Does Life Begin at 40?
Tuesday
10 February 2004
Printable version
Speech given to the
Royal Television Society at Bafta, Piccadilly, London
听
I
want to start off with a bit of an announcement. I am pleased to formally
tell you that this will be the first public statement for some time
from the 麻豆社 that does not include the word "sorry".
It's good
to be here to mark 麻豆社 TWO's 40th birthday.
40 is always
a good age to take stock.
And I guess,
given recent events, I've been feeling especially reflective.
Now some
of the dust has started to settle on the Hutton Report, one big thing
stands out for me:
Just how
much passion the 麻豆社 inspires.
Love it
or hate it, the 麻豆社 really matters.
It's not
just another broadcaster.
And that's
what makes our lives at the 麻豆社 so interesting sometimes.
Greg was
someone who really understood this, which is part of the reason the
麻豆社 staff were so passionate about him.
It was
an extraordinary moment two weeks ago, seeing people lining the corridors
to applaud him.
And Greg
with his face all covered with lipstick. Almost enough to make you re-classify
Richard Curtis as a realist writer.
It's also
great to see to see even LWT millionaires have naff horoscope mugs.
The 麻豆社
has been through a tough time.
But contrary
to what some people would have you believe, the 麻豆社 is not in meltdown
or mourning.
We're stronger
than that.
We've lessons
to learn and there are changes to make, but we've regained our balance
and are moving forward.
The night
of Greg's resignation we had a party for prizewinners: writers, directors,
actors, presenters. There was a mood of shock, and everyone's first
sentence was about Greg.
However,
everyone's second sentence to me and the genre commissioners was, "Now,
you remember that project of mine you were interested in 聟"
Life does
go on聟
So I don't
intend to go against billing and talk about Hutton.
I want to look forward as well as back.
And, in
particular, to tell you about my hopes and ambitions for 麻豆社 TWO as
part of a strong, creative, independent 麻豆社.
Throughout
much of its history, there have been those who've argued for a narrow
麻豆社 - a 麻豆社 which is staid, safe and predictable.
Charter
review will no doubt see such views surfacing again.
We've never
seen ourselves that like.
Right from
the beginning, we've always sought to be a broad -caster in every sense
of the word聟.
Bringing,
as Reith put it, "the best of everything to the greatest number
of homes."
And 麻豆社
TWO is an important part of that vision.
It is a
channel that really means something special to people.
It's got
a creative community who gives their very, very best.
It's got
passionate viewers, who really love and cherish the channel.
Change
something which they don't agree with and there's no holding them back.
And I really
love them for it.
And that's
coming from a woman who inherited the decision to ditch One Man and
His Dog a few weeks into the job.
It was
an interesting 麻豆社 moment to hear rumours of a march of shepherds plus
dogs on TV centre.
But although
there's been lots of change - and will be more - the thing that stands
out is how much of the original DNA still runs through the channel's
veins.
There's
Horizon, still going strong, 40 years old itself this autumn.
Newsnight,
created in 1980, was itself the successor to the Newsroom, the first
news programme in colour.
Watch
out for Newsnight's 90 minute peak time special with Jeremy Paxman on
the origins of the war in Iraq, coming next month.
And, we
might be counting chickens, but I think our
trilogy next week can hold it's head up alongside really classic pieces
of historical drama.
It's this
continuity of spirit that has helped keep 麻豆社 TWO strong.
But where
did that spirit spring from?
Delve back
into the pre-natal phase of 麻豆社 TWO and you find an intense debate about
what the 麻豆社's second channel could and should be.
This was
the early Sixties: a thrilling time socially, creatively and technologically.
It was the era of protest movements, great British pop music and space
exploration.
And in
television there was a huge technological opportunity: the possibility
of much higher quality tv sets.
And incredibly
exciting, colour was in the wings, too.
But there
were worries as well.
The Government
was concerned about American technology dominating colour tv - They
wanted the British industry to compete.
It was
a moment of technological possibility.
