Channel 4: The Early Years and the Jeremy Isaacs Legacy

CHANNEL 4

For Florence, Poppy and Rupert

CHANNEL 4 The Early Years and the Jeremy Isaacs Legacy Dorothy Hobson

Published in 2008 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www.ibtauris.com In the United States of America and Canada distributed by Palgrave Macmillan a division of St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 Copyright © 2008 Dorothy Hobson The right of Dorothy Hobson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by the author in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978 1 84511 613 2 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: available Printed and bound in the Czech Republic by FINIDR s.r.o. From camera-ready copy edited and supplied by the author

Contents Acknowledgements

vi

Preface

vii

Chapter 1

The Birth of the Channel

1

Chapter 2

Television’s New Baby – The First Three Months are the Worst

23

Chapter 3

The Players – Inside the Channel 1. Commissioning Editors

53

Chapter 4

The Players – Inside the Channel 2. Managing Creativity

77

Chapter 5

The Players – Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies: Whose Baby?

93

Chapter 6

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

103

Chapter 7

Channel 4 and Its Audience

133

Chapter 8

1987 – A Year of Change

161

Chapter 9

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

189

Bibliography

209

Index

210

vi

CHANNEL 4

Acknowledgements I am indebted to many people who provided me with the opportunity to conduct the research for this book and those who gave so generously of their time and trust in letting me watch them, interview them and join them while they pursued many aspects of their work. They have all had to wait 25 years to see what I made of their activities and I hope that they enjoy the story. Researching this book was a unique experience and one which has stayed with me in all its detail and excitement. My greatest thanks go to Sir Jeremy Isaacs who let me watch the growth of his channel and shared with me his thoughts and opinions and some of the highs and lows of the years when Channel 4 was in its infancy. Sue Stoessl commissioned me to conduct the research and again was supportive throughout the project. I owe thanks to everyone who is part of this book, whether named or anonymous but in particular some individuals gave me a lot of their time. Lord Richard Attenborough, Mike Bolland, Charles Denton, Justin Dukes, Liz Forgan, Michael Grade, Paul Jackson, Frank McGettigan, Stewart Purvis, Phil Redmond, David Scott, Mike Scott, and Deirdre Barker (who transcribed hundreds of hours of interviews), and members of the audience in whatever guise I met them. Thanks also to my editor Philippa Brewster. My colleague Dennis Foy has turned my manuscript into this book and for this my thanks are immeasurable. My love and thanks to Gordon, Mike and Nina for their support and encouragement. Dorothy Hobson

Preface In 1982 British television had only three terrestrial channels; BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. At 4.40 on Tuesday afternoon of 2nd November, 1982, the test card faded from the fourth channel on British television screens and the long awaited 4th channel began its transmissions. Charged by Parliament to appeal to ‘tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV’, ‘to be innovative and experimental in content and form’, and ‘to disseminate education and educational programmes’ – the channel had to attract new audiences and give an opportunity for new voices to be heard. This book tells the story of the early years of Channel 4 Television and considers how it fulfilled its brief. What were its aims and what were its problems? What adversities did it meet and how did it acquire its reputation? How did it win its audience? From the early days when the channel and its Chief Executive, Jeremy Isaacs were castigated by the press, through the changes and developments both internally and in its early programmes, this book traces the history of the channel as it grew to be a major force within British television. The period which this book covers is the time when Jeremy Isaacs was Chief Exe c u t ive of Channel 4. The underlying thesis is that the contribution made by Jeremy Isaacs was paramount in its development. In the same way that Lord Reith was responsible for the tone, content and ambience of the establishment of the BBC, so Isaacs’ contribution to creating and enabling the ethos of Channel 4 was inspirational, ubiquitous and fundamental. Isaacs was not a lone worker at Channel 4 and the book explores the contribution of the executives and commissioning editors and other staff who contributed to making the channel and creating a new system of creative management. It also outlines the way that the channel impacted on other aspects of broadcasting. The reactions of other broadcasters and executives and the role of the press in its early development are all explored in this book. The beginning of any enterprise or endeavour is a very important time for those involved in the project but also for those who will benefit from, or use the service or be involved in many other ways. The beginning of a national television service is important because national television quickly becomes an institution and a part of our common culture and experience. It develops an identity of its own through its programmes and reputation.

viii

CHANNEL 4

But a television company is much more than its programmes. It is the sum of its executives and staff, its programme makers, its programmes and its audience. Television both reflects and influences the lives of its viewers but it is influenced by the historical times in which it operates. Channel 4 stood at the a pivotal place in the development of British television history and set in motion many of the institutional changes which became part of the television landscape in future years. Much of the first draft of this book was written when the re s e a rch was conducted 20 ye a rs ago and it retains the authenticity of the first hand writing. However, it will assess the importance of the lega cy which was set down by the fo u n d e rs of the channel and discuss the channel’s position as it ap p ro a ches its 25th annive rs a ry. What has become of the early a s p i rations of the channel? How have its programmes developed? What has happened to the fl e d gling independent pro d u c e rswho came into being when the channel began? What has happened to the early elusive Channel 4 audience and how does the audience now equate with the aims of the channel. M u ch of wh at happened in the early ye a rs seemed revolutionary at the time and now is a mere memory. E q u a l ly, much of wh at was set down at that time is now an integral part of the ecology of broadcasting. This book brings together the first ye a rs of a television service and assesses the importance it had in shaping its own development; not a c o nventional history nor a conventional biography of Channel 4 Television; rather a narrat ive based on a series of perceptions. It is an e clectic tex t . A mixture of interv i ews and observations, re c o rds of i m p o rtant meetings and perceptions of the channel and its output all fo rm part of the history of the channel. Vi ews and comments from within the channel, from those who made programmes for the channel, from the b roadcasting institutions, from audiences; together with my own views and opinions about the development of Channel 4; all combine to fo rm the narrat ive of this work. All history is necessarily selective and dependent to a large extent on the importance given to events by the historian and indeed the choices of wh at has been important. Th e re are, of course, events and occurrences wh i ch are indisputable but the interp re t ation of those events and their significance are subject to diffe rent perspectives. In this book I have selected and reported events wh i ch I and others have perc e ived as important, significant or interesting in the story of Channel 4. Th e narrat ive brings together diffe rent methodologies to paint a picture of a c re at ive institution and the wo rk which was involved in its establishment.

Preface

ix

Research and the Researcher The research for this book was conducted during the first six years of Channel 4’s existence. As a research experience I learned as much about the process of doing research and its consequences as I learned about the channel. When I began the project I was in a different relationship with the channel and those connected with it than I was when the research was completed. I was asked to offer a proposal for a research project on ‘Perceptions of the Channel’. The work was commissioned by Sue Stoessl who was responsible for marketing, press and research. Initially the work was to be for 3 years, but it extended for 6 years as the channel established itself. I began the project immediately after the book which I had written about the soap opera Crossroads which was published in the summer before Channel 4 began transmission. Crossroads: The Drama of a Soap Opera had attracted a lot of media interest and publicity both in the press and on radio and television so that in a sense they treated me as someone whom they were pleased to be doing a research project about them. I was not an unknown quantity and many of them knew my work at the Centre for Contemporary Studies and when I met them I stressed the statements which I had made at the beginning of the Crossroads book in relation to maintaining confidentiality and protecting my sources when they told me things which may be potentially damaging to them. This is something which was stressed to everyone to whom I have spoken and is a principle to which I hold because I believe that when you are asking people to be entirely frank and open with you and to allow you to watch them at work and in their own interactions with other people, then you have a duty to assure them that you will protect them from areas of revelation which they may not have wished you to witness. If they do not feel that you can be trusted, then the amount of information you will get from them or the amount of freedom which they allow you in terms of access will be limited. One of the most important points which has to be remembered in research of this kind is that the researcher is in a very powerful position in terms of the amount of information which you have and with which you have been trusted and that you have the potential to repeat information which you have been told in confidence. It is a very high tightrope along which you progress in order to reveal in such a way as you protect as well. This is essential to maintain the integrity of the researcher. The range of people whom I interviewed and obser ved and the

x

CHANNEL 4

research methodology were varied. At Channel 4 I sat in on meetings, interviewed executives, commissioning editors, departmental staff and other staff within the channel. I attended press and other publicity functions and attended intern ational sales markets with sales and acquisitions departments. Sometimes I was just around the channel observing what was happening. The methods used were a combination of observation and participant observation, taped interviews and talking. However, the methodology was different from conventional social science research, it was not a research project with the usual attempts at objective research. I was expected to comment on the programmes and to report back to the channel about the audience reactions to the programmes. However, all the interviews with participants not within the channel were completely confidential. Two groups of people who had to be particularly trusting of my keeping their confidentiality were the ITV executives and the Independent Producers, all of whom had commercial relationships with the channel, which could have been harmed if their views went back to the channel. They were always protected. Spending six years in a research project it was inevitable that closer relationships were built between some of those who were part of the research. When you enter a research situation, you need somewhere where you can go to escape and remain unnoticed. Also you need to be trusted so that people will inform you of important events which might happen while you are not there and to develop these relationships is an important part of the re s e a rch process. This happened and again informal information fed into the final version of this research and the resulting book, and I am grateful to those who supported me in this project. Overall, the ethics of the research situation were never more fully highlighted than in this project and I have deliberately protected my sources while attempting to publish their thoughts. Methods and Problems This project has a long history. While I began by intending to look at the channel for the first three years of its life, the project extended to six years. This meant that I collected an inordinate amount of research material which provided a massive administrative problem. The more research you do, the more data you collect, and the more data you have to analyse. Tapes or interviews, notes of meetings, paperwork, press cuttings, research notes, programme notes all were accumulated and all waited to be

Preface

xi

incorporated into the final research project and book. However as the channel continued to progress it became difficult to stop pursuing the research and the ensuing material became even more voluminous. When it came to writing up the original findings there were a number of problems which had to be ove rc o m e. F i rs t ly, the question of readership. For whom was this book being written? Originally, the subject was one about which some people knew an awful lot and others knew nothing at all. Clearly the book needed to be written for those who knew nothing but I was always conscious that there would be those who would feel they knew more about the subject and might have different views than my perspective. Completing this book in 2006 and 2007 I was helped greatly to overcome the problem of readership by talking to my students in classes at the University of Wolverhampton. While they were very vocal about the current performance of the channel, they reminded me that most of them were not born until the period when this research finished. Those born in 1987 are now 20 years old. This fact concentrated my mind considerably and the question of readership became clear. Write as if no one knows anything about the subject of which I am writing. The story of Channel 4 is as much part of television history as the founding of the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1926. This book attempts to show how the many facets of the development of the channel as an institution, as an organisation, in its relationship with its suppliers, its audiences and how the individuals and groups involved affected and created the channel. The book is my interpretation and perspective of what happened during that period. The Channel and Its Legacy While the majority of this book is about the early ye a rs of Channel 4, the importance of the channel is assessed in re l ation to the theoretical d evelopment of television studies and the ecology of broadcasting. The early p romise of avant ga rde programmes and innovative scheduling was part of the original brief, but the current perfo rmance of the channel is also examined. As Channel 4 will reach its 25th anniversary on 2nd November 2007 it is fitting to write the story of the formation of the channel and assess its importance in the history of broadcasting in a period which saw a complete change in the provision and availability of services. I was given a unique opportunity to follow the first years of Channel 4 television and

xii

CHANNEL 4

to spent time in their meetings and interviewing those involved at all levels. The research material is unique and there is no record of this period in media history. The channel has become an integral and integrated part of the television industry and its story is important as is the story of those involved in its creation. The book could not have been written without the trust and support of those involved in the research process. The interpretation of the events and the selection of their words are my own and I hope that the book is an interesting account of the events and their involvement in the history of the channel.

