Hannah Swithinbank

#save6Music – My letter to the BBC.

Dear BBC Trust,

I would like to add my voice to the many protesting against the BBC’s planned cuts, in particular the cutting of 6Music, and to echo the many tributes and plaudits that this service has received over the past few days.    To quote Jon Ronson, “The station is everything the BBC should be about: nurturing intelligent talent (both musical and presenting). Whilst some parts of the BBC (like BBC 3) seem at times nothing more than copies of certain independent channels, there is nothing out there like 6Music. It is a unique and very BBC station. Brilliant sharp, funny presenters like Adam and Joe, Lauren Laverne, The Queens of Noise, Phil Jupitus, Sean Keaveny, etc, have been entertaining loyal, grateful fans like me for years. These are intelligent people who aren’t afraid to be passionate about good, not particularly populist music. 6Music is the Radio 4 of music channels.”

I have long been a defender of the licence fee, as I feel that the BBC provides journalistic and entertainment services that the commercial sector cannot provide.   I fully agree with Mark Thompson’s statement in the Guardian today, that the BBC’s remit is ,”To inform, educate and entertain audiences with programmes and services of high quality, originality and value. It strives to fulfil this mission not to further any political or commercial interest, but because the British public believe that universal access to ideas and cultural experiences of merit and ambition is a good in itself.”  BBC 6Music, I believe, epitomises the BBC’s potential to succeed in fulfilling this remit.  The way that its wonderful presenters are allowed to employ their own judgement and share their tastes has enabled them to make brilliant use of the BBC’s unparalleled archives as well as  to discover and support a wide variety of new music.

Through the licence fee BBC has an incredible ability and a responsibility  to provide a service to the whole population and not just to the majority.   I sincerely hope that it will not betray the public’s trust in its willingness to fulfil this promise and that it will continue to support exciting and innovative media services such as 6Music.

Sincerely,

Hannah Swithinbank

Failure to Engage

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson’s latest blog post is interesting. Turns out even politicians and party members don’t show up to listen to a roll of speeches at conventions. Colour me surprised. Even at academic conventions the best part of panels is often the Q & A session.

But here’s the problem – if even the above mentioned hacks aren’t engaged with the main substance of these conferences, why the hell would anyone else be? If, even when you join a party you’re not getting to discuss or debate the issues, because the leadership are too scared of being seen to be uncertain or disorganised, what is the point of joining at all?

If decisions are made by those who show up, and the number of people showing up is getting ever smaller, what happens to the quality of decision-making?

The BBC and other media cover all the conferences, so you get some sense of the broader debate between the parties, and in parliament, thank heavens, they all still yell at each other a lot. But how do the parties come to their decisions? Well, right now it seems like two or three guys in a room with a lot of polling data. Which is a pretty crappy way to decide anything, even with the wonders of modern statistical analysis and polling. Plus, what about the things they don’t poll on? John Zaller once asked, “If the public had an opinion and there was no pollster around to measure it, would public opinion exist?”(1) It might not as an entity, but it would as individual opinions; but would these actually ever get reflected in policy-making? Almost certainly not. And is that really representative democracy?

Dear Politicians,

Do you remember that line in exam questions? It used to feature notably in maths and science. SHOW YOUR WORKINGS. When the media and the public are interested in debate and dissent, it isn’t (just) because all they want is scandal and gossip. It’s because that’s the most interesting bit – the bit that shows HOW and WHY you got to the policies you did. To take the exam analagy to the edge of sanity, it enables those of us marking you to decide whether we want to give you points for your workings, even if we’re not totally convinced the end result is right. Maybe if we get to ask you some more questions about it, you could fix that. If you know, you had workings that you could build on. The workings, the debate and, yes, even the dissent are the bits that make the answer – your policy. If you miss them out, you’re over-confident, and we don’t know we can trust you. So bring ‘em back. K?

Me x

(1) John Zaller (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge) p.265

oh scotland scotland scotland

Last time I whined about the BBC’s rugby coverage on this blog I got a comment from someone at the BBC. Seriously.

So I’m going to try again.

Dear BBC Scotland,
Surely, in this day of digital interactive television it is not necessary for you to change the schedules to show the Scotland rugby match on BBC One, whilst everywhere else in the country shows Ireland vs Argentina, that usually thumping and engaging fixture which, on this occasion, has actual meaning for the world cup seedings. You see, the Scotland match is on BBCi, so people can watch it if they choose to watch it.
If you must put the Scotland match on BBC One, could you possibly see your way to putting the other fixture on BBCi in Scotland. No one can possibly watch a Scotland rugby match on two channels at the SAME TIME.

Kthx bai.