Underpinned
by a Government which believed it had a lot to gain from the population
upgrading their tv sets. Sound familiar?
A second
麻豆社 channel was the answer.
So what
should this new channel be?
There were
two distinct, and vastly conflicting, schools of thought - one argued
for a quiet, almost "embalmed" channel and the other for a
big, bold investment.
A strong
backbench Labour lobby called for essentially a further education channel.
This was
popular with ITV operators, who could see it would be less competitive.
Some also hoped it might get them out of what one called their "more
unwelcome responsibilities".
This was
a pivotal moment.
Should
the newest addition to television be a driven by a narrow, restrictive
view of public service?
Or was
now the time to see just what the 麻豆社 could do?
Hugh Carleton
Greene, a visionary Director-General from another era, didn't want a
quiet, careful channel of limited budget and ambition.
His vision
for 麻豆社 TWO was daring.
It included
entertainment, drama and regional programmes, as well as educational
material "in the widest sense of the word" as he put it.
I, and
I suspect every channel controller that has both preceded me - and will
follow me - are glad he won the day.
For now,
the course was set to do something with vigour, range and energy.
At first
critics jeered at its low audience figures - I'm sure Roly and Stuart
can empathize.
But under
second controller, David Attenborough, the young 麻豆社 TWO started to
flourish.
New sports
programme like Match of the Day - yes it started on TWO - and snooker
- helping to show off the joys of colour - built audiences.
Popular
comedy, such as The Likely Lads, built affection.
And the
big documentaries like The Great War started to win awards.
People
began to really love the channel.
We can
all thank David for a vision for 麻豆社 TWO which is a potent today as
it was then.
As David
put it, this was a channel for "all levels of brow".
"麻豆社
TWO," he said "is not a minority service but a service which
appeals to the majority of viewers, though not all at the same time."
And he
was right.
Ever since
then 麻豆社 TWO has appealed to constellations of different viewers, collected
around different passions, from satire to gardening, science to sport.
And it's
also always been public service at its very core, popular and bold.
All this
seems a far cry from the arguments some people are making about public
service television now.
Read between
the lines and they want a 麻豆社 that is -
timid,
small and underfunded;
shrunk
in ambition and lacking in impact;
appealing
to those already in the know.
Funnily
enough, not unlike the service those MPs and ITV honchoes argued for
back in the Sixties.
That's
the one you can find in most of the rest of the world - where it exists
at all.
A polite,
almost embalmed public service.
Make no
mistake - these ideas of PSB leave little room for a channel like 麻豆社
TWO...
With boldness
and ambition at its very core.
- Series
like History of Britain and Seven Wonders of the Industrial World: expensive,
risky ideas;
- individual,
personal voices like Stephen Poliakoff and Adam Curtis;
- all
alongside comedy like The Office.
Yes, I
do believe The Office is public service programming.
I'm biased,
but I think that 麻豆社 TWO has the best record of new comedy of any channel
in Britain.
Over and
over again in the past 40 years it's captured the zeitgeist.
It did
it with Not Only But Also under Attenborough in the Sixties;
Not the
Nine O'Clock News in the Seventies under Brian Wenham;
Alan Yentob
nurtured Ab Fab in the Eighties;
Michael
Jackson gave us Alan Partridge;
And in
the Nineties it was The Royle Family for Mark Thompson.
Since then
I've been lucky enough to get Marion and Geoff, the Kumars at No 42
and The Office.
Of course,
these are the ones that work.
We forget
the rest.
All those
laugh out loud jokes which somehow get lost on the way to the screen.
Those tumbleweed
viewings where no-one cracks a single smile at the rough cut. And then
everyone remembers they have to be somewhere else.
Current
figures suggest that four out of five new comedies struggle.
As a broadcasting
culture we're pretty forgiving of experimentation in documentaries and
arts programmes.
But there's
few second chances for comedy.
Creating
breakthrough new comedy requires real bravery: people with individual
voices putting themselves on the line.