The Birth of the Channel The day that Channel 4 goes on the air will be a good day, but not the best day. The best day will come after that, sometime years after that, when Channel 4 is seen to have made a distinctive contribution to the scope, tone and voice of British television. Jeremy Isaacs, Chief Executive Channel 4 Television

At 4.40 on Tuesday the 2nd November 1982 the test card faded from the fourth channel on British television screens. For one minute there was a black silence. Suddenly the screen was filled with the dazzling choreography of computerised blocks of yellow, green, blue, red and purple which formed themselves into the giant number 4 which was to become the familiar and much praised logo of Channel 4 Television. A musical fanfare of triumphant and joyful sound accompanied the visual 4 and the new television service began its long awaited transmission. During the preceding weeks there had been many trailers and announcements about the channel on ITV and in the national press, encouraging viewers to tune their sets to receive the new channel. Only 82% of the country at this time could receive the new service but in order to receive the channel they needed to have their sets adjusted. For Jeremy Isaacs, the first Chief Executive of Channel 4 and his team of executives, commissioning editors and administrative staff, it was the fruition of 18 months of intensive work to get the channel on the air. At the London headquarters of Channel 4, a converted cinema in Charlotte Street, in the midst of what came to be known as ‘Media Square Mile’, the staff was jubilant with their achievement that the channel was up and running with a full schedule. Also watching with varying degrees of interest were the ITV companies who were paying for the new service, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) who were responsible for Channel 4 both as a company and as their regulatory body, and, indeed the whole of the broadcasting industry who waited to see what was to appear on the new channel with its specific brief to be ‘different’. Others who watched with great interest were those who wanted a very different fourth channel and those independent or would-be independent producers who hoped to be able to make programmes for Channel 4. Also watching were those members of the press whose job it was to write about television and

2

CHANNEL 4

for them the arrival of Channel 4 heralded a forthcoming explosion of column inches in which they could anticipate, assess, criticise and in some cases, castigate the new television service and its creators. There were, then, many interested parties but perhaps the least interested yet the most important to the channel, were the television viewers who had to be attracted to this new channel and its prog rammes. They had to be e n c o u raged first to tune into the channel and then to wat ch its programmes. This proved to be a difficult task. In 1982 television channels in Britain were scarce. Until Channel 4 there were only 3 channels; BBC1 and ITV were the mass audience channels with BBC2 providing the only alternative and less popular programmes, although BBC2 did provide a nursery ground for many future popular programmes. ITV had long wanted a second channel in order to attract more viewers and provide programmes which they were unable to show on the main ITV channel. This would also enable them to attract different advertisers and increase their revenue from advertising. The for m which the fourth channel would take was a long time in gestation. For twenty years individuals and interested groups argued, cajoled, petitioned and debated the form of the new channel and its proposed parentage. All British television channels have been preceded by long periods of official deliberation; Royal Commissions debated the allocation of what had always been scarce resources. There was also concern to maintain the standards of public service broadcasting which had been established from the beginning of the BBC. The debate about the allocation of the future new channel operated within the traditions of public service broadcasting established by the BBC and continued within the ITV system. Underlying discussions through the 1970s about the fourth channel was a widespread concern to preserve the balance – the ecolog y of broadcasting, in which the BBC competed with ITV for viewers, ITV competed with the BBC for public esteem, but neither competed for finance. There were a number of options which were considered for the allocation of the new channel. The channel could have gone to the BBC but this was never seriously debated, since it would have given the Corporation three of the four channels and it was already subject to criticism for its size. The channel could have gone to the existing ITV operators as ITV2, allowing the ITV companies to retain their advertising monopoly, exploit their own in-house talent and resources, and schedule two channels complementarily as the BBC did with its two channels. This

The Birth of the Channel

3

would have preserved the ‘ecology’ but there were fears that relying on the existing companies would not be the best guarantee of fresh voices or programmes for audiences. A third option was that the channel should be commercial, but controlled by separate operators in competition to the existing ITV channels. The advantages to adve rtisers of h aving two ch a n n e l s competing for their advertising budgets was obvious, but there were fears that the resulting competition between two commercial operations would drive standards down and undermine ITV’s capacity to maintain its public service stance. Other options included devoting the channel to education (whether siphoned off or extending existing channels’ specific commitments, such as the Open University), or combining this with a mixture of programme material from different sources. Through the 1970s there were a number of pressures to widen the sources of programming in British television. There was a campaign for Access broadcasting, the philosophical case for more pluralism in ideas and attitudes on television and the more practical case for allowing independent producers a real opportunity to contribute to British television. British production was dominated by the BBC and the ITV companies who each had ample resources and in-house talent to meet their production needs. They wished to keep their own staff fully occupied, and this left virtually no scope for independent producers. One landmark argument in these calls for more open broadcasting was a paper advocating a National Television Foundation written in 1972 by Anthony Smith, (Lambert: 1982:46) who subsequently became a founder director of Channel 4. In 1977 the Annan Committee on Broadcasting recommended one solution which was an Open Broadcasting Authority to administer a mixture of education, which would be a sponsored channel and would also contain other programming. However, there were doubts about the financing of such a channel so that was not pursued. After the 1979 General Election, what emerged from the Home Office and the Independent Broadcasting Authority (1BA) was a compromise solution. The new channel was to be financially locked into the existing ITV system, thereby preserving the stable ecology of broadcasting but with a new force selecting and scheduling the programmes and drawing on new resources of independent talent for their creation. The IBA established a new company, the Channel Four Television Company Limited, as an autonomous subsidiary to run the new channel. The Board of Directors which they appointed included several managing

4

CHANNEL 4

directors of ITV companies, independent producers and programme producers from ITV as well as others with no direct experience of television. The board were to appoint the senior staff, including three executive directors. Still the question remained as to what form the new channel would take. After years of debate the question relating to the allocation of the fourth channel could be condensed into two basic positions. Open Access Broadcasting or ITV2? Sir Denis Forman, Chairman of Granada Television, a man of great intellectual stature and immense common sense, summarised for me what he saw as the two sides of the contest: One was the companies in Independent Television who hammered out a proposition which was to begin with unacceptable to more commercially minded companies, but eventually was endorsed with the whole industry, and it went like this:- That for a proportion of the time, roughly two thirds of the time, the channel would complement ITV as BBC2 complements BBC1. That is to say, if you have repeats, if you have golf running all day or cricket all day, it would run on the second channel and would come onto ITV for highlights, for the round up, for the finals. It was the most important feature of companies proposal that 30% of the time should be designated and given to a Production Board or a Foundation very much on the lines of the present Board of Channel 4, who would fill 30% by material made by independents coming from outside the system, not BBC, not ITV, not bought – thereby letting in a great deal of new endeavour, a new blood. It would be in peak time as well as in off-peak time. Now to the other end of the pole, the other polarisation, was a group of people, fair to say, I think, mainly on the Left, intellectual rather than political Left, who formed the concept of a publishing house, rather the way that Holland has operated its radio and television. Not as a model but as a principle – the same as the Dutch idea that any citizen has the right to broadcast. Within that time there would be no holds, there would be no Television Act; common law of obscenity and libel would apply but nothing else – no control – Open Broadcast Authority with a slightly watered version. A fairly clear concept that it was a free publishing house of the air.

Sir Denis Forman expresses clearly the two opposing and competing factions who wanted control of the new channel. Commercialism or community and culture – it must have seemed impossible at the time that

The Birth of the Channel

5

the chasm could ever be bridged, let alone forged into a unified strategy. Born out of the need to compromise but conceived in such a way that the merging of the seemingly disparate interests could result in a financially sound base from which creativity could flourish, the eventual decision of the allocation of the channel and the method of funding was a brilliant concept. The architect of the plan was William Whitelaw who was at that time the Conservative Home Secretary. William Whitelaw announced his plans for the fourth channel at the Royal Television Society Broadcasting Symposium held in Cambridge in September 1979. His speech here is given in its entirety because it does set out the government requirements for the channel which after the years of debate encapsulated the various constituencies and their wants.

The Fourth Channel What the Annan Committee had to say about the prospect which a fourth television channel could afford for innovation – to give new opportunities to creative people in British television, to find new ways of finding minority and specialist audience and to add different and greater satisfactions to those now available to the viewer – all of this has commanded a remarkably wide measure of agreement and support. I am convinced that not only would the creation of an Open Broadcasting Authority directly dependent on the government for funds, be potentially dangerous; it is also unnecessary to achieve what we want. The experience and ability of the IBA, if used to the full, the money, equipment and skills of ITV companies and the talents of the independent producers, can be harnessed to provide a different and worthwhile service on the fourth channel. The main source of funds for the fourth channel will be spot block advertising and sponsorship may be permitted… I know that many people in the advertising world would like to have another source from which they could purchase advertising time on television. Having looked at this with particular care, the conclusion I have reached is that competitive advertising on the two channels would inevitably result in a move towards single minded concentration on maximising the audience for programmes, with adverse consequences for both of the commercial channels and before long for the BBC as well. This is not a criticism of the television companies: I do not believe they could prevent it if they tried and still remain viable.

6

CHANNEL 4

Accountability to Parliament and Public This brings me to the matter of ‘strict safeguards’ referred to in the Queen’s Speech which have since been the subject of much speculation and enquiry. Our whole tradition has been to entrust a wide discretion to the broadcasting authorities. There are good reasons for this. Great detail in legislation may prove mis-conceived and actually hinder in the future the broad objectives sought. Yet, on the other hand, an injunction to do good, so general as to the platitudinous, would rightly not satisfy either parliament or the public, and could be a positive embarrassment to the Authority which is entitled to a reasonably clear indication of what it is that the law expects of it. Full and regular reports on how the fourth channel is operating, including financial matters, the types of programmes broadcast and the like, ought to be required to be given publicity. I start from the position that what we are looking for is a fourth channel offering a distinctive service of its own. I think that, at least initially, there should be a single national programme service without regional variations, except for Welsh language broadcasts in Wales. This is not, however, to rule out the possibility of regional variations as the channel develops. And if this new venture is to get off to a good start it must be receivable from the beginning by a substantial proportion of the population throughout the country. We cannot start the new service until that condition has been met and those in the difficult areas have a considerable safeguard in the siting of my own constituency. It would also not be right for the new service to begin in the United Kingdom before there is proper coverage in Wales, including Welsh speaking areas. Nevertheless, I hope that it may be possible to achieve a starting date in the autumn of 1982 but we shall have to wait and see. News, Education and the Welsh Language Then we would expect an additional channel to provide a news service and because this is very expensive nowadays this is clearly a job for ITN with its resources and its admirable record. And I am convinced that a fourth channel can provide an outlet for fresh approaches to news. I have often heard broadcasters talk about what they could do if there were more time and this would be an opportunity not simply for wider political coverage but for more extended treatment of news and current affairs which is excluded from television simply by the limited

The Birth of the Channel

7

time at present available. Next I think it would be right for room to be found for educational programmes of various kinds both structured, to use the current usage, and more informal, and the part which the Open University can play in this will need to be carefully considered. The g overnment intends that Welsh language broadcasting should be increased as quickly as possible. We are now convinced that the fastest, most efficient and most economical way of doing this is to concentrate on one of the IBA’s channels all the programmes produced by the ITV1 programme companies and independent producers which are made in the Welsh language and to concentrate on one of the BBC’s two channels the BBC’s Welsh language broadcasts. Fair Share for Independents Where will the fourth channel programmes come from? I believe that there will be three main sources – the network ITV companies, the regional ITV companies and independent producers – in addition to ITN and educational bodies. But the fourth channel should not be dominated by the network companies. The independent producers have a most important role to play and they will be able to supply worthwhile programmes for the channel. It is important that independent producers not only have new opportunities to see their programme broadcast, but that they receive a fair negotiated market price for what they are selling and that there is provision, where necessary, for seed money. The arrangements for the acquisition of p rogrammes fo r, and the scheduling of programmes on, the fourth channel will need to be separate from that for ITV1 and there must be assured and adequate finance for the p u rchase or commissioning of programmes for the channel from i n d ependent pro d u c e rs. The bu d get for the fo u rth channel will not necessarily be governed by the revenue earned from advertisements shown on that channel.

