After spending the whole week learning about Channel 4 and its somewhat unique position within British broadcasting, I’ve come to the conclusion that, from what I’ve seen, the channel has essentially abandoned its mandate. I’m not faulting the network for this; its public service remit is simply unsustainable for a channel supported by advertisements.
Now, if we had simply watched the episodes of Peep Show and Black Mirror, I might be able to concede that Channel 4 is still looking to innovate, educate, and create a more edgy, experimental brand. However, the episode of Big Fat Gypsy Wedding as well as the typical week’s schedule that Professor Becker showed us seems to indicate otherwise. When a channel like TLC is showing me “Toddlers and Tiaras” or “Strange Sex Stories” I don’t buy it if they say they’re trying to educate me or show me what a diverse country I live in. No, they’re trying to be sensationalistic to get more viewers and higher ad rates. So just because Channel 4 is twisting the stated purpose of these programs doesn’t mean they’re not trying to do the same thing TLC is doing. I remember my Mom talking about Gypsy Wedding earlier in the year, and I had no idea it was a British import. The fact that I couldn’t tell a TLC program from a Channel 4 program seems to indicate that it isn’t pushing the limits in ways Channel 4 wants to.
That kind of turned into a rant, but even the other shows on the schedule all seemed pretty derivative of each other. Even if the “fly on the wall” documentary shows were edgy or educational at one point, having them fill up half of the channel’s schedule kind of causes them to lose their remit-fulfilling luster. Even Peep Show, which may have been a perfect example of what Channel 4 should be doing, is in its 7th series, and is already commissioned for two more. Frankly, to do what Channel 4 should be doing, it always has to be innovating instead of remaining stagnant. Unfortunately, when you’re supported by commercials, becoming stagnant, relying on inertia and giving the people what they want is often the most financially sound choice.
Luckily, there’s still hope. I thought Black Mirror was a perfect example of what Channel 4 should be doing. First of all, it was only three episodes, so there wasn’t a chance of stagnation. In addition, the show really did have an edge to it that set it apart from the various BBC dramas that we’ve seen so far. It definitely stuck with me far more than most of the other shows we’ve watched, to the point where I was annoying my housemates by talking to them about it hours after I had gotten home from the screening. Even if Channel 4 can’t be edgy and innovative all the time, hopefully it will continue to commission shows like Black Mirror that really do exhibit the distinctive character the channel wants to portray.
I think it’s really good that you bring up T(he) L(earning) C(hannel) when discussing Channel 4. It would appear that both channels have similar missions. Channel 4 is supposed to expand your horizons by being edgy and TLC should teach you something. However, as you pointed out, their similar, sometimes shared reality programming does very little of that as it is. TLC has a lot of medical reality shows about babies and ERs, but I flip right on past those because they’re on constantly and boring as hell and only gives us the MOST exciting parts of life in the ER. I would likely do the same thing for medical docs on Channel 4 (although I’ve seen less of those, so maybe it’s more indicative of life in a hospital). However, much to the dismay of everyone who shares a TV with me (ie, Maija), I will stop and watch something stupid like Say Yes to the Dress or Toddlers and Tiaras when I’m bored (ie, about as far from wanting to learn something as possible). BFGW would probably fit into the same category, whether I was watching Channel 4 in the UK or TLC in the states. Shows like that are going to attract viewers, but they don’t really teach very much and they probably won’t keep people around for A&E or other documentaries with serious focuses.
I do agree with you to a point regarding your analysis of Channel 4 and its inclusion of BFGW. Although I do agree that the show is very sensationalistic and exploitative, I do not believe that you can simply write it off as fulfilling none of Channel 4’s goals. From what we have learned in class and read in the textbook, it seems that Channel 4’s remit and promise is to be “innovative” and “cutting edge” above all else. Although educating the masses is part of this, I do not think it is nearly as paramount to the channel’s identity as it is to the BBC. That is why I think a show like BFGW can be argued as fulfilling part of Channel 4’s mandate. It might not be educational like you point out, but I do not think that is nearly as important for Channel 4 as the show’s overall edginess.
On a side note, I completely agree with you on the point that Black Mirror is a quintessential show of what Channel 4 is and should be. Although BFGW may be a stretch, Black Mirror definitely is using its innovative and edgy nature to make viewers think about some tough concepts.
Pat, I’m sorry to hear that your housemates were a little annoyed with your talk of Black Mirror hours after the screening. However, I think it was warranted on your part to be talking about it for such an extended period of time. While the show was almost overly dramatic with its plot in this particular episode, it was engaging and indicative of what each of us (posting here) seems to think Channel 4 should be all about. While the show wasn’t educational, it was something different and edgy that was also not simply trying to appeal merely to sensationalistic techniques. BFGW is a show clearly focused on the shock and awe appeal to try and bring viewers in. Black Mirror has these elements, but also successfully has intellectual appeal with a compelling storyline that it sure to keep audiences engaged and asking “what happens next?”
On the other hand, I didn’t find anything particularly extraordinary about Peep Show outside of the POV shots. I’m not surprised that a spinoff of the show hasn’t succeeded in the US because frankly the humor and style seemed too distinctly British and not unique enough to appeal to American audiences. I enjoyed the show but agree with you Pat that I didn’t feel it was fully representative of Channel 4, at least in terms of the mandate. Nevertheless, I think Channel 4 being a commercial station has to appeal to market interest and overall they seem to do a descent job of trying to mix shows like BFGW and Black Mirror. As long as they’re commercial and not funded like the BBC, Channel 4 will have to feature shows like BFGW in order to maintain a constant revenue stream.
I want to add that I think BFGW *could* do what Channel 4 claims it wants to do–be innovative and expose you to something worthwhile you don’t usually see. The question is, is BFGW really worthwhile? Sure, it’s something you don’t see everyday, but so is Jersey Shore and Toddlers in Tiaras, and those are certainly the bottom of the TV barrel. If BFGW would go deeper, ask real questions of this other culture and make the show more of a dialogue, I think it could fall under the Channel 4 aims. By dialogue, I mean while exploring the gypsy culture, also explore what they think of ours, etc.