Archive: BBC Three

I recently read a webpage that talked about events from 1994. I was surprised at how much I remembered — I was only 8.

The BBC Editors blog asks, what do you remember from the news from when you were nine? Use Wikipedia to take a look. I’m using 20th March 199519th March 1996. Here’s what I remember:

  • Oklahoma bombing
  • French nuclear tests
  • O.J. Simpson trial
  • Brent Spar oil rig disposal debate
  • John Major resigning then unresigning
  • The huge success of (What’s The Story) Morning Glory?
  • US government offices closing
  • Rosemary West being found guilty
  • Deep Blue beating Garry Kasparov
  • Dunblane massacre

I am quite surprised by the number of major events that completely passed me by, others that I never learned about until years later (e.g. Nick Leeson), while there are other stories that I remember so vivdly. I’m amazed that some of these happened when I was nine. I thought I was about 14 when Rosemary West was found guilty.

I was definitely a bit of a news junkie by the time I was nine though. I always came home for lunch from school, and I always watched the news because it was the only interesting thing on.

This brings us on to the whole cause of this news nostalgia. Newsround is now aimed at a younger audience: 9 years old and under. Cue the inevitable accusations of dumbing down, despite the fact that Newsround has always been a “dumb” news programme because it’s aimed at children, which are mostly pretty stupid people.

But what is the use in a dumbed down news programme, whether it’s the ITV Lunchtime News or Newsround? I hated Newsround when I was a child; I never watched it. The reason is simple. When I wasn’t interested in the news I didn’t want to watch Newsround. When I became interested in the news, I wanted to watch the news, not some patronising children’s TV presenter giving me news-lite or some boring story about a panda taking a shit.

This is the same reason why the DCMS’s big idea of getting BBC Three to do yoof news (which I mentioned in my previous post) completely flopped. I actually quite liked BBC Three’s news programme because it was sometimes quite amusing, and it was generally quite a good programme. But I didn’t watch it because of the news it gave me. I liked BBC Three news for what it was, but I didn’t kid myself on that I was watching the news. Deep inside I knew that if I actually wanted to watch the news I would have been watching Channel 4 News or News 24.

This is such a simple idea, but broadcasters don’t seem to grasp it. If you want the news — whether you’re 9, 20 or 50 — you are going to watch the actual news, not the news pretending to be something else, or something else pretending to be the news, or some kind of pseudo-news aimed at a particular demographic.

Via Currybet.

five (that’s Channel Five to you and me) is set to take its first tentative steps into the world of multichannel with the launch of two new channels: five us (Five U.S.) and five life (not to be confused with Five Live). They’re both going to be launched on Freeview, which is good news, isn’t it? Nah.

I used to get quite excited whenever a new channel was added to Freeview’s lineup. But I’ve come to realise that most of the channels are utter crap. Also, most of the new channels have been squeezed in by reducing the picture quality. These days most Freeview channels just look like a load of pixelated, blocky shit — a step above YouTube.

Luckily, Channel Five has found the space for their new channels by buying part of Top Up TV and nicking all of their space. (Top Up TV is repositioning itself as a PVR service. The PVR will cost £180, then £9.99 per month. Any takers? No?) So at least Five’s new channels won’t look as though you’re watching them through a sieve.

But they sound as though they are going to be full of a load of insipid trash.

Five US features a mix of American drama, films, documentaries, sport and comedy…

Just like the original Channel Five then.

…while highlights from Five Life include the highly-acclaimed drama series Love My Way and the award-winning The Ellen Degeneres Show.

“Highlights” like some programme that nobody’s ever heard of, and a chat show hosted by somebody that everybody thought was left behind by the 1990s.

Let’s face it: these channels are going to be filled with programmes that aren’t even good enough to be shown on Channel Five. And is there anybody who thinks that Channel Five has enough material to fill even one channel?

People said the same when ITV launched ITV3, which the last time I looked was the third-biggest multichannel channel (behind Sky One and ITV2). That doesn’t make its content any good though. ITV3 is filled with twenty year old dramas that look as though they were filmed in an actual theatre, and probably should have stayed in the theatre aswell.