One month before the Home Secretary spoke at Cambridge, the MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Festival had been given by Jeremy Isaacs who was to become the first Chief Executive of Channel 4 Television. Many saw this lecture as his first job application for the post at the new channel and certain passages from the speech could be seen as the first indications of the philosophy which has developed the shape of Channel 4. Contained in that speech is the blueprint for the future of the

8

CHANNEL 4

new channel and the type of programmes which would be seen. The speech was actually about changing broadcasting in the 1980s and included in that speech are the areas which he thought should be important in the formation of the new channel. This speech can be taken in conjunction with the on-screen programming of the channel to show how the concept and inspiration of Channel 4 is primarily the creation of Jeremy Isaacs. His influence was all-embracing and total. The execution of his ideas has been the work of his colleagues within Channel 4 and the programme makers who have contributed programmes. It is the first indication that this was to become Jeremy Isaacs’ channel. Isaacs’ speech set out how the channel would be if he were appointed: What sort of channel do we want? We want a fourth channel which extends the choice available to viewers; which extends the range of ITV’s which caters for substantial minorities presently neglected; which builds in to its actuality programme a complete spectrum of political attitude and programming, with broad educational purposes; which encourages worthwhile independent production; which allows the larger regional ITV companies to show us what their programmemakers can do. We want a fourth channel that everyone will watch some of the time and no-one will watch all of the time. We want a fourth channel that will, somehow be different. Can all these objectives be realised on ITV-2? I would believe they can, though I would not be optimistic if the channel were to be run by the IBA’s proposed planning gro u p, or by the Companies Contro l l e rs ’ G ro u p enlarged. If the channel is to have a different flavour it needs a different chef, perhaps a new unit, on the analogy of ITN, funded by the companies, answerable to a board on which they and the IBA are represented, but at a little distance from both, such a unit to plan not just the independent sector’s contribution with the Controllers’ Group, the whole of ITV-2. That would be my first safeguard. Whatever method is adopted, ITV-2’s budget will be provided by a levy on the ITV companies, public money if you like, a tax on their surplus of income over expenditure on ITV-1. A tax they will pay as the price for their franchises, and the continued enjoyment of their monopoly of advertising revenue. The budget should go to commission programmes from the ITV companies themselves, who thus have an opportunity to earn some of it back, and from

The Birth of the Channel

9

independent producers. ITV-2 will be a national service. Advertising will be collected locally. The channel should aim at a variety of audiences and at a share of audience of just above 10%. Not much less than 10% because viewers should know it is there, and be encouraged to sample what it can offer. Nor much more, because if ITV as a whole aims at an audience share too far above the halfway mark, this has consequences for the BBC which all of us might regret. What other ‘safeguards’ will the IBA suggest to the Home Office it will undertake to impose? I suggest the following: First a maximum contribution from the ITV majors. The majors can supply a sizeable part of the schedule. Indeed they could be needed if others fail to supply that want. But a limit to their contribution is something that majors can easily agree to. Provided they are allowed to continue to collect advertising in their areas, the majors will accept what the IBA offers them. The fourth channel is for viewers, or independent producers, and for all of ITV, not just for the big five’s benefit. They will make money from it. They have to accept that the balance of ITV will shift, a little, away from them. Second. A minimum contribution from the middle five, the major regionals in ITV. They have never contributed to the network schedule as of right and duty. Now the middle five should have that opportunity and that obligation. Their contribution should be at least in proportion to their revenue. If it is set higher, then the Authority should see to it that they do not lose money, and end up subsidising the majors, by contributing a disproportionate share. Third. A new outlet for ITN, perhaps allowing them to bring into the evening the techniques of ‘News at One’, the only effective innovation in news presentation on either channel in recent years. Fourth. A clutch of programmes designed to hit some broadly educational target. The BBC, I hear , would wish ITV-2 to take on half the programmes the BBC currently makes for the Open University, financed by the DES. This suggestion is unworthy of the BBC, and should be rejected. The links forged at Alexandra Palace should not be broken just because production there is moving to Milton Keynes. But ITV will be obliged to make some effort in this broad field, the broader the better. I have long believed that much general programming, provided there is proper back up, is at least as genuinely instructive as formal education on television. Fifth. ITV-2 should provide access for a guaranteed number of hours each week for genuine independent producers. By ‘minimum’ I mean that the volume can be increased if the need is there, or if sufficient programmes of

10

CHANNEL 4

originality and merit are on offer. By ‘genuine’ I mean producers capable of conceiving and realising such programmes. Independent producers – and anyone who does not possess an ITV franchise can now call himself an independent producer – cannot have, either individually or jointly, any automatic right to air-time. Under any procedure I can envisage, someone will have to select from what they offer.

Isaacs’ lecture highlighted the way that he thought the fourth channel should be run. There were strong parallels with the Home Secretary’s speech – extending choice for viewers, catering for minorities, not competing with nor simply complementary to ITV – a fourth channel that would be ‘different’. A restriction of the amount of programming supplied by the major ITV companies and a contribution from other ITV companies within the netwo rk and vitally the opportunity for independents to supply programmes. The need to have the channel run by someone other than an IBA planning group or the Companies Controllers Group, were all part of the vision for the new channel. At this point Jeremy Isaacs can scarcely have known that he would be the ‘different’ chef who would run the new service. Certainly all the basic ingredients for the menu were contained in his MacTaggart lecture. But the job was not yet Isaacs’ and it was not for another year on the 7th August 1980 that he formally applied for the job. The MacTaggart Lecture and his letter of application contained the blueprint for what became the initial philosophy of the channel. However, before any appointment could be made a number of formalities and legalities had to be put in place. The IBA published a statement on November 12th 1979 ‘The Fourth Channel’. The Authority’s proposals stated that they intended that they would be distanced from the running of the channel and that they proposed to set up a separate company with its own board of non-executive directors, chosen by the IBA after consultation. The Broadcasting Bill which established the conditions for the Channel was published on the 6th February 1980 and it was in this Act that the legal framework for the new service was laid out. The Bill was finally given Royal Assent on the 13th November 1980. However, in June and July 1980 the IBA had appointed a panel of consultants who were to go on to be the Board of the channel when the Act was passed. The original choice for the Chairman was Sir Richard Attenborough, but since he was committed to filming he had to decline the invitation of Lady Bridget

The Birth of the Channel

11

Plowden but he did accept the post of Vice-Chairman. Edmund Dell, the former Trade Secretary with the Labour government and now a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was appointed as Chairman along with the first Board of the channel, which included four representatives of the ITV companies and, to balance this, a further grouping of members who could represent the channel’s interests in education, independent production and the broadcasting needs of Wales. The first Board of Channel 4 consisted of The Rt Hon Edmund Dell, Chairman, Sir Richard Attenborough, Deputy Chairman, Jeremy Isaacs, Chief Executive, Justin Dukes, Managing Director and Deputy Chief Executive, William Brown MBE, Roger Graef, David McCall, The Hon Mrs Sara Morrison, Antony Smith, Mrs. Ann Sofer, Dr. Glyn Tegai Hughes, Brian Tesler, Mrs. Joy Whitby. The first job of the panel of consultants was to advertise for the post of Chief Executive which they did in July and this was when Jeremy Isaacs along with others including John Birt, Controller of LWT and John Gau, a leading independent producer, applied for the position. Isaacs' letter of application for the job was brief and informative and again shows the blueprint for the type of channel which he envisaged, were he to be appointed. Dear Mr. Dell, I would like to be considered for the post of Chief Executive of the Fourth Channel. All my working life has been in television production and management, as a producer, as department head, as Director of Programmes (Thames TV 1974-78). For the last two years I have again been producing, as a freelance and independent. In my work I have tried always to widen the ra n ge of television programmes, and to make information and ideas accessible. To a modest degree, I have myself been an innovator, I have encouraged innovation in others. I have considerable experience in dealing with creativ e people and in managing technical and financial resources. As head of department and director of programmes, though not always as producer, I have kept within budgets allocated to me. In ITV, I was concerned to widen opportunities for the smaller companies. Since 1979, as Chairman of the British Film Institute Production Board, and as an independent myself, I have worked with independent producers and learned something of the problems they face.

12

CHANNEL 4

My priorities for the new channel are these: To encourage innovation across the whole range of programmes To find audiences for the channel and for all its programmes. To make programmes of special appeal to particular audiences To develop the channel’s educational potential to the full To provide platforms for the widest possible range of opinion in utterance, discussion and debate To maintain as flexible a schedule as practicable to enable a quick response to changing needs To make an opening on the channel for criticism of its own output To accord a high priority to the arts If funds allow, to make or help make films, of feature length, for television here, for the cinema abroad. I should welcome an opportunity to talk about how I think the channel might work. I can provide a full curriculum vitae if required: meantime I attach an extract from ‘Who’s Who’. I am away for August but I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Jeremy Isaacs

After an interview, Jeremy Isaacs was appointed as Chief Executive and in an unexpected appointment, Paul Bonner was made Channel Controller, a position which had not been advertised, nor indeed existed before the appointment. Apparently, he impressed the Board so much that they wanted him to be in a major position at the channel. Indeed, Edmund Dell wanted him to be appointed as Chief Executive. The channel was incorporated on 10th December 1980 as a private company limited by shares wholly-owned by the IBA. The first Board meeting was held on 17th December 1980 when the terms of reference were presented to it by the IBA. The company came into existence on the 1st January 1981 and Jeremy Isaacs took up his appointment. By the 5th January he had appointed three senior commissioning editors: Liz Forgan – Actuality, Naomi McIntosh – Education, and David Rose – Fiction. In February an appointment was made which was to be crucial in the future growth of the channel, when Justin Dukes was appointed as Managing Director and Deputy Chief-Executive. Over the next three months advertisements were placed for the Commissioning Editors and other staff positions at the channel, and gradually appointments were made. The skeleton on which the channel would be supported was in place. The next

The Birth of the Channel

13

job was to find a home for the channel and its staff. Channel 4 and the Broadcasting Act The starting point for both the creation and ultimate control of Channel 4 Television is the 1981 Broadcasting Act (Chapter 68) which sets out both the legal requirements and restrictions for the operation by the IBA of both ITV and the new Channel 4 and the Welsh Fourth Channel S4C. The Act is both prescriptive and restrictive in relation to what should and should not be seen on commercial television. That the Act covers both ITV and Channel 4 is important in its implications for the future of the Channel. The sections which are most relevant to Channel 4 are in Section 11. Here are set out the duties of the Authority (IBA) in relation to the Fourth Channel and the nature of the channel in relation to ITV: 11. – (1) As regards the programme (other than Advertisements) broadcast on the Fourth Channel it shall be the duty of the Authority(a) to ensure that the programmes contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not catered for by ITV. (b) without prejudice to so much of section 2(2)(a) as relates to the dissemination of education, to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature; (c) to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes, and generally to give the Fourth Channel a distinctive character of its own. 11. – (2) W hile the Authority are providing both ITV and the Fourth Channel it shall be their duty to ensure, so far as is consistent with their duties under subsection (1)(a) that, as regards each of those services, the programme broadcast in that service by the Authority in each area maintain a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter, having regard both to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week on which, and the times of the day at which, the programmes are broadcast; and (b) that, as between the two services, a proper balance of subject-matter is maintained, having regard both to the programmes broadcast in those services as a whole and also to the days of the week on which, and the times of the day at which, the various programmes are broadcast; and so long as the Authority are under the duty imposed by this subsection, so much of section 2(2)(b) and relates to the maintenance of a proper

14

CHANNEL 4

balance and wide range in the programmes broadcast by the Authority shall not apply in the case of television programmes so broadcast. 11. – (3) Section 4(1)(d) (programmes to contain a suitable proportion of matter catering for the tastes and outlooks of persons served by the station or stations in question and, where another language as well as English is in common use among such persons, a suitable proportion of matters in that language) shall not apply in the case of the Fourth Channel.

