This heading is designed to preempt queries about its relevance to this site. I put it to you that dumbing down and bias are closely related, maybe siblings.
The BBC’s dumbing down and repetitive programme ideas have become sinister. They constantly parade low standards and questionable ideals before our square and hypno’d eyes. This creates unrealistic expectations yet somehow stifles aspirations.
Take this programme about entrepreneurship called High Street Dreams. Tired old formula, seen it millions of times before. Mentoring members of the public and bringing an *idea* to the *marketplace.*
The ideas weren’t ideas at all. There was nothing there. What we were shown wouldn’t have reached a pre-audition for Dragon’s Den. The episode I watched was about toys and children.
Children rarely like toys. They like the idea of toys, but the expectation is always far better than the actuality. But never mind. For me the values the programme espoused only went to show where we’ve gone wrong. Marketing, presentation, all with one goal. The triumph of trickery over content.
Mentor Jo Malone uttered the word ‘product’ so many times that it lost its meaning. That always happens when you repeat a word over and over. Product product product product product. Product. See? Now what does it mean.
“It will change your life,” they intone, as they do on every other programme.
“What does failure mean to you?” they ask everyone on TV. “I’d be devastated” comes the predictable reply.
Please, please. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Byford, when can we have some original programmes?
The BBC is a national tragedy.
Trashy TV programmes and moronic pop music radio are an unfortunate part of life but there is no good reason why the government should ensure that extra vast quantities of them are available in addition to commercial sector provision. When numerous studies of children’s TV say it is harmful, the BBC runs two dedicated children’s TV channels. The BBC is the major broadcasting promoter of the biggest gambling concern in the country.
The government’s funding of the BBC is as irresponsible as government funded burgers, betting shops, booze, cigarettes and pornography would be.
The ‘liberal’ bias in the BBC’s dreadful, dumbed down news provision is nothing compared to the cultural vandalism of the rest of the corporation.
A great, intuitive post Sue. The bbeboids crappy, patronising, shoddy output is connected to the whole monoliths appalling attempt to control our perceptions of issues its constant pushing of its discredited or laughable political shibbolths.
Just an aside. I found on Utube a clip of “voyage to the planets” an okish beeboid “drama doc” made a few years ago. I found the clip I was looking for, of a landing on Venus. ok..a bit more lumbering than I recalled. After our happy public sector astronauts blasted off from that evident hellhole, a sonerous want- to- punch- you- now type bbeboid “expert” voice informed me that “Venus is a warning as to what will happen to earth…” drone drone..global warming..greenhouse gases..drone drone.. I laughed like a Venusian drain.
Ok, shibboleths then.
Thanks for the kind comment. Much appreciated.
sue
As it happens, a son-in-law of mine was one of the experts in that programme.
He thought the whole thing was very shallow. But his firm got some airtime, so that’s OK. I thought it was all unbelievably pointless – another youghurt/smoothie idea, and a stupidly overpriced toy idea. And it took a whole damn hour.
John,
D’you remember that programme called ‘pay off your mortgage in two years’?
Well, someone in my family was approached to be in it, as the ‘expert’ in the one featuring the lesbian couple. One was an aspiring artist, the other was – all sorts of things. We were supposed to advise the artist one on how to be an artist.
I can just tell you that it didn’t work out. The presenter was substituted at a late stage, and the new one was all puffed up with his own importance, and he whipped everybody up into a frenzy of chaotic disorganisation. In the end, half the filming they’d done was edited out, including our bit, thank goodness. What a waste of time.
By the time two years had elapsed, no doubt to the relief of the programme makers, the whole thing was forgotten, so they never needed to be called to account.
I’m certain nobody they featured succeeded in paying off their mortgage in two years, not by their ill-thought out methods at any rate.
I think both the participants and the viewers lost interest. As far as I could tell the whole thing just petered out.
I hope your son-in-law gets some good business at least.
Meanwhile real countries like Germany, China, Japan and others march merrily on to world leadership in the making and creating of serious businesses.
I think the 100,000 pound plus salaried BBC clones really believe they are the 21st century equivalent of the Victorian wealth creators.
They seem to forget they live off tax money.
I just hope something will be done to the BBC to make it change and improve quality. It is involved in far too many things and should be made to move back to its core areas and greatly reduce the ammount we have to pay.
“What does failure mean to you?” they ask everyone on TV. “I’d be devastated” comes the predictable reply.
That’s the thing about real entrepreneurs. They aren’t devastated by failure: they move on and try again.
But what would the BBC know about entrepreneurs. All it knows about business comes from socialists, corporatists, statists and crony capitalists.
Oh and a leather boy, prince albert wearing tosser called Evan Davis
I applied for this, on the basis of ‘any publicity..’
Looks like I may have dodged a bullet.
After Dragon’s Den and The Apprentice (and the other clone with Theo Paphitis gadding about), it was perhaps naive to hope that there was a sincere interest in actually finding innovation and supporting it.
But no, they only seek Colloseum TV where the main aim is to capture a car crash brekadown.