Legend
has it that Caroline Aherne hated the pilot for the Royle Family so
much she buried it in her garden.
Comedy
is expensive too.
The 麻豆社
spent 拢81 million on this riskiest of genres last year.
Hardly
surprising, then, that commercial channels aren't exactly queuing up
to have a go.
It's a
classic example of market failure.
But it
falls outside some definitions of public service.
This for
me is a real worry.
In attempting
to define Public Service Broadcasting, we risk creating a club into
which only some programmes are admitted.
We rejected
those narrow definitions back in the Sixties, at the beginning of 麻豆社
TWO, and we should reject them today.
The polite,
embalmed vision of public service would have no room for a new kind
of current affairs strand we are calling IF, either.
You'll
see it next month.
The challenge
- straight from Greg himself, I have to say - was to find a way of moving
beyond the daily news agenda.
We wanted
to look at the complex truths behind things like energy policy, health
and the ageing society.
Could we
ask the questions that will be front page in ten years time? Discuss
things that aren't yet on the audience's - or sometimes even Westminster's
- radar?
But how
to do it?
The obvious
way is a studio debate.
But, we
wanted more than that.
We hoped
to make a wide cross section of people engage with the issues.
And we
were determined that this programme would go out at 9.00pm, right in
the heart of the schedule.
IF does
have interviews with the world's leading policy makers and academics.
But these
sit alongside ambitious dramatisations of future scenarios, agreed as
credible by major players in each field.
We're hoping
to build on the innovation of drama documentaries like Smallpox, something
we were really proud of.
I hope
IF works. It's certainly not without risk.
But I'm
glad we rejected easier, less ambitious options in favour of something
which strives to really engage people.
We can
do this on 麻豆社 TWO thanks to the decision-makers back in the Sixties.
Because
of them we ended up with a channel that has real scale and is willing
to take the risks others will not.
It can
afford to have a big wish list of things it wants to accomplish.
Top of
the list right now for 麻豆社 Television, led by Jana Bennett, is a revolution
in cultural journalism.
Jana, Alan
Yentob, Roly Keating, Mark Harrison and I have all been talking to cultural
communities across the UK.
The message
that has been coming back is to carry on doing inventive arts landmarks,
like the upcoming series on Mozart or - my personal favourite - the
Eroica drama documentary.
And they
want more projects like Restoration and Big Read: television which reaches
out and aims to make things happen in the world.
But they
told us there was also great opportunity to bring journalism to the
world of culture.
We listened.
And Jana found the 拢6 million worth of new money it needed...
And so,
from later this year, on 麻豆社 TWO you'll see an hour long weekly programme,
with the working title The Culture Show.
It'll be
on for the majority of the year, covering everything from the Elgin
marbles to Hollywood's summer crisis of creativity.
We're still
discussing the schedule, but we're thinking early evening during the
week with a late night repeat. Newsnight Review stays on Fridays.
The programme
will be made throughout the UK. When we say Britain, this time, it really
isn't code for Shepherds Bush...
In some
ways this is going back to my first love. When we started Wall to Wall,
the company I helped to run for 10 years, it was in order to make Channel
4's The Media Show.
This time,
however I'll be working with Roly Keating: back then, as editor of 麻豆社
TWO's The Late Show, he was my biggest competitor.
Now, TWO
and FOUR are companion channels, working together.
We'll both
benefit from the new arts journalism unit being set up to make
a new raft of programmes, The Culture Show amongst them: watch out for
an advertisement for an editor in the next few weeks.
Back in
the Sixties, 麻豆社 TWO was born out of editorial ambition married to technological
creativity: in today's world it would be mad to just think of television
on its own without new media.
So we will
have links into a big new online site that 麻豆社i is creating alongside
the new unit.
It's a
huge investment from the 麻豆社.
麻豆社 TWO's
programme, never mind the whole unit, is our biggest new cultural programme
for 10 years.
I know
exactly what I want it to be: something challenging, that will open
doors that people didn't know were there.