In short the most important requirements of the Act was that the channel was charged to: (a) appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV (b) contain a suitable proportion of programmes of an education nature, (c) to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes.

The Act was specifying both the nature and the content of the programmes which should be shown – what they should be like and what they should be about, or at least, what they should not be about. They were not to replicate ITV, but to cater for tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV. This was important because the channel became the subject of criticism for not making up for the inadequacies and omissions of BBC channels as well as ITV. The charge for innovation became a major principle in the overall values of the channel and these two ideals (a and b) above, had to be achieved in spite of the restrictions to which the channel was subjected in relation to another part of the Act. As well as the special provisions for Channel 4 they were also subject to the same regulations which applied to programmes shown on ITV. The specific section of the Act are found on Page 5 of the Act under the section ‘General provisions as to programmes’. 4. – (1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say(a) that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling; (b) that a sufficient amount of time is given to news and news features and that all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with

The Birth of the Channel

15

due accuracy and impartiality; (c) that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance; (d) that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations, and where another language as well as English is in common use among those so served, a suitable proportion of matter in that language; (e) in the case of local sound broadcasting services, that the programmes broadcast from different stations for the reception in different localities do not consist of identical or similar material to an extent inconsistent with the character of the services as local sound broadcasting services; and (f) that due impartiality in preserving on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.

In applying paragraph (f), a series of programmes may be considered as a whole. It was the need to comply with the conditions of 4(1)(a) which state that: nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling;

and specifically the concept of ‘good taste and decency’ which was to lead to the most problems for Channel 4. Right from the beginning it was clear that this would present irreconcilable difficulties for certain aspects of their output. The central dilemma was how to provide programmes which ‘catered for tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV’ and at the same time not to offend against ‘good taste and decency’. The latter being an entirely subjective attitude meant that this was an ill-conceived pair of restrictions or conditions to set for the channel. As Channel 4 developed it was the need to comply with the directives as to the nature of their programmes which was to become one of the central areas for debate as the channel rolled out its first years of programmes. *****

16

CHANNEL 4

Funding the Channel In order for this unique experiment to take place there was one crucial element which was the enabling factor in the whole equation. The dreams may have been abundant and the plans and hopes were proliferate, but the one thing that made all of them possible was money. Channel 4 was given money and it was this brilliant concept of funding which made everything possible. The method of funding is crucial for an understanding of the way that the channel developed. It was also the means by which a unique marrying of commercialism and culture was given a space to grow in a way that could not have been envisaged before Channel 4. The 1980 Broadcasting Act had stipulated that the new Channel 4 Television Company was to be owned by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the controlling, regulatory and broadcasting institution of the ITV network. The original funding arrangement for Channel 4 was for a subscription to be paid to the IBA annually by each of the ITV companies, who then paid the mone y to Channel 4 to fund their operations. The amount was based on between 14% and 18% of the Net Advertising Revenue of each ITV company and the agreement to pay it was part of the 1981 Franchise Agreement under which they were awarded the right to broadcast in their own areas. It was perhaps the most important decision made in relation to the channel for it put Channel 4 in an enviable position which meant that it was able to grow gradually and experiment with the type of programmes which they chose to show. It was the enabling factor on which the whole experiment was supported and it was this brilliant business decision which made it possible. 60 Charlotte Street, London W1 When the legal and regulatory matters were set in place and the finances were assured, Channel 4 Television had progressed from a set of wants on the part of various constituencies through the visions of individuals which were then enshrined in an Act of Parliament and which had to be translated in the new channel. What started as an idea, a set of hopes and philosophies had to be brought into existence both psychologically, physically and practically by a relatively few people who were assisted by hundreds of others in production companies both independent and from ITV companies, by facilities houses, by writers, pro d u c e rs, actors, actresses, graphic artists and many more all of whom have their own part

The Birth of the Channel

17

to play in the story. Each person, programme and event mentioned in this book represents many others who have equal weight to be mentioned but selection takes place to maintain the constraints of the book. The story of Channel 4 has to be condensed into a manageable size but it does not diminish all the work and effort which was made by those who are discussed and those whom they represent. In its very early days the first appointments to the channel, Jeremy Isaacs, Paul Bonner, John Ranelagh, Commissioning Editor for Religious Programmes and Ireland, Susan Crowson, Jeremy’s secretary, and Joyce Jones, all worked from an office in the IBA building in Brompton Road opposite Harrods. One of the first jobs of the Channel Controller, Paul Bonner, was to find a building which was suitable to house the channel. Together with Ellis Griffiths, the Head of Engineering, they looked for a building and they had the joyous job of selecting state of the art technology which would be used for the transmission of the programmes. They considered sites in Battersea, Camden and one or two areas of Soho and eventually they decided on the disused Scala cinema in Charlotte Street, W.1. which although not ideal, immediately began to be converted ready to house the new channel. 60 Charlotte Street was to become both the address, location and defined home of the new Channel 4 Television Company. The building was located in the heart of London’s W.1. district, close to Wardour Street and Dean Street and other areas associated with the film and television industries. The London offices of most ITV companies and the Independent Television Companies Association (ITCA) building were not far away. Also close by was the British Telecom Tower from which the programmes were sent all over Britain to the ITV regional companies and from there into the homes of viewers. One ITV executive told me that I could conduct the whole research for this book within a square mile around Charlotte Street. This may have been a slight exaggeration but it was not too far from the truth in that there is a concentration of power and influence and control within the television industry in this area. There were powerful arguments for the new channel being located in this area – easy accessibility for independent producers to both the channel and the facilities houses which surround the area being one of the strong reasons which were mooted for the choice of location. As long as Channel 4 was to be located in London, Charlotte Street was a good choice of location. Whether it could have been located elsewhere in the country is a different discussion and one which would have resulted in a very different television

18

CHANNEL 4

channel. However, 60 Charlotte Street became the channel’s first home. The disused cinema, the Scala, had the advantage of being able to be converted but the disadvantage was the amount of space available. Transmission control and the main computer which operated the channel were housed in the basement area, together with the small studio from where the early on-screen presentations were made together with the channel’s only regular in-house production, the ground breaking Right to Reply. Eventually, all seven floors were converted into office space to accommodate the departments and staff and as the channel grew, the departments changed floors and there developed new alliances occasioned by the geography of a work place and its working locations. The channel also spread to a building next door to the original site and press, marketing and entertainment moved to this additional location. The location of a broadcasting company may not seem to be of great importance in the story of the programmes and ethos of the channel, but the whole location and décor of the new channel was part of the way that the channel was perceived by a number of critics and commentators. In the early days when commissioning editors were all located on the 2nd floor, all visitors were taken to the tiny coffee area where they would sit and drink strong coffee, fresh orange or the ubiquitous Perrier water which abounded at the channel. One of the many jokes about the ‘trendy’ nature of the channel involved Perrier water. It ran, ‘Last week at the Channel 4 Christmas party they had a water pistol fight with a “difference”. The water pistols were filled with Perrier!’ Similarly, the taps in the toilets were of a French design and had the designation of Froid and Chaud on them. Some commented that this was a pretentious choice, maybe it was those who did not have ‘a little French’ and had had their fingers burned under the Chaud tap. In fact, they were simply French taps. Everything at the channel was new, designed, and modern. The interior location was arranged on the open-plan system and the modular units were backed with similar material to that of the carpets. This caused some journalists to state that the channel was so trendy that they had carpets on the wall. It was certainly a very pleasant working environment, but everyone had very limited space and there were no signs of luxury in the building. It was well planned, functional, like many modern offices now, but ahead of its time for the early 1980s. However, it was different from any other television company and in this way the location and functions reflected the difference in the business of the new channel. At this time, all television companies had one thing in common. They

The Birth of the Channel

19

were a site for the production of programmes. Some may have had executive offices in separate buildings in different cities, as was the case with the ITV companies who all had offices in London, but for the most part the broadcasting offices were an amalgam of studios, production offices, dressing rooms, transmission control departments, executive suites, accountancy and other management functions and many more departments which are integral to the production and transmission of television programmes. Channel 4 was completely different from all other television companies in that it did not produce any of its ow n programmes, apart from Right to Reply and Comment. All other programmes were either commissioned and made outside the company or were bought in ready-made from outside companies – or acquired from international sources. This was the whole idea behind Channel 4; it was to act as a publishing company. The immediate perception was that it would operate as a book publishing company with different editors responsible for different lists of programme areas. This meant that programmes were not made in house and the channel had none of the atmosphere that surrounded conventional television companies. The first difference that was noticeable when going in to Channel 4 was that there was no sense of a buzz of production. There was not the mix of people and the creative mess of the elements involved in production nor the exhilaration of the various elements which go into the making of a television programme. This is a major differ ence and makes for a completely different atmosphere than exists in any other television company. This led to a number of curious phenomena, that of the producers and directors who normally have a major role in the creation of the atmosphere of a television company, being put in position of visitors, waiting to be taken up to meet the commissioning editors who held the money and the editorial control over their future and future programme making opportunities. The Players One of the most important questions which can be asked retrospectively about any event relates to the people involved in that event. Who made it happen? Who was responsible? What were they like and what did they do? The development of a cultural institution in its early years is the product of those who work in that institution. Eighty years after it was founded

20

CHANNEL 4

the BBC still operates with the Reithian philosophy of public service whose responsibility to the audience is ‘to educate, inform and entertain’. Channel 4’s characteristics were forged during its first years, or even it could be said, during its first year, by the beliefs, philosophies and actions of the people who first worked at the channel. Of course, those who came later played an important part, but the initial mood, tone, whether for good or bad, popular or obscure, exciting or boring – the stage was set and the opening scenes were orchestrated by a small group of people. It was they who made the channel what it became in its early years and their individual and collective personalities created both the channel and its character. To concentrate on people and their personalities may not seem an obviously important part of the history of a television company, but it was precisely the inter-action of the people and their ideas which created the channel and formed and forged its personality and character. Paul Bonner expressed it succinctly when I asked him why he wanted to work at Channel 4: The Bill was an optimistic format compared the constraints of existing television – it then depended on the people.