That the public broadcaster is complicit in these gross misrepresentations of sensible business and genuine talent and achievement, pushing X Factor-style hype over substance, and in the cynical name of ‘encouraging’ entrepreneurship, is risible.
Several of the small companies I have worked with have been on Dragons Den. None of them wanted the money but they all wanted the publicity and were advised to apply to go on the program by small business advisors. Two of them appeared in the first couple of series of the show and had a positive experience but another two appeared in the last series and didn’t enjoy it at all. Both were pulled to bits by Peter Jones one thought he had held his own in the argument but when the show was transmitted found his responses had been cut out and replaced by pictures of him looking confused and hesitant. The other one nearly ended up in a fight with Peter Jones on set but that ended up on the cutting room floor.
Incidentally has anyone seen the “Adventure Capitalists” series by Theo Paphitis ? It didn’t seem bad to start with but is hopelessly dumbed down. Amazingly it is co-produced with the Open University presumably as teaching material !
All the shows mentioned seem positively Milton Friedman copmpared to what has to be the stupidest thing on TV which involves people going to work naked.
We are in hell. Official.
If it’s any consolation, they’re having a harder time flogging this crap in the US on BBC America. The usual BBC fare (and C4 and ITV trash) is doing so poorly for them that the 8pm weeknight prime time slot is now filled with 20 year-old Star Trek episodes. And they no longer even bother to repeat at 10pm Matt Frei’s BBC World Propaganda America because they’ve filled that slot with Top Gear, Peep Show repeats and Gordon Ramsey drivel.
Check out the weeknight prime time schedule and despair.
I like the new Doctor, though.
And LOST ended this morning. Unfortunately a muddled completion to one of the best TV shows ever.
Of course the BBC is full of shit – but somehow they’re trying to justify their existence by making popular programmes rather than good ones. Typically though, what they think will be popular falls flat on its arse. Then more money goes on making new ideas, hiring new production teams, sets, “talent” etc.
If we can’t abolish the BBC let’s have a maximum of two TV channels, two radio stations and a website. Remit: to produce very high quality programming that simply wouldn’t get made if it weren’t for state assistance.
On the other hand I’d like to see Biased BBC extend its own remit and focus on how crap the BBC is as well as how leftist it is.
These programmes certainly exploit people. They’re probably inveigled into doing them because of some hope or dream that they’ve projected onto the possible outcome.
But let’s face it, the filmmakers consume participants as fodder. Sometimes, if it suits the production team, they’re manipulated to look good, but more often, they’re there to be humiliated. As long as the Dragons, Sir Alan, Alvin Hall, or the mentor of the month come out on top.
The viewers are the ones who are really hoodwinked, if they actually think something ridiculous and implausible is real.
When it’s really camp, as in the Apprentice, it is undeniably entertaining. They’ve obviously selected the candidates with the highest irritant quotient, so the viewer can be amazed by their incompetence and appalled by their lack of self awareness. I wonder if the victims have to sign a silencing contract to stop them making a fuss about the way they’ve been portrayed.
Per the experience of DD participants as outlined by 1327, I have to wonder, and ask, if post editing to so drastically change what actually transpired – in a ‘reality’ show – is even legal?
I know it is great training for the average BBC-tainted ‘broadcast professional’ before they go on to ensure that ‘news’ actually fits the narrative, but this kind of thing is nothing short of dishonest.
Is it only the Queen who can call foul and get a result?
From what I was told the DD participants sign a legal disclaimer that pretty much allows the Beeb to do anything. They are usually from very small companies so don’t have a legal advisor and are desperate for publicity.
One of the participants in the earlier series told me another little trick used. The participants are kept waiting for a couple of days during the day in a waiting area away from the main studio. They don’t know when they are going to be called in to do their bit that could be in 2 minutes or 2 days. All this time they are given endless cups of coffee and a few sandwiches. The guy I spoke to could see what was happening and didn’t touch the coffee. But some of the others didn’t and drank endless cups of the stuff as a result they fell to bits in the interview and made themselves look fools. Great car crash TV I suppose but not really what a quality broadcaster should do.
On DD, surely they deliberately select candidates with ludicrous ideas or personal vulnerabilities so they can humiliate them for our entertainment.
When the Dragons are shown tapping their fingers and giving each other exaggerated looks of incredulity, or slowly shaking their heads and rolling their eyes at the trembling person who’s having a meltdown, it doesn’t exactly endear the viewer to either the Dragons or the contestant.
Do they want the audience share the Dragons’ exasperation at the fools and the dopey ideas they’ve got to put up with? Do they want the viewer to look at the Dragons with awe and wonder?
Because some of the daft ideas they actually did invest in – I remember a hideous chair that hung from the ceiling on a rope – I ask you, how much faith can you have in their judgement?
Remember the Dragon with the red hair with the flimsy business called ‘red letter day’ that went bust? They never mention her.
I know it’s entertainment, but it’s at the level of commercial telly, nothing to do with business or entrepreneurship which it pretends to be.
I think they should camp it up more, and make it out-and-out comedy. They should let Evan wear his gay outfits. It might work then.