Meanwhile, ITV2 has become the home of uninspired spin-offs called things like The X-Factor X-treme DX Reloaded Uber Edition the Third On ITV2 (I think that’s also the name of Gilette’s new razor). Either that or it’s showing some wet Holywood chick flick or teen movie.

ITV4 is the worst of them all, especially when you consider that ITV essentially removed Men & Motors to make space for it. Like Men & Motors, ITV4 is meant to be aimed at blokes. But whereas Men & Motors had the well-known brand, fanbase and reasonable programming, ITV4 doesn’t.

Can anybody actually think of any progammes that ITV4 shows? The only one I can think of is David Letterman, which already had a perfectly good home on ITV2. Indeed, since they moved Letterman to ITV4 you would think that they would show it at a decent slot, but it still occupies the same irregular post-midnight slot. You could only hope of catching it if you came back late from the pub and happened to be flicking past ITV4.

ITV isn’t the only company polluting Freeview. Channel 4 has also done a disappointing job. E4 is okay, but it promises a lot more than it ever delivers. It should be showing more experimental British programmes. But most of the time it shows cheap American imports that are superficially good looking but are ultimately as appealing as stapling your bumcheeks together. The one thing going for the channel is E4 Music, which actually shows a decent variety of music. It certainly does a much better job than The Hits or TMF.

The jury is out on Film4. I have watched a few films that I wouldn’t have seen anywhere else, but the number of repeats already is worrying. I don’t think it’s quite delivering.

Then there is More4, another channel that seemed promising but you never seem to watch it. Again, does anybody know what this channel shows? There is The Daily Show, if you can remember to watch it. But is there anything else? Whenever I flick past it, it seems to be showing repeats of Noel Edmonds’ Imaginary Telephone Conversations.

The channel launched in a blaze of publicity with A Very Social Secretary, but has produced nothing notable since then. More4 is obviously hungry for more of that kind of publicity — it’s only gone and shot George Bush. Please.

Then there is the BBC. In fairness, the BBC’s digital channels have produced much more quality programmes than its commercial rivals have. But still something seems to be lacking. BBC Three in particular seems to have completely lost its way.

In fairness, a lot of BBC Three’s troubles seem to stem from the ridiculous rules and quotas that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport imposed on the channel. It famously told the BBC that BBC Three must show news in order to distinguish itself from commercial rivals, then later criticised the news programme because nobody watched it!

A couple of years ago, on the crest of the Little Britain wave, BBC Three seemed like a quite a good channel actually. Don’t forget that BBC Three was also the home of The Mighty Boosh and Monkey Dust, two fine programmes.

But since then it has produced reams of steaming poo like Tittybangbang (officially the world’s least funny comedy) and Grownups (a flimsy script coupled with dreadfully wooden acting, this makes Two Pints look like a bloody masterpiece). Even Rob Brydon seemed to be shat up with the misfiring Anually Retentive.

Since ditching the 7 O’Clock News, BBC Three seems to have filled its current affairs quota with documentaries by complete dullards wittering on about their tiny penii. And people think bloggers are self-indulgent! And let’s not forget those awful programmes about parenting. If I want to see lots of toddlers with potty mouths I’ll go to the supermarket.

The whole tone of the channel is unbearable aswell. Why are those continuity announcers trying to be my mate? It is contrived, unfunny and annoying.

BBC Four is pretty good at what it does. And let’s face it, most of BBC Three’s best programmes would probably fit easily on BBC Four. Vaguely decent comedy shows like Screen Wipe or Don’t Watch That Watch This do fine on BBC Four, so why not? Sometimes it feels as if the Beeb uses the word ‘youth’ as a proxy for ‘shit’. So they should do with that shit what everybody else does with it. BBC Three should probably just be thrown in the toilet, and the BBC could concentrate on just the one digital channel.

There are a couple of things annoying me about the Eurovision Song Contest at the moment.

The first is Finland’s entry, Lordi. They are absolutely diabolical. During the semi final on BBC Three, Paddy O’Connell said that they were a sort of protest vote against Eurovision. Yes, that’s right: because they have guitars all of a sudden it is “real” music. Dohh. In actual fact, Lordi must be one of the most unoriginal acts in the final — and that’s saying something. Slipknot and Bon Jovi should seriously consider suing. And the concept of a heavy rock band being in Eurovision isn’t even original either — Wig Wam did it last year for Norway!