People working together in an organisation are the vital ingredient in the success or otherwise of any organisation but the creation of Channel 4 was to reveal that the vital mix of people and their ways of working together was to be the important factor to the identity of Channel 4. Conventional belief is that large institutions are faceless bureaucracies whose working policies and decisions are made by those in control of the organisations. Broadcasting organisations were believed to come into this category and it is thought that the individual is in a relatively powerless position to control or enable decisions. This form of control cannot be said to have operated within Channel 4 or at least not during its early years. The channel and its ideas and programmes were the work of individuals, albeit a great number of individuals but nevertheless it was the cooperation of the wishes and talents of these individuals who worked within the company that created the company and its reputation. If Channel 4 were to be described in one sentence it would have to be seen as ‘Jeremy Isaacs’ Channel’. Those who worked at the channel worked towards his ideas and ideals and it was his influence, personality and philosophy which determined the way that the channel progressed.

The Birth of the Channel

21

This is not to say that everyone working at channel was not important in its daily running and its development but it is to say that the over-riding character of the channel was formed by its Chief Executive. Certain people through their positions and their personalities had a structurally more intensive effect on the development of Channel 4 and it is those who are more to the forefront of any account. There were also many other locations where the Channel 4 story was to unfold and many people who worked in those locations. Hundreds of small independent production companies were set up, located mainly in London, although a small number were spread across the country. The most famous was in Liverpool where on a real housing estate, Phil Redmond founded Mersey Television and began production of the soap opera Brookside, which was to become integral in the story of the channel. In the studios of the ITV companies both the so-called big five, Granada, Central, Yorkshire Television, Thames Television and London Weekend Television, and as defined in the legal requirements, also the regional companies, all were making productions and contributing to the increase output from outside London. Also spread across the country were a number of Workshops which had been set up and funded partly by Channel 4 to provide work-studios and technology to encourage existing and new talent and to give them a long denied access to the screens of British television. These were truly regional locations situated in the North-East, Cardiff, Birmingham and drawing on people who lived in the area both for their staff and crucially for their subject matter which often reflected their regional interests and knowledge. They were to provide the programmes which were both the most marginal and yet often the most ‘different’ from any other programmes on British television. The most unlikely locations for Channel 4 prog rammes were the Hollywood studios of the television companies who made American situation comedies, but these were to become a major supplier of some of the most popular programmes which the channel transmitted. Indeed, television companies from all over the world were to play a part in this story and their programmes would contribute to the kaleidoscope which was to for m the schedule of the new channel and help to create its identity. 60 Charlotte Street was the nucleus in the amoeba which was to spread and increase in popularity and influence and controversy which was to surround it as the channel grew in its first few years. It was also the magnet which drew to it the talent and ideas of those who were to create the dynamic entity of Channel 4.

Television’s New Baby – The First Three Months are the Worst! If I had a customer and I told her that the next time she came I was going to cut her hair different she’d never come back. What you have to do is cut differently and then ask her if she likes it! Jane – hair stylist interviewed in December 1982

First Night on Four Jeremy Isaacs was determined that the first night on the new channel would be special only in that it was the first night of programming. The schedule did not contain programmes which were different from those which the channel would be offering in its regular schedule. One fixed point was established and that was the 7 o’clock slot for Channel 4 News, which Isaacs adamantly maintained was an immoveable slot. Also on the first night was Brookside, the new soap opera and although both of these had shaky starts they went on to become major programmes on the channel and in creating the image of the channel. In fact, a number of the programmes which were shown on the first night went on to become top Channel 4 prog rammes. Countdown was the first pr ogramme to be transmitted on the channel; made by Yorkshire Television it was a word and number game. A modest show whose question master, Richard Whiteley, a presenter on Yorkshire Television’s local news and current affa i rs programme C a l e n d a r, had prev i o u s ly only enjoyed netwo rk notoriety when he was bitten by a ferret while interviewing its owner. Countdown immediately restored national dignity to Richard Whiteley. Countdown gained recognition and has continued each year since the channel began and has become an extremely popular programme, often gaining high audiences and appearing in the Channel’s top ten. When Richard Whiteley died in May 2005 the programme was taken off for a period of respect to the presenter but was considered to be still one of the leading programmes on the channel and began again after much searching with new presenter Des Lynam. Lynam left at the end of 2006 and again they replaced their presenter, this time with the singer and successful chat show host, Des O’Connor.

24

CHANNEL 4

The first night of Channel 4 had a mix of programmes some of which went on to make major contributions to the reputation of the channel and to show the initial areas of programmes which were to become the focus of programming on the Channel. While Channel 4 News was established as the only hour long news programme, Walter was the first Film on Four and the first contribution from the ‘Comic Strip presents…’ in the youth programming area were all programmes which were to become significant factors in the growth of the audience for the channel. Walter was the story of a middle aged man who had learning difficulties and lived with this elderly mother. When she died he was taken in care, and the drama told the story of the dreadful treatment which he had to endure. The drama was designated as shocking and harrowing by the press but won acclaim and awards from critics and the audience. Some of the so-called ‘bad’ language in B rookside heralded an aspect of the channel which was to hound it and define it from its early days. In the Pink, a modest feminist review, modest in that it was not in any form an extreme programme in its style or content, but it caused upset among critics and delight amongst women who had never seen such a programme on television. Two other factors were significant in the first night’s viewing. Firstly, a dispute (which was averted) was between the ITV companies and the ACTT members who were involved in switching the Channel 4 signal in each franchise area. Technically the signal from the Channel went via the British Telecom tower and could be transmitted directly to the homes of viewers but the union had negotiated that the signal should go through each ITV regional company and be switched through by their staff. The threatened problem as Channel 4 went on the air was concerned with the terms of payment for those involved in that work and others in the same union who might have been involved in the work. In the event the matter was settled by the ITV companies although a long standing discussion followed about the arrangements for late-night transmissions. The first night went off without any hitch. At the channel people talked of a night of immense exhilaration and excitement as they watched the birth of an entirely new enterprise. Only those who had been involved in the setting up of the channel could know the feeling of achievement to have been part of something which culminated in a moment of such collective pleasure. For the viewers watching at home the interest was mainly one of curiosity. They did not know what to expect and they had to be won over to the new channel. The memory of the first night and indeed the first few

Television’s New Baby

25

months of Channel 4 were marred by the problem with advertisements or lack of advertisements as in many areas of the country most of the advertising breaks had not been sold. This was the result of a dispute b e t ween the actors ’ union Equity and the IPA, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, about the fees which the actors would be paid for appearing in advertisements on Channel 4. Basically this was because the actors wanted to be paid the same amount as they would for appearing in adverts which were shown on main ITV channels. The difference was that millions of viewers saw the adverts on ITV and only a few hundred thousand would see them on Channel 4. Therefore they refused to appear in adverts and a very strange and significant situation ensued. The result of the dispute for viewers was that in many areas of the country advertising breaks had not been sold and viewers were confronted with a placard which announced that ‘Part 2 or 3 would follow shortly’. Indeed the gaps between the parts of a programme and between programmes became as familiar as branding of the channel as their scheduled onscreen programmes. For example, no one who watched in the Central area could forget the advertisement for El Capistrano Villas, enticing those with money to spare to buy a holiday villa in Spain. We also learned what the Jojoba nut could do for our hair, and an ad for Gypsy bras caused delight or disdain amongst those viewers who saw it. We were also given the benefit of many public information films, as ad breaks were filled with film after film telling how to proceed at level crossings and other priceless information which would never normally have been given more than a fraction of air time. How had we ever survived without this information, and how would we survive when the dispute had been settled and advertising returned to normal? A New Kind of Scheduling One of the most striking different aspects of Channel 4 was its scheduling. Other broadcasting channels worked on the principle that they caught their audience early in the evening and attempted to hold them until their eyes dropped closed and they fell exhausted into their beds. Channel 4 set out to schedule in a totally different way. The idea behind their scheduling was that viewers would select individual programmes and dip in and out of the channel to view whichever programme appealed to them. They would then move off to another channel and return later to watch something which might appeal to them. The belief was that viewers

26

CHANNEL 4

would read the newspaper or a TV listings magazine and act with discernment in selecting programmes. Jeremy Isaacs believed that viewers would find programmes which they wanted to watch and then would turn over or off and return to the channel again to watch something later on. It was a hard and brave way to build an audience and it took courage to stay with the principle when few sought out their programmes. It was particularly difficult for viewers to select programmes on the n ew channel because they had no real knowledge of wh at those programmes were. The new method of s cheduling demanded a sophisticated knowledge of a schedule so that viewers could remember when programmes were being transmitted, that parts 2 or 3 will follow, and know that they wanted to watch them. It was a skill which many viewers had in relation to BBC1 and ITV but not one which they had yet acquired for Channel 4. Indeed the whole point of the Channel 4 schedule was that it was not predictable and it was one of the ways in which it took viewers longer to find programmes which they wanted to watch. First Reactions Many people had high expectations for the new channel and many more had no expectations at all and had little wish for another channel. Others had no idea that a new television channel was about to be available to them. One of the first tasks which the channel had to do was to persuade people to get their television button tuned in, in order to be able to receive the additional channel. This was the responsibility of the IBA who had to ensure that viewers knew what had to be done to receive the channel. Initially, only 82% of the population could receive the channel. In the early d ays enticing viewers to wat ch the ch a n n e l , let alone individual programmes turned out to be a major task. Television sets had to be tuned in to receive the new signal and a major campaign by the IBA and the channel’s Marketing Department, was held to encourage viewers to ‘play with the 4th knob on their television set’ until they could receive the new signal. These campaigns had to be run on ITV channels, and as ITV was not particularly over-enthusiastic about publicising the new channel it was a hard task. Campaigns were run including the first Channel 4 tee-shirt which portrayed the slogan ‘I’ve had my set set’. What Channel 4 needed was for everyone to get their set tuned in and they began to experience their first marketing problem which reflected the age split which was to become a feature of all new technology that was to swamp the population

Television’s New Baby

27

in the coming years. What Channel 4 initially experienced was that in households where there were young people it was more likely that the sets had been tuned in. The conservatism of the older members of the population trying to find the new channel, by what was termed by some ‘fiddling with the controls of the tele’ became a problem for the channel. So the channel shifted their attention to the younger members of the audience to encourage them to assist in tuning in the sets of people who could not do it for themselves. Of course, there was always recourse to television dealers but people seemed reluctant to spend money on the service since they were not sure whether they wanted to see any of the programmes which would be shown. Ironically, the 18% of the country which could not receive the channel complained that they were being deprived of the serv i c e. The conservatism of some viewe rs wa s highlighted when one woman told me that an elderly lady, whom she visited, only watched BBC1 because she would not have the channel changed in case the television ‘went wrong’ and then she would have to pay to have it repaired. An extreme example, but an indication of the conservatism of some viewers not with their choice of programmes but with the use of technology. The dispute between the actors’ union, Equity and the Institute of Practitioners of Advertisers (IPA) had a significantly adverse effect not only on the finances of the ITV companies who were funding Channel 4, but also on the way that the channel was initially perceived by viewers. This had nothing to do with Channel 4 but the majority of viewers did not understand this fine distinction, nor did they want to hear excuses. All they saw were the gaps between programmes wh i ch provided ideal opportunities and cues to switch over to see what was on the other sides. Similarly, the repetition of the same advertisements gave viewers the feeling of ‘ads nausea’. It all helped to create the feeling that something was not quite right with the channel and viewers felt that they did not want to watch something with so many irritating and negative factors associated with it. Some viewers said it was a relief to turn to the normality of the advertisements on ITV. Television with a Difference Channel 4 immediately fulfilled its brief to be seen as ‘diffe rent’. The problem was that viewers were not yet sure whether they could cope with the difference which they perceived. One viewer, a ladies’ hair stylist told me:

28

CHANNEL 4

If I had a customer and I told her that the next time she came I was going to cut her hair different, she’d never come back. What you have to do is cut it differently and then ask her if she likes it!

