Since the majority of posts are focusing on the trashiness or the shear discomfort from the Channel 4 shows we watched, I’ve decided to play the role of devil’s advocate. I’ll begin with the old adage “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Channel 4 was not created to be the best of the best in British programming, but as an alternative to BBC and ITV. But what exactly is Channel 4 trying to offer in the form of public service? In 2003, Channel 4 stated about itself that “The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming” and listed four criteria which its programming follows:
- Demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programs
- Appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society
- Makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programs of an educational nature and other programs of educative value
- Exhibits a distinctive character
Based on these four criteria, is Channel 4 doing what it claimed it would do when it came to the three shows we watched? All three shows were certainly innovative, creative, and experimental. In addition, Channel 4 absolutely has its own, distinctive character. From the first person views in Peep Show to the uncomfortable feeling that spread across viewers in Black Mirror as everyone realized that the Prime Minister was going to have to have sex with the pig, it was certainly thinking outside of the box (I’ll talk about Gypsy Weddings later on).
Channel 4 tries to appeal to the fringe groups of society. Not all programming is for everyone. While their target demographic is the 16-34 age group, not everyone who is part of that age group is going to like everything that is offered on Channel 4. By trying to appeal to a diverse society, there is a good chance that viewers can watch Channel 4 “buffet style” and just pick and choose what interests them.
But where does the educational value come in? I think that the education from Channel 4 comes from its ability to make people think and talk. Programing that simply reaffirms the beliefs of its audience doesn’t do much in terms of education. A different, and often controversial, opinion can open up communication. The message of Black Mirror wasn’t that the Prime Minister does everything to protect his country, it was more that today’s digital world is a powerful tool that can have repercussions far beyond an innocent tweet or comment on youtube. The education comes from people being made uncomfortable by what they see and talking about what they saw with others.
The most difficult example to try and stick up for is Gypsy Weddings. While I do feel like the Gypsy culture was exploited for the sake of entertainment, I do believe that it does open up the eyes of the world to the lifestyle that this minority group participates in. While the focus of the show is on the over-the-top-ness of the wedding, the viewers are also subtlety educated about what its like to be a Gypsy in contemporary times. The most poignant moments are the moments where the Gypsies interacted with other people in society and the reactions of the other people. While this was hardly the focus of the show, it just reinforces the absurdity of their actions. While its not the same kind of education that one would receive watching a documentary on Gypsy life, it certainly is one way of getting people to watch a show and open up discussion about the Gypsy lifestyle. The delivery system is far from perfect, but Channel 4 does serve some public service beyond just getting people to watch trashy TV.
I think there’s something to be said for BFGW. You were right in that it’s sensationalistic and educational at times. I think that if it wasn’t sensational, no one would watch it. People at my high school got married at 16 and 17 to people they barely knew in gaudy-as-hell weddings (because, honestly, when you’re 17, you don’t know what ‘classy’ means), but would anyone watch that on TV? Absolutely not. There’s really nothing extraordinary about those people, nothing that sets them apart like the Gypsy traditions do for those featured in BFGW. While that uniqueness automatically lends itself to being exploited, it still makes the show innovative because it opens up a world that is utterly fascinating to people who might just pass it by without the sensationalism. I mean, I learned something from the show. I was horrified half the time, but by golly, I learned something.
Love the devil’s advocate take on Channel 4’s programming. Coming from a personal fan of “trash TV” I liked the arguments you made for the shows we watched in class and how they reflect the criteria of Channel 4’s intended schedule. I was thoroughly entertained by this screening, and even gleaned some subtle life lessons from each show.