BBC Blog Network

User Profile

DavidHendy

Listed below are comments made by DavidHendy between Thursday, 29th May 2008 and Thursday, 30th October 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Haul 'em up 11:26am on 30 Oct 2008 Much of the debate over Ross's and Brand's transgression has historic resonance.

The call for stricter 'rules' and 'codes' has, at various points in the past, been seen as a second-best solution. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the BBC hoped that an instilled ethos might be sufficient to guide what, in the days of Hugh Greene and Charles Curran, might have been called 'the programme-maker's conscience'. When language offences occured, there was much internal (and external) anxiety about whether (a) staff turnover and Corporation expansion had been so great that a lack of continuity of experience in editorial guidance had arisen, with young and relatively inexperienced producers and managers promoted too quickly, and (b) that BBC staff had forgotten their own history. As always, language-and-taste anxieties are powerful lightning rods for latent worries about where the BBC is going, its loss of purpose, perceived arrogance, etc.

There are other interesting parallels with the past:

1. The difference between something uttered live and something pre-recorded or pre-scripted. Here, though, there have been two positions. The Managing Director of Radio in the late-1970s, Aubrey Singer, famously told staff in a memo that he didn't mind "these words" coming out in the heat of the moment, but he would "not have people sitting down and typing them out!" On the other hand, many dramatists and producers - especially those gathered in a huge set-piece symposium on bad language held in Broadcasting House in 1988 - pointed out that it was when 'strong language' was carefully planned and considered, and intended to be used with power and purpose, that it had its greatest claim to be allowed on air. It would be difficult to argue that Brand and Ross were doing this, of course.

2. The audience reaction to outbreaks of strong language was always (a) conditioned more by subsequent newspaper coverage than by the original transmission, and (b) very conditioned by age - with older listeners expressing very different levels of distress to younger listeners.

3. The issue almost always occurs where there is a tension between the need to serve largely older audiences and the desire to secure the attention or respect of younger ones. In 1975, Stop the Week on Radio 4 reviewed an autobiography that recounted a young girl's rape. The conversation then widened to discuss virginity, penis envy and other related matters. In the ensuing outcry, the Head of Current Affairs Magazine Programmes said that the idea had been to bring a Punch magazie style of witty conversation to Radio 4, and "if programmes were structured in such a way as to not raise the eyebrows of the most conservative listener we should quickly cease to be of service to the younger listeners..."

While it is difficult to defend Ross and Brand, and while the episode also no doubt reveals an inadequate grasp in some layers of the Corporation of what ought to be the 'instilled ethos', or what public service really means, one unfortunate outcome is the unconfined joy of those (the rightwing newspapers especially) who would dearly love to cut short the BBC's efforts to attract younger listeners or reach a mass audience - and who will then turn round and accuse the BBC of 'losing touch' with the younger generation.

For those interested, I've written more about bad language on the radio in an article for Twentieth Century British History - downloadable as a PDF at:
http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/hwi065v1

David.

David Hendy,
University of Westminster.
Wednesday 29th October 2008 10:24am on 30 Oct 2008 Much of the debate over Ross's and Brand's transgression has historic resonance.

The call for stricter 'rules' and 'codes' has, at various points in the past, been seen as a second-best solution. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the BBC hoped that an "instilled ethos" might be sufficient to guide what, in the days of Hugh Greene and Charles Curran, might have been called "the programme-maker's conscience". When language offences occured, there was much internal (and external) anxiety about whether (a) staff turnover and Corporation expansion had been so great that a lack of continuity of experience in editorial guidance had arisen, with young and relatively inexperienced producers and managers promoted too quickly, so that the "instilled ethos" had been lost, and (b) that BBC staff had forgotten their own history. As always, language-and-taste anxieties are powerful lightning rods for latent worries about where the BBC is going, its loss of purpose, perceived arrogance, etc.

There are other interesting parallels with the past:

1. The difference between something uttered live and something pre-recorded or pre-scripted. Here, though, there have been two positions. The Managing Director of Radio in the late-1970s, Aubrey Singer, famously told staff in a memo that he didn't mind "these words" coming out in the heat of the moment, but he would "not have people sitting down and typing them out!" On the other hand, many dramatists and producers - especially those gathered in a huge set-piece symposium on bad language held in Broadcasting House in 1988 - pointed out that it was when 'strong language' was carefully planned and considered, and intended to be used with power and purpose, that it had its greatest claim to be allowed on air. It would be difficult to argue that Brand and Ross had this particular defence, of course.

2. The audience reaction to outbreaks of strong language was always (a) conditioned more by subsequent newspaper coverage than by the original transmission, and (b) very conditioned by age - with older listeners expressing very different levels of distress to younger listeners.

3. The issue almost always occurs where there is a tension between the need to serve largely older audiences and the desire to secure the attention or respect of younger ones. In 1975, Stop the Week on Radio 4 reviewed an autobiography that recounted a young girl's rape. The conversation then widened to discuss virginity, penis envy and other related matters. In the ensuing outcry, the Head of Current Affairs Magazine Programmes said that the idea had been to bring a Punch magazie style of witty conversation to Radio 4, and "if programmes were structured in such a way as to not raise the eyebrows of the most conservative listener we should quickly cease to be of service to the younger listeners..."

While it is difficult to defend Ross and Brand, and while the episode also no doubt reveals an inadequate grasp in some layers of the Corporation of what ought to be the 'instilled ethos', or what public service really means, one unfortunate outcome is the unconfined joy of those (the rightwing newspapers especially) who would dearly love to cut short the BBC's efforts to attract younger listeners or reach a mass audience - and who will then turn round and accuse the BBC of 'losing touch' with the younger generation.

For those interested, I've written more about bad language on the radio in an article for Twentieth Century British History - downloadable as a PDF at:

http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/hwi065v1

David.

David Hendy,
University of Westminster.
1968: "The Doors" mistaken for political extremists 1:31pm on 29 May 2008 During the research for my book, 'Life on Air: a History of Radio Four', I was told by a reliable BBC source that the BBC made detailed plans in 1968 to get their main central London newsroom moved to Birmingham in the event of insurrection in the capital. The BBC, it appears, was itself caught up in the atmosphere of the moment - or at least the Corporation ensured it was prepared for any eventuality.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

DavidHendy