Like the conservative customer, the viewers anticipated the difference they were promised and were surprised at what they saw. Jeremy Isaacs promised that this would be a channel with a difference and one which would appeal to minorities. However, many of the audience did not want to be thought of as ‘different’ or as part of a minority. Some viewers found the programmes very challenging and rather demanding after a hard day’s work. Others expected them to be even more demanding or extreme. It is possible to see the channel as an intruder in the already existing world of television. When the new baby was born it did not enter a world as a wary innocent, feeling its way carefully in its new environment but with programmes like Opinion where a speaker could express his or her own views straight to camera for 30 minutes; or Voices where intellectuals discussed cultural, theoretical and philosophical questions – obscure and controversial rather than safe and self-evident. From its first transmissions Channel 4 showed programmes which were from a different perspective than the accepted status quo. To find that there were different perspectives and cultural values within our society caused a form of culture shock to many viewers and commentators. Instead of treading carefully, Channel 4 allowed its pro gramme makers to be aggressive and pro gressive. It flaunted its youth and allowed its youth programmes to be critical of the hand that commissioned them. Programmes for black and Asian viewers were critical of the racist attitudes of the white population and celebratory of their own blackness. A stance unheard of on British television. Channel 4 had generally and specifically irritated, stimulated, delighted and disgusted its audiences. Viewers use television for their own ends. They do not simply watch the programmes. One woman told me that when she returned from work she wanted to relax and not to be asked to understand some intellectual programme, nor, in a more serious comment, to care for under-privileged people. Not, she insisted, that she did not care about these matters but that she did not want to be stimulated or challenged; at this point in her working day she wanted to relax. She told me that she would rather watch something familiar which she described as total rubbish like Play Your Cards Right, because it did not require any effort on her part. It required no reaction but provided familiarity a reassurance which would be ignored

Television’s New Baby

29

rather than needing her attention and participation. She was not saying that she did not like the programmes on Channel 4 but that they required more than she was prepared to give at certain points in the day. Channel 4 was not a channel which could be ignored but it was one which could be laid aside until the viewer felt able to cope with it! It took viewers a little time to get used to Channel 4 and in the early days the channel had to battle on waiting for this to be achieved. Jeremy Isaacs’ Early Reactions When Channel 4 was a few days old I spoke to Jeremy Isaacs about the way that he had set up the channel, his choice of commissioning editors and his hopes for the channel. His reasons for applying for the job were clear: The challenge of it was new and the opportunity to invent something, create something, build something from the beginning was present in it, in a way which could not have been present in any equivalent or even more responsible job in British Broadcasting meant that it was far and away the most single attractive job of that level in British Broadcasting that could ever be open to me. Because I’d far rather be Chief Executive of Channel 4 than Director General of the BBC. In the sense, that things were happening here because I am making it happen. Because if you become Director General of the BBC you have to wrestle with the BBC.

The way that Channel 4 was structured was also determinate in his decision to apply. Namely, that it was to be completely separate from ITV and that the top job would be an editorial position not a financial one. He also knew the position with the ITV companies and foretold with accuracy the reactions which I learned when I spoke to them. I asked him: So what about the ITV companies? I thought they would be, sort of, quite paternalistic towards you and feel that you were their wonderful child growing up.

He replied: Well, the best of them are a bit like that, the best of them see us as an extension of what they can do as part of their service, but they resent the

30

CHANNEL 4

fact that we are independent of them. I mean we are not what they asked for. We are not ITV2. I think they get on as well with me as they would get on with anybody that could have been appointed to this channel and I think that although they were terribly fed up with Justin when Justin started, because they thought he was a rude fellow and did not understand a thing about it, they have now come round to seeing a very able and energetic executive who deals hard but fair. But they wanted us under their thumb and we are not under their thumb, and they resent that.

The initial ambivalence amongst the ITV companies was particularly felt because they had not had as much control over the channel as they would have wished and the appointment of an outsider as the Managing Director. When Justin Dukes from the Financial Times was appointed it was a blow to their collective industrial pride. Their chagrin was intensified when they found that he was a tough and able negotiator with whom they had to deal. Justin Jukes made a major contribution to the success of Channel 4 and his expertise and strength of personality made him one of the leading players in the success of the channel. The first clash with the IBA and Channel 4 was in respect of a programme on their third night of transmission and raised the question of the amount of freedom which the channel would be allowed in its broadcasting. The programme which caused the problem was The Animals Film, a film by Victor Schonfeld about the treatment of animals by human beings. The IBA insisted on certain passages being cut out from the film because it was in contravention of the 1980 Broadcasting Act, in that they felt that it ‘incited viewers to crime’. The relationship with the IBA and the way that they would have chosen to interpret the Broadcasting Act was a matter which Jeremy Isaacs knew would be crucial in respect of the way that the channel would progress. We spoke of their decision with regard to The Animals Film in particular and his hopes for their relationship in general: One of the great unknowns is whether in interpreting the Act they will pay as much regard as they ought to the positive obligations that are laid on the Authority to produce decent broadcasting which may mean ‘having a go’, something which to my mind they have never been willing to do. Or, whether they will interpret the distinctiveness of the channel as allowing us to have a go that other people aren’t allowed to have, because after all, if there is more choice there is less risk of offence; people can switch off and

Television’s New Baby

31

go somewhere else. Or, whether they will insist on interpreting the negative prohibitions as heavy-handedly and ferociously and unimaginatively as I sometimes feel they do. And my consistent complaint about the IBA, over the years, is that in interpreting their obligations, and this applies both to the officers and to the Members of the Authority, really they have never put anything like enough emphasis on the need to publish, the need to utter, the need to take risks, the need to think of viewers, rather than of those that want to stop things getting to viewers. And that is why I have always argued that ultimate responsibility to what is broadcast does not rest with the Au t h o r i t y, but should rest with Independent Companies, with the Authority’s regulatory role being applied far more retrospectively and far less prospectively than it presently is.

The IBA did not operate retrospectively in relation to The Animals Film, nor indeed in other instances which were to arise at Channel 4, but they saw certain passages as incitements to crime and, therefore, being against the law. Isaacs anticipated some of the problems which would arise if a specific reading of the Act was taken by the IBA and outlined them to me: And if indeed the Act insists that all those negative obligations override any question of our distinctiveness, override their positive obliga tions to broadcasters and attract interesting range of programmes, then Channel 4 would not be able to grow. It would not be able to do the job it has got to do, and I have always said that the absolutely crucial question would be the way in which the Authority behaves. And I am not surprised that we have run into immediate problems with them in the case of The Animals Film. I mean, I almost put it in there as a test case to see what sort of thing they would do. And it will probably be much more interesting to have the row about Animals than anything else, but they think it is a serious issue and the incitement to crime is, of course, something that they are asked to stop. And I don’t think that kind of film incites to crime, but they, under lawyers, think it does in parts and, although I have gone out of my way in two or three major utterances in the last three years to put the case for the Authority’s regulatory role, I have always also on each occasion committed myself to a philosophy of broadcasting which urges them to ride us, on a far looser rein than they have ridden the ITV companies.

In the last few days before the channel began transmitting Isaacs was remarkably perceptive about the way that the channel would be received

32

CHANNEL 4

not only by journalists but also by others within the industry. During a P rogramme Rev i ew Meeting on the 2nd Nove m b e r, the day of transmission, he told commissioning editors that there were a lot of people who were waiting to see them fall on their face. I asked him why he thought that was so: I just have a sense that it is easier for journalists to knock than to praise things. It is easier for those who advocate a different system and believe that this system will not work, to say, ‘There you are we told you so!’ And therefore, I think there is a bit of that sort of, ‘Let’s watch them fall flat on their face!’ That kind of thing. And I think the chances of coming good, straight off are quite small. I don’t believe in honeymoons in this kind of matter, and so I think we will get quite a rough ride from the word go, but perhaps the coldest examination of where we are will be in six months, if the audiences are very very low and we will have to take a long hard look at what we are doing and maybe to steel ourselves for a longer haul. But… I would be very interested to know whether the British public wants new things to watch; I think they do actually… The newspapers don’t seem to want them to work and I don’t know, I mean when I’m told there is a British disease… ‘that we knock ourselves’. I’ve never really believed it in the past, but I think I’m going to find out the hard way now how true that is.

While Isaacs was well aware of the uphill battle which was to be experienced over the next few months, he was unflinching in the encouragement, support and leadership which he gave to all of those who were working at the channel. On the first day of transmission he sent a short note to every member of the staff. A habit which he was to continue whenever there was a relevant moment either to praise or reassure. At the first Programme Review Meeting after the channel had gone on the air he gave a flower to all the women at the meeting. He congratulated everyone and thanked them for their efforts saying that it would be much harder to sustain service than to get it on the air but that everyone could afford to be very, very pleased with themselves. He caught exactly the mood of the meeting when he said that: “In an ideal world, in which of course, we do not live, we would all go off now and have a week off.” A comment which caused laughter and agreement from all who had worked so hard to get the channel started. In fact, they had to sustain the effort which they had been making in the face of much press criticism and relatively low viewing figures and complaints from moralists over the next

Television’s New Baby

33

few weeks. That the morale of the channel never faltered was largely the result of Jeremy Isaacs’ support and confidence that the tracks which they were laying were the right ones which would ultimately lead to a number of hitherto never visited areas. How many people would want to travel with them was as yet to be discovered and what mischief or damage would be caused by the press was the feature of the lives of the channel and those who worked there over the next few months. What the Papers Said Trendy enough to make your teeth peel (Nancy Banks-Smith - The Guardian - 3.11.1982) It’s confused, quirky and controversial – but it looks as if it will work. Channel 4 burst into life last night with a programme mixture so varied it was as though someone was flicking round the dial of the TV set. (Stafford Hildred – The Star - 3.11.1982) TV Chief Faces Sack – Secret Shake-up to save Channel 4 (Stafford Hildred – The Star - 27.12.1982)

For the British press the coming of Channel 4 was a wonderful yet awful opportunity. Here was something new about which they could write. They had the power to describe and define the channel for their readers. Television entered a new phase of visibility and the critics ran wild with their descriptions and opinions of the new channel and helped to define the way that the channel and its programmes were perceived in the early months. First they had to create their image of the channel and to achieve this they chose to talk not only about the new channel but also about the personnel and in particular Jeremy Isaacs. How would he run his new ship and where would it be going and also how would it get there? The first three months of press coverage are crucial in terms of the critique of one medium by another. Not forgetting that there was a definite competition for advertising revenue between newspapers and the ITV companies competing for business. Channel 4 was a new concept in television. The press had certain tasks to perform. They had to tell their readers about the channel, what it was, who was running it and what the programmes were going to be. They had the ability to describe and define the channel and their performance had a considerable effect on the perceptions of the channel. Their initial response was favourable – they were pleased to have something new to