I also
hope it will spark debate and make a few headlines, and have style,
wit and pace.
When I
commission a programme, I'm trying to serve the audience and support
creative risk-taking from programme makers.
The programme
team and I will know if the finished result matches up to our aspirations.
But I have
to realistic.
Reviewers
will have their views.
And the
industry will look at the overnights, as will the producers, even if
I tell them not to.
By mid-morning
the next day they'll be up there on the Guardian website.
They might
even find their way into that nifty little box in the broadsheet. It's
usually a few pages away from the editorial complaining we're all share
obsessed...
Share is
a fact of life.
People
talked about figures back in 1964, when 麻豆社 TWO was born, and people
will continue to talk about them.
Measurement
is here to stay, whether I like it or not. But share is a dull and leaden
instrument, just showing whether you are there, not whether you care.
But as
an industry could we be more sophisticated about it?
Could it
help us get closer to understanding what people really feel about the
programmes we make? What moves, excites, provokes, disturbs them?
Last summer
on 麻豆社 TWO we showed a late night programme about astronomy, working
with the Open University.
Not that
many people watched it, no-one reviewed it - it was the middle of the
night - but those who did see it were really passionate about it.
It got
the highest AI score of the week.
The AI,
the audience appreciation index, tells us the extent to which people
value the programmes they watch. Not just that they are in the room.
I once
worked on a programme for Channel 4 where we put camera inside people's
tv to see what they actually did in front of them. Some of them were
gripped - but others played the saxophone, vacuum cleaned the floor
or had sex on the sofa.
The AIs
measure how much people care, but they are far from perfect.
It takes
over two weeks to get the data: no way to compete with the quick fix
of the overnights.
And right
now even their funding is under threat.
So I've
a suggestion to make.
At a time
when understanding our audience's attitude to programmes should be more
important than ever, I think it's time to try to create a new kind of
measure.
Think of
it as a more intelligent son or daughter to the AIs, which will help
us get closer to our audiences, and tell us quickly what really has
impact for them - what they think, feel and care about.
Is this
a tool we should all work with Ofcom on to develop?
Something
which could challenge the dominance of the overnights throughout our
industry.
Of course, no measurement tool is ever going to replace judgement and
creativity, and nor should it.
As commissioners,
we have a responsibility to surprise audiences with the new and the
unexpected.
And to
support and encourage what I believe are amongst the most creative programme
makers in the world.
This is
the heart of what 麻豆社 TWO does.
We're committed
to range and ambition.
Backing
producers with ideas to develop, and new things to say, whatever genre
they work in.
麻豆社 TWO
is a channel with a big role to play in the future of the 麻豆社 and of
tv in this country.
Because
we're putting bold, impactful public service right into the heart of
television, holding onto scale and ambition.
If the
40-year history of 麻豆社 TWO has taught us anything, it's that we should
reject narrow notions of Public Service Broadcasting.
We should
choose broad over niche.
Bold over
meek.
Alive over
embalmed.
Back in
the early Sixties, television in this country stood at the dawn of one
of its most creative and successful periods.
麻豆社 TWO
was a child of that era, fuelled by a desire to discover just what tv
was capable of.
Forty years
on, we're firmly into another era - this time a digital one.
Just think
what the pioneers of 麻豆社 TWO would have done with online and interactive.
I believe we've only just started.
Our challenge,
on behalf of viewers and this industry, is to match their vision and
ambition. To keep the vital continuity with the past going: but to look
to the future as well.
To do this
we need 麻豆社 TWO to be part of a strong, well funded 麻豆社.
Only then
will we be able to really push the boundaries of what is possible.
Given its
head today - just as it was back in the Sixties - 麻豆社 TWO can lead the
way.
It can
make the impossible possible.
That's
the kind of 麻豆社 TWO I believe in.
Brave,
bold and not afraid to have fun.
They say
life begins at 40 - well let me tell you, the best is yet to come.
Thank you.
