger

> and

> > tell them they shouldn't.

>

> No I mean what I say. I defy anyone to give an

> example of how Jeremy Kyle and his show does

> anything to enhance the world for the better.

> There is universal crap.

*bob* never said they enhance anything, he said that lots of people enjoy this stuff, so it is making them happy. Personally I think Top Gear is pretty much as shit as JK, but I appreciate that LOADS of people think it's great.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think people would be better off without the Sun and Jeremy Kyle, as

> both things add absolutely nothing to the quality of life. To argue that we should permit

> everything, because it's snobbery to quality control, isn't a good argument in my opinion.

Of course it is utter snobbery to quality control, in the sense of the Sun and Jeremy Kyle. Fine to stop them doing anything illegal, but to say to a section of society that likes reading/watch such stuff "I'm sorry, but people in the middle chattering classes just think this is not of sufficient quality for this likes of you" could only ever be seen as complete snobbery.

I think programmes like TOWIE, Made in Chelsea, anything with Keith Lemon... hell, the entire programming output of ITV2 for that matter is complete and utter mindless cack and "add absolutely nothing to the quality of life", but if people want to watch it, then so be it. Who am I to judge?

[Otta]

I feckin hate Keith Lemon.

[*Bob*]

P-Time..

It doesn't matter where its made, or whether it's on terrestrial tv: it's available 'somehow' through the myriad of other delivery options - and there's never been more of it. It's a golden age, not a decline. Most households - mostly regardless of income - have access to more quality material than they can consume.

But - given this swathe of qualiddy options - daytime dross still manages to pack 'em in. Why? Not because there's no choice; not because people are stupid; not because the government is forcing people to see it. They watch it because they want to. Because it's inconsequential, throwaway fluff that can be on while you wash up, or veg on the sofa, or pick your nose. Its audience understand this. The handwringers, on the other hand, take it all so desperately seriously.

[*Bob*]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>Who am I to judge?

The man to judge .. is Judge Rinder.

[Loz]

In fact, the output of ITV2 is so popular they've created an entirely new channel - ITV Be - so that people can watch endless repeats of the aforementioned cack.

[david_carnell]

Keith Lemon, twat that he is, doesn't actually do harm though.

He's divisive but only in the way I struggle to understand how anyone watches him. But he is essentially harmless. A talent free knob. But safe.

The other stuff....the lowest common denominator make-myself-feel-better-by-pouring-scorn-on-others stuff. That makes me angry hulk. These aren't documentaries looking to educate or give insight. They are there simply to entertain in the same way badger baiting used to. Laughing at a others misery. For shame.

And that's not my middle class liberal pinko voice. That's my human one.

[Jessie]

Keith lemon is a made-up character.

[indiepanda]

I read a book called the Psychopath Test by the journalist Jon Ronson which among other things talked about how they select people for these reality TV shows, and it left me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth, really exploitative.

The woman he spoke to sounded like she was booking guests for a program like Jeremy Kyle (but said similar applied to things like Big Brother / Wife Swap etc) and she talked about targeting people who were "just mad enough" - so schizophrenia was too mad but depressed and on Prozac was their perfect guest. If they weren't on drugs they weren't "mad enough"* to be entertaining.

I had always wondered how they'd managed to get people onto those shows when they were going to end up looking so bad, and that was the answer.

*her words, am not labeling people on anti-depressants as mad - I had to take them for a while myself.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, Loz! Keith Lemon is made up! Stop being a cockwomble!

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, Loz! Keith Lemon is made up! Stop being a cockwomble!

Heh. It makes me laugh, but it's like a seven year old's first attempt at swearing. Next week: the EDF progresses to "poohead".

Anyway, Lemon ain't half as good as that bloke that used to do Bo Selecta.

[*Bob*]

You'll find contradictory opinions on Kyle - damnation and otherwise - from all sorts of quarters - sometimes unexpected. There's no definitive voice. I seem to remember the same possible source who anonymously spiced-up Ronson's book has since written in the Guardian claiming the same - and was rebuffed squarely by the broadcaster. One word against another.

One thing's for sure: 2000 episodes in, no-one can be in any doubt what it is. No surprises.

It's a sack of shite, but people want to go on it; people want to watch it; and very often those groups overlap. They're not scraping people up off the street and thrusting them on stage. The show itself is its own recruiting officer. In this respect it's arguably more honest a product than the short-run 'higher quality' reality doc where no-one knows what'll end-up on screen - until they realise they've been stitched-up royally when it airs.

[Jeremy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Heh. It makes me laugh, but it's like a seven year old's first attempt at swearing.

Haha, I actually like the word... might use it myself in the future!

[El Pibe]

wot bob said.

plus it's about as reality as x factor. wannabe's, exhibitionists, liars doing whatever it takes. the producers, researchers and participants feed off each other's needs and nobody asks too many questions.

Definitely not new, didn't worhol say as much one or two years back?

[Jeremy]

I can't find it within myself to get worked up about Jeremy Kyle. If people really want to watch that garbage (or go on the show), they're probably beyond help anyway. Let them get on with it.

[DulwichFox]

Jeremy 'Vile' is a self righteous nasty piece of work.

Since his American series he now has his hair parted on the left in a vague attempt at looking suave...

He knows very little about anything. An ignorant arrogant excuse for a man.

'Irrational Rage thread' candidate .

He would never walk into a pub and talk to someone like the way he does on TV.

"Sit up straight, Shut up. I'm not even out off first gear yet"

My blood boils..

Dulwichfox

[miga]

.

[????]

Anyway - think the OP might have been talking about "Skint", "Benefits Street" and the like, which are much fairer and less of a freakshow than Jeremy Kyle and the like

THIS

[Parkdrive]

Strangley, I heard this qoute on, of all things, a TV programme and thought it appropriate for this thread

Celebrity. The pursuit of the talentless, by the mindless. It's become a disease of the twenty-first century. It pollutes our society, and it diminishes all who seek it, and all who worship it. And you must bear some of the responsibility for foisting this empty nonsense onto a gullible public.

[Blah Blah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course it is utter snobbery to quality control,

> in the sense of the Sun and Jeremy Kyle. Fine to

> stop them doing anything illegal, but to say to a

> section of society that likes reading/watch such

> stuff "I'm sorry, but people in the middle

> chattering classes just think this is not of

> sufficient quality for this likes of you" could

> only ever be seen as complete snobbery.

Hmm, but I didn't say this did I? I didn't say anyone should be denied access to any kind of programming. All I said is that it is mindless dross that adds nothing positive to life. I just don't accept that programme makers can't come up with better programming to appeal to that same audience. Is Jeremy Kyle the only way to engage some people? Is Benefits Street the only way to get noticed as a programme maker? That's what I trying to say really.

And I'm not of middle-chattering class either btw ;) There are plenty of working class people with brains that engage too! Assigning any view different to your own as a class issue seems to be a theme with you Loz :D