34

CHANNEL 4

write about. On the 12th October 1982 the Hunt Report on Cable had been published and the press had had the task of writing about something which had limited appeal and about which they had limited technical knowledge to impart to their readers. Now with Channel 4 there was an altogether more interesting challenge. Before the channel went on the air there was much coverage about what it would be like and much of it was very favourable: ‘Good Four You. Newcomer could be a big turn on’, ran the headline in the Sunday Mirror (31.10.82). The article, almost a full page, featured comments about new programmes. On the basis that any press coverage is good publicity this was good for the channel but it is worth looking at the complete article to see the way that the output began to be defined: Well done Channel Four. You’re off to a great start. The new station tip-toes quietly on to our screens on Tuesday afternoon – but quickly breaks into a run. On a night when the three older channels are showing a familiar diet of tried and tested ideals, the baby of the networks is offering an adventurous new menu. Highlights of Tuesday’s viewing on Channel Four include: Two completely new comedy show ideas A shocking and disturbing film made specially for the new channel Britain’s first hour-long in-depth news programme A new soap opera by controversial Grange Hill creator Phil Redmond. It’s a weak night on ITV and BBC1 with old favourites like Give us a Clue, Angels, Ask the Family, and (yawn) Terry and June. Channel 4 bosses were determined not to make an entrance with fanfares, bursting balloons, champagne corks popping and anything else that might make you think that New Year had arrived early. So the very first programme, at 4.45 on Tuesday is Countdown a word and numbers quiz hosted by Beverley Isherwood and Cathy Hyter. But it’s a deceptively quiet start. For at 9 p.m. they are showing an uncompromising shocker of a film. Walter is the story of a mentally-handicapped man, brilliantly played by Ian McKellan. With his back slightly hunched, his face a little distorted, his mouth permanently agape and drippling, Walter is one of life’s true victims. He gets a job as a storeroom cleaner but is mercilessly tormented by wo rk m at e s. When his mother (Barbara Jeffo rd) dies Walter uncomprehendingly allows the local pigeons into her bedroom and waits for Jesus to wake her up again. The corpse is left covered in pigeon droppings. He is taken into a mental home – and this is where his agony really starts.

Television’s New Baby

35

I promise you this film is not for the squeamish. The film is a compassionate plea for better treatment for the mentally handicapped, but there are moments when it becomes frankly, almost unbearable. It is a brave, fearless, start for the new channel – and sure to cause a storm of controversy.

The preview continues to highlight other programmes which were to be shown in the first few days, The Paul Hogan Show, and Brookside, about which it is positive describing its creator as ‘It is by Phil Redmond, the brilliant young writer behind Grange Hill and it should be well worth a look.’ Other programmes were mentioned and the article finishes with a positive comment: “Channel Four offers a mixed bag of programmes. Not all of them will be to everyone’s taste – and a good thing too!” The main theme of this article is that Channel 4 is a ‘good thing’. However, the comments about the first Film on Four, Walter, describe it as ‘A shocking and disturbing film made specially for the new channel’. It continues to describe the narrative of the film as ‘not for the squeamish’, and makes a critical and predictory comment that, ‘there are moments when it becomes frankly, almost unbearable’. The journalist is defining the way that an audience will view and react to the film. She says that the film is not for the squeamish and that it is sure to cause a storm of controversy. The article is in favour of Channel 4 but it illustrates the beginning of a tendency which rapidly grew into a trend, to see controversy and shocking programmes as a hallmark of the channel. The Sun on Saturday 30th October, headlined with ‘Ronnie’s Going Gay 4 a Laugh! – Crossroads star’s shock’ as Charlie Catchpole revealed that Ronnie Allen plays a gay Uncle Quentin in the ‘Comic Strip presents Five Go Mad in Dorset’. ‘Get set for the sexiest soap opera’, urges another feature when it introduces Brookside as having ‘Sex, envy, resentment, bitterness and greed’. Although the reporter does predict that it could be a big hit. Yvonne Ocampo is described as ‘Shapely Yvonne Ocampo… she used to earn a living slinking around almost naked’ as the paper reveals ‘Saucy secret of the shape up girl’. The text concentrates on the former professional life of the woman who was to present Channel 4’s exercise class, not on her current role as presenter. All the papers gave extensive coverage to the forthcoming programmes but also gave viewers instructions as to how to tune in their sets to receive the new channel. Peter Fiddick in The Guardian stressed the ‘different’ aspect of the channel and the ‘newness’ of it all. ‘The new Phil Redmond serial about life on a new Liverpool estate…and Channel Four News

36

CHANNEL 4

produced by a new unit within ITN. In contrast to The Sunday Mirror comments above, here Walter is described with more restraint and no definitions of how the reader might react. ‘… the choice of Walter for opening night is a deliberate statement; no easy escapism but a moving story about a mentally handicapped man’s experience in psychiatric institution in the 1960’s. Here was the new channel and The Guardian assumed its readers would be able to ‘take’ Walter; even through it was a ‘tough’ story. The Star (30.10.82) calls Walter ‘a really meaty TV film’ but then adds that it is ‘the shocking and moving story of a mentally handicapped man’. In the Daily Mail (30.10.82) Joe Steeples describes Walter as ‘the harrowing story of a mentally disabled man’. Steeples also quotes Paul Bonner as saying: ‘In our first week we hope to have at least one programme every night that is an absolute must for the majority of viewers.’ After giving a list of programmes Steeples agreed, ‘This could be no idle boast’. None of the reviewers mov e outside the fictions to the reality portrayed there to comment that it might be portraying harrowing social problems, rather than it just being a shocking film. However, Peter Fiddick’s review in The Guardian on 3rd November recognised Walter as a disturbing film when he wrote: ‘There were moments towards the end of Walter when I wondered whether I had ever endured anything so harrowing from a television screen.’ Yet he continued with the moving tribute to the film. ‘For Walter more importantly radiated a warmth and humanity and exhibited such remarkable skills in performance and production that it lingers in the mind as an illuminating experience not a depressing one.’ The press coverage of the first night’s prog rammes was in general restrained and favourable, if predictable, with most journalists hedging their bets and picking the good with the bad. Not surprisingly, they were impressed with some programmes, critical of others. Their approach to the first night and indeed to the early days of Channel 4 was different from the way that television was normally reviewed in that the newspapers chose to look at everything which was shown and comment on the whole evening’s viewing. This was inevitable given their interest in the offerings from the channel, but it was an approach more suitable to the main channels rather than to the disparate programmes on Channel 4. What did the press think about the first night of the channel? Almost to a man, they were not in favour of the feminist review, In the Pink.

Television’s New Baby

37

Wednesday, 3rd November brought forth its press offerings and predictably the review with most wit came from Nancy Banks-Smith, who hailed the Channel ‘Trendy enough to make the teeth peel’, confessing to feeling deeply inadequate at having to consider whether she was sexually liberated, socially aware and politically concerned and to wear leg warmers – before she could feel able to cope with Channel 4! She had imagined that she was a fountain in The Body Show and all this before she had had a cup of coffee. Nancy Banks-Smith it was who christened the families in Brookside the Harrods, The Habitats and the Hooligans – although it is more likely that the Collins’s would have gone to Browns of Chester for their style, but then alliteration is all and Nancy can be forgiven such a lapse as a trendy southerner. I shared her inborn bad taste and liking for Paul Hogan and her prediction that the Habitats as a typical Channel 4 family would have repercussions in further coverage. While The Guardian identified its readers as potential Channel 4 viewers, other papers set out to define themselves and their readers against the channel. The Daily Express ran a front page story ‘VULGAR!’ TV director quits in four-letter row’. The beginning of the controversy over so-called ‘bad language’ in Brookside began when a director, Mr. George SpentonFoster, left the series. On page 3 of The Daily Mirror a small piece quoted Spenton-Foster as saying ‘I’m washing my hands of the whole thing’, but mercifully for Redmond, Hilary Kingsley confessed to being hooked on Brookside although the dreaded designation of ‘trendy’ appeared in her piece. Hilary Kingsley was renowned for her tough treatment of soap operas, particularly Crossroads, so her approval was from someone who knew the genre well. The Sun continued with its coverage and reported that some of their readers were so shocked at scenes in Walter that they made angry phone calls to The Sun. Charlie Catchpole gave the Channel 4 out of 10 for its first night but unfortunately lost marks for his own article because the caption to one of the photographs read ‘Yvonne Ocampo….swe aty leotards’ when the photograph was of C a ro l Vorderman, the mathematician from Yorkshire Television’s Countdown. Countdown also caused problems for Chris Dunkley in his piece in the Financial Times when in a comment unworthy of him or his paper; he described Cathy Hyter as a ‘blond hostess with big breasts and a slit skirt’. Later in the same article, in a tirade against In the Pink, he said that he had learned from Channel 4 the meaning of sexism. This he believed was ‘glorification of and concentration on one sex to the total exclusion of the other’. A selective reading of sexism and from his comments on the

38

CHANNEL 4

anatomy of Cathy Hyter it is clear that he needed a rather more basic lesson than The Raving Beauties gave him in In the Pink. Dunkley, normally an excellent critic, was generally very hostile to most of the offerings on the first night. He was critical of Brookside as an example of the soap opera form which he saw as already outdated having been produced by Granada in Coronation Street for 22 years. He found it ‘beyond credence’ that the new soap opera should have chosen to concentrate on a single street in a Lancashire town describing it as ‘Old forms, old voices’. To any but the most uninitiated Metropolitan ears there is a vast difference in the voices from fictional Weatherfield in the Manchester area and the Liverpool accent in B rookside. And those differences subtle or vast were music to the ears of viewers outside the conventional London – South-East areas. Dunkley disliked most of the first night but correctly predicted that: ‘The most important innovation will prove in the long run, to be C4’s attitude towards television and filmed drama which they call fiction.’ However, he expected that the result would be metamorphosing of film into television but in fact the opposite has happened and Channel 4’s Film on Four revitalised the film industry. Richard Last in The Daily Telegraph wrote of ‘Four’s friendly image’ and described the work of Jeremy Isaacs thus: … Here I think that Jeremy Isaacs, genial gauleiter of the new channel, has been rather clever. By deliberately choosing to present his cherished infant in low profile, he is backing success in both ways. If people like what they saw last night, he can take a modest bow. If they thought it was pretty awful, he can reply; ‘Well of course, you haven’t begun to taste our real quality yet’.

The image he seemed intent on projecting – perhaps to dispel the widely disseminated notion that Four is aimed at the more humourless re a d e rs of The Guardian was one of ‘ a m i ability tinged with irreverence’. Last’s own a rt i cle was amiable and sensible. He even admitted not to have read the Enid Blyton Famous Fiv e books as a child. He raised Isaacs to the status of Jove hurling his thunderbolt with the showing of Walter mid evening and p redicted that the film must have projected Channel Four into the award stakes on its first night. The nicest comment came from Sean Day-Lewis on November 4th after devoting his whole column to praising Channel 4, he ended with the words, ‘Other channels continue to broadcast’. The press did not coo over this baby for very long. It is debateable

Television’s New Baby

39

whether Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, founder of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, ever cooed over any television but just one week after the channel went on air, she was on the attack. The newspapers were quick to report her action. ‘Rap for 4-letter channel’, reported the Daily Express: Clean-up campaigner Mrs Mary Whitehouse has complained about four letter words on Channel 4 a week after its launch. In a letter to the AttorneyGeneral Sir Michael Havers, she attacks the films Woodstock, Network and the soap opera Brookside.

In a strange piece in The Times, Bryan Appleyard talks of ‘An ideology of the New Narcissism’ without ever clearly explaining what this is. He was particularly troubled by the Scottish accent of Paul Coia, Channel 4’s station announcer: Paul Coia’s completely unplaceable accent ensured that the first night was spent trying to decide if one had ever visited where he came from, while the logo and general efforts at station identification remain dreadful.