A lot of the acts seem to be quite desperate to win the ESC this year. Many mention the fact that they are going to win in the song. But none has gone quite as far as the truly diabolical ‘We Are Winners’ by LT United, who are Lithuania’s entry. There are only six words in the entire song: “We are the winners / Of Eurovision”. That line is repeated over and over and over again. It is really nothing more than an elaborate football chant. What is even more astonishing is that it got past the semi final!

As usual with Eurovision, the issue of ‘political’ voting is all over the place. Norm is in favour of reintroducing the jury. But what phone voting not originally introduced as a plan to stop political voting? It obviously hasn’t worked. But the EBU could never remove the phone voting now — they must make too much money out of it.

I’ve never found the theory about political voting all that convincing. Surely cultural issues are more at play. If it was all down to political voting, the same country would end up winning the ESC year after year, but that doesn’t happen. Well, it used to, but it happened in Ireland. And guess who always gives Ireland a high score?…

Update: If you must know, I voted for Latvia’s amazing a capella effort and for Ukraine — for the third year in a row! My friend voted for Lordi, more than one apparently. I ended up rooting for them in the end. Crazy, huh?!

Did you see that programme about the Eurovision Song Contest last night? Quite funny I thought.

It’s interesting to see how the competition has evolved. In the 1950s it was more like an experiment than anything else. “Look at us, we can broadcast all round Europe!” Back then the acts mostly seemed to be singers sitting on a stool in a tuxedo. Terry Wogan didn’t start taking the piss until the 70s or 80s.

And here we sit today in 2006, not exactly sure what the Eurovision Song Contest is for any more, apart from a massive irony-diarrhoea-fest and Terry Wogan’s snide remarks. Although there is a lingering suspicion that some nations, particularly in the East, still take the ESC quite seriously (although we shouldn’t blame them given the huge publicity opportunity their country gets as a result), it is clear that British people at least don’t take it seriously.

You only need to look at the song that the British public chose as our entry to see that, yes indeed, we are thoroughly taking the piss (are we a nation of paedophiles or what?). I think you can lay this at the door of Terry Wogan. It is sad, but when Terry Wogan retires we will find out that he is the only true reason for the ESC in the 21st century, and nobody will watch it at all.

Still, I know I’m going to be watching it this year, and I’ll probably watch the semi-final on BBC Three with Paddy O’Connell as well, if I can remember to catch it.

I am shocked to discover, though, that this year the scoring procedure has been completely ruined. Firstly, Britain’s Ambassador to Eurovision is somebody who surely doesn’t deserve any more television exposure, Fearne Cotton. Secondly, the announcers will only announce their country’s top three songs, and 4th–10th will just appear on the screen! Ridiculous!

No doubt this is supposed to be about shortening the scoring procedure, but don’t they realise that the immense length of the scoring procedure is one of the ESC’s plus-points? I don’t know how the viewers are supposed to digest the seven other scores in that short space of time. Pah.

The BBC unveiled it’s big new marketing campaign, apparently their first one since Perfect Day (whoa, that’s about ten years, huh?).

It’s a nice idea. I like the fact that they’re quite understated. Such a nice contrast to those unbearable Freeview adverts.

But have you noticed something? John Simpson ‘liberated’ Kabul five years ago (complete with ancient beige BBC News set). ‘The Office’ was first broadcast five years ago.

And I’m not really sure how much credit the BBC can really claim for Ricky Gervais. They say that he never acted or wrote a sitcom before, but he was hardly a comedy newcomer when The Office hit the screens. Remember Meet Ricky Gervais? The 11 O’Clock Show? I’d even say he was acting on those programmes, because he was kind of playing an ego-centric, sometimes bigoted, quasi-David Brent on those programmes. And let’s face it, if Ricky Gervais was a genuine newcomer they’d have shoved him on some graveyard slot on BBC Three.

I reckon Channel 4 has a far better claim to being an innovative broadcaster promoting new talent. Then again, the BBC would never in a million years of months of Sundays screen one episode of The Friday Night Project, never mind three whole series. So I salute the BBC!