I will continue to ignore the fact that England are getting thumped by South Africa. Again.

the better things in life

I was just listening to last week’s Start the Week, from the Cheltenham Literary Festival. We shall leave aside that nice Robert Fox, who, according to google, writes for the Guardian, and his thoughts about Herodotus and Thucydides being “dashed good reporters”, and the eyewitness nature of Pericles Funeral Oration, because it leads to irateness where there need be none. For the programme featured Simon Schama, the celebrity historian most dear to my heart because he does his own research, writes a dream and does incredibly good analysis-through-narrative, and because his book on the French Revolution is A-Mazing, talking to Andrew Marr, BBC reporter/presenter who would have all my devotion even if I hadn’t seen the clips of him doing the Timewarp in pink fishnet tights and leather shorts for Children in Need, about American history and politics. My brain went to its happy place of nerdiness.

we're better than yo-ou…

The frustration of many over the inability of the US debates monitors to actually guide and focus the debates has been fairly clear for the last month.

Last night, the BBC’s American editor got a leeeetle over excited:
“2117: Yippee! Schieffer actually interrupted Obama to point out that he had to answer the question – not sure he did answer it but it was a brave effort. He did it again with McCain. He’s already earned his 1000000000 billion dollar salary.”
He’s been yearning to unleash Paxman or Humphrys on the candidates for weeks…

Maybe if the BBC insists on cutting the wages of some of its journalists, the likes of Paxman, Humphrys and Marr could start an interviewing school for other nations who lack the benefit of their skillz.

Let's change the subject

Let’s not talk about Sarah Palin, or rant about my work, or about the fact that the money that was supposed to cover my council tax the year I stop being a student is locked in Icesave as it collapses. Let’s instead talk about the BBC miniseries, State of Play, and the fact that it’s being re-made as a movie, and let’s weep a little inside.

I have finally (only six years late) got around to getting hold of and watching State of Play, and spent the last two evenings glued to it (It’s only six hour-long episodes, so that’s not too epic a time investment). I know why I didn’t see it before – it aired in the part of my life where I didn’t have a television. I don’t quite know why I’ve not picked it up before now – given that about half a hundred people have told me how wonderful it is, and that it stars Bill Nighy, David Morrissey and John Simm – oh and James McAvoy, back before he was the new Big Thing. Nor am I quite sure why the world needs a movie of it, when the original is so damn fine.

The TV series: BBC produced, Paul Abbott written, British newsroom – House of Commons based conspiracy series about the unravelling of the story after a young black kid is shot in London and the researcher for a prominent government MP is pushed under a train, on the same day. David Morrissey is the MP, John Simm the senior reporter, Bill Nighy the editor of the paper. It unravels beautifully, hour by hour, it’s tense, it’s disturbing, it’s sad, it’s freaking funny, particularly when Bill Nighy, who is a truly great actor, is playing the editor being a really bad actor playing innocent to get his way. It just works on all its levels.

The film. Well, it’s being directed by Kevin MacDonald (Touching the Void, Last King of Scotland), who I like. Russell Crowe is playing the journalist. Ben Affleck is the Congressman (‘cos, oh yes, it’s being set in the States, because Britain doesn’t have a political system worth caring about, or a journalistic tradition either). Bill Nighy is being replaced by Helen Mirren; Kelly McDonald by Rachael McAdams (Rachael McAdams, a reporter, dare me not to laugh, go on). All fine – except, y’know, I love Helen Mirren, but they didn’t want to get Bill Nighy? Really? Everything is made better by the presence of Bill Nighy.

I’m sure the film will be just fine. Except for Affleck, who I’m deeply unsure about, and who I think is deeply inferior to David Morrissey in pretty much every way as an actor. I’m sure everyone will act their little socks off. I’m sure it would have been better with Ed Norton as the journalist and Brad Pitt as the Congressman, but what the heck. With it’s pedigree – the director, the cast, the fact that the original story is so darn good (though how they’re going to compress it to 2 – 2 1/2 hours, I don’t know) – it might even be really good, and probably Oscar bait. It might even be illuminating about the American political system. Who knows.

But I’m just not sure why we need it at all? Why is a movie better than a TV series? I’d put money on State of Play becoming ‘that TV series the movie was based on’ – as has happened with Traffik/Traffic. It’s a better show than that – it deserves better, and the cast and writer deserves better. I’m probably just cranky because I’m having a cranky day, and I’m sure that people invovled in the original will make money off selling the rights, and good for them. Why oh why oh why does the world feel the need to remake things that were already great in their own right – and yes, I’m looking at you Martin Scorsese, for making The Departed, that thoroughly inferior remake of Infernal Affairs; and you Cameron Crowe for turning Abre los Ojos from a great Spanish film in which Penelope Cruz could act to a wacked out schmaltzathon in which she proved that she cannot act in English. And now you, Kevin MacDonald – you should know better after you Munich proved to be a crappy fictional film about an event you made a fabulous documentary (One Day in September) about.

Just tell everyone to watch the original, ok. It’s worth it.