Another journalist shocked at hearing a non-Metropolitan accent on television! His attack extended to Brookside, Union World, A Week in Politics, Book Four and Voices. ‘All of which’, he concludes, ‘demonstrates an impulse towards worthiness with overtones of socialism. What it does not demonstrate is a commitment to a new form of television’. Even those programmes which he saw as the best, Walter and P’Tang Yang Kipperbang he said could have been made by ‘either of the old monoliths – while the worst betray a drab ordinariness of conception’. Appleyard then reveals his own limited drabness of conception by suggesting that Channel 4’s quiz shows Countdown and Password fail to inject ‘the right level of literate wit’. He contends that quiz shows should either be Blankety Blank or Call my Bluff – hardly a sparkling conception for the new channel. Amid the gloom of some of the critics there were patches of light from readers’ letters which some newspapers published. The Daily Mirror on 11th November printed a number of letters under the heading ‘Top hole stuff from Famous 4’. Congratulations Channel Four. With the exception of the tedious travesty of a quiz, Countdown, on the first evening’s viewing I was thoroughly impressed.

40

CHANNEL 4

From Ian McKellen’s sad and moving portrayal of Walter to the hilarious send up of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five, with Ronald Allen, It was ‘a wholly top hole show’. – Colin Day, Chelmsford: Essex I’m 72 and I’ve been watching television for a long time. But I’ve never seen anything more soul-searching or thoughtful than the film Walter. You said that the drama was set in the fifties. But such loneliness in an uncaring world is still a fact of life in 1982. – Mrs. C. Namy, Catford, London If that was a sample of what is in store we shall not be watching this ‘wonderful’ new channel. – Mr. & Mrs. C.G Knight, Fareham Hants Your editorial attacking the programme schedule for Channel Four left me gasping at its vindictiveness. What hope is there for television if all influential newspapers like The Mirror can do is reinforce the dismal notion that the public just want entertainment? People in this country are often accused of being apathetic. If they are fed solely on a diet of Starsky & Hutch and Des O’Connor this is hardly surprising. – Nigel Pollitt, Brixton

And support for the Animal documentary: The animal cruelty documentary made me ashamed to be a member of the human race. Well done the Animal Liberation Front for your efforts to stop the savagery. – Richard Wood, Sleaford, Lincs. The Mirror called the animal film ‘a must for sadists’. If that is the right description for the viewers, what should we call the participants in the bloody torture and slaughter? – Mrs. Jill Woods, Romford, Essex.

The press continued to cover the channel and its output to a level which they had never achieved before and by Monday 14th November, The Sun designated the channel ‘Channel 4 the Big Bore’, when it revealed that Channel 4 had captured 4% of the viewers in its first five days of transmission. There began to creep into the coverage a notion that this was a channel which was to be rather ‘trendy’. From The Star’s Stafford Hildred on the 19th November: ‘Channel 4 has become terribly trendy with all those shows for black, one-legged vegetarian cyclists. Everyone is desperate to join some minority or another.’ Chris Dunkley wrote that the channel was for ‘60s liberals’. He was

Television’s New Baby

41

correct in that the channel was certainly a product of a number of different beliefs and philosophies which had emanated from the 1960s. He was obviously not one of those which he designated as such. On the 18th in a review of Six Feet in the Country, the adaptation of Nadine Gordimer’s story of an Indian family in Johannesburg finding their district being cleared of ‘coloureds’ (sic): ‘The mother fights for the right of blacks and coloureds but the father has no understanding of her political involvement. Well, he’s only a man, of course, and this is Channel 4.’ Dunkley was not the only writer to have been irritated by the presence of women in programmes on Channel 4 and it was quite amusing to watch the prickly feelings which overcame journalists during the early weeks of the channel as a few programmes focussing on or made by women began to be transmitted. Chris Dunkley wrote on the 24th November of the ‘dangers of benign fascism’ and included women in the minority groups who were being included in their own programmes both on Channel 4 and other channels. He saw discrimination as the order of the day on all channels but in particular on Channel 4. However, the discrimination he saw was against the majority of viewers. By the end of the month the journalists had become rather schizophrenic. Reviewers were selecting Channel 4 programmes as ‘Pick of the Day’, in fact this had been occurring throughout the month, but at the same time journalists were writing articles attacking the channel. Although Daily Mirror readers had voted the channel a success, the newspaper still printed a new article with the headline, ‘Channel 4 is a TV turn-off ’, saying: ‘ITV’s new Channel 4 has been shrugged off as a bore. In its second week the station was at the bottom of the viewing poll.’ Ever vigilant Mary Whitehouse was reported in The Times on the 26th November as calling for the resignation of Jeremy Isaacs after seeing the Wednesday night episode of Brookside in which a young thug had tried to force a school girl to have sex with him. The Daily Express on the same day quoted Mrs. Whitehouse as saying the episode was: ‘The wo rst programme ever transmitted in family viewing time’. December Devastation In case viewers had not watched enough of the channel’s output to make their own judgement The Sun decided to help them by counting the number of swear words over a week’s viewing on Channel 4. They published their results on lst December and compiled a day-by-day league

42

CHANNEL 4

table from which they calculated 173 swear words in all. In 1982 armed with the word count from The Sun, the Tory MP, John Carlisle led furious M.P.s in asking William Whitelaw, the Home Secretary, ‘to crack down on the foul language’. Mrs Whitehouse called for the sacking of Jeremy Isaacs and the MP for Stretford, Mr. Winston Churchill, slammed ‘the swearing as grotesque’. He also went on to say that: Judging by the very poor rating figures for Channel 4, viewers quite clearly share my concern. What viewers want is good family entertainment like you get every day in The Sun. (sic)

On the same day the Daily Express and the Daily Mail also ran stories about the channel including the news that Jeremy Isaacs had launched the Christmas schedule and that he was ‘satisfied with the ch a n n e l ’s performance’. In the House of Lords the anti-pornography campaigner Lord Nugent of Guildford called for the Government to ‘reverse the trend towards violence and sex on television’, stating that, ‘a whole new perspective of bad language’ had been introduced on Channel 4. On the 2nd December the Daily Mail ran a front page story with the headline, ‘BAN TV4 DEMANDS ANGRY MP’. The story related to a programme which had been shown two days earlier at the Christmas period press launch party. The programme was a party filmed at the Gay club Heaven and which was to be shown on New Year’s Day. The paper reported that: ‘For Tory MP John Carlisle, this was the ‘last straw’ – and he is trying to get the new TV network closed.’ The article continued with a catalogue of all the other recent problems to which the channel had been subjected, specifically the interventions of Mrs. Whitehouse and the heavy criticism from the press, coupled with the low viewing figures. The story was significant since it was run as a front page story, not a luxury usually afforded to television critics and it marked the beginning of an onslaught which was to continue through December, in what might be seen as a vicious and unwarranted attack on the channel and in particular on Jeremy Isaacs. By the 3rd December the story had moved to the House of Commons where it was reported William Whitelaw had been pushed by Tory MPs, led by John Carlisle, to insist that Channel 4 cleans up. It was reported that William Whitelaw had written to Lord Thomson, head of the IBA. John Carlisle’s motion stated: That this House expresses its concern at the quality and content of

Television’s New Baby

43

programmes broadcast on Channel 4; believes that the use of four-letter words and similar obscenities are deeply offensive to the British people; and urges the Independent Broadcasting Authority to review the terms and conditions as granted to the appropriate television channel.

The motion was supported by Mr Christopher Murphy, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Delwyn Williams, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. John Heddle, and Mr. Anthony Grant. It was a difficult time but there was worse to come and it was clearly not going to be a very festive season for those in control at the channel. The weeks leading to Christmas did not bring any more joy to the channel. Indeed the press seemed to be adamant that the channel had to change, and Mrs Whitehouse continued to call for the resignation of Jeremy Isaacs and the press continued to report her attacks. Amidst this was a stream of good sense and considered critical comment from Katherine Whitehorn in the Observer on the 12th December when she wrote about the outcry about offence on Channel 4: … what drives me to a frenzy is the protesters’ apparently total inability to distinguish between one kind of offensive-ness and another; between someone saying ‘piss-off ’ and people gang-banging a girl; between a programme that’s saying something a bit unusual and difficult and maybe treading on a few toes, and a film that’s straight sadistic exploitation of bloodlust.

She went on to say that the sound of a rude word does not actually cause any harm nor does the sight of something which is visually shocking, although she did see this as needing more care. She correctly pointed out the double standards of those who have criticised the homosexual party to be transmitted on New Year’s Day: ‘Over the festive season the homosexuals will have to listen to several thousand sniggering innuendoes about queers without anyone complaining at all.’ She continues with one of the fairest statements written about Channel 4 when she says, ‘Yet surely a minority channel should try to cater for its minorities?’ thereby expressing a sentiment which seemed to elude most of the critics of the channel. *****

44

CHANNEL 4

Jeremy Isaacs’ Reactions On the 16th December, when the channel had been the subject of much attack in the press, I conducted one of my regular interview sessions with Jeremy Isaacs as a barometer of how he was feeling about the reactions to, and his experience running the channel. I asked him, what had been his reactions to the initial reception of the channel and in particular the press reaction to the programmes: I was delighted with individual reactions to particular programmes; annoyed when people tried to characterise the channel by picking any one particular characteristic and saying “that’s what they are”; concerned that the viewing figures were lower than, I think, naively I had hoped they might be. And at one and the same time, both certain that the sort of things I am trying to do are the right things to be trying to do.

His views on the press were remarkably benevolent, seeing them as being unfair only in their failure to give a balance between their own critics recommending programmes as ‘Pick of the Day’ while stating that the channel was getting nil ratings for their programmes. He did not think that the press coverage had affected the views of the audience but if they thought that the offerings of the channel were ‘too earnest or too radical, then these are impressions which one has to think about’. However, he was thoughtful and philosophical about that perceived view of the channel. ‘Of course, I would have liked to persuade people that we were much more attractive and accessible, but if we are not, then we should not be trying to deceive people’. He did not regret any of these scheduling decisions and was adamant that they would remain in place. He was recognising that ‘we are obviously going to be a channel which will always do better in the later part of the evening than in the early part. I don’t see how we can alter that now’. More Press Attacks, New Year Reconciliation and Saved by The Street On the 27th December, Stafford Hildred reported an ‘Exclusive’ which stated that: ‘TV Chief Faces Sack – Secret Shake-up to save Channel 4’ in which he reported that ITV chiefs were to call for the resignation of Jeremy Isaacs. He reported that a secret meeting had been held of ITV

Television’s New Baby

45

chiefs to reschedule the channel and to call for the resignation of Jeremy Isaacs by the IBA. He wrote that: Minority programmes will be cut back and the Channel 4 soap opera, Brookside plunged into controversy by use of four-letter words, will be scrapped. New schedules of hit shows including the return of many old favourites have been drawn up. And early episodes of Coronation Street and Crossroads may be shown to help build up an audience.

Two days later Hildred was suggesting that he could do better as head of Channel 4 than Jeremy Isaacs. Designating him Emperor Isaacs, he asked, ‘Will he fall? Can he be pushed? Or will he bow to the masses?’ He even suggested his own alternative schedule which would consist of reruns of old ITV prog rammes and early editions of Crossroads and Coronation Street. ‘Brookside will have to go’, and he felt sure that ‘ITN could come up with faster, newsier news’. These changes would be achieved but unfortunately, ‘obscure minorities could wait a while until Channel 4 is established’. M e rc i f u l ly for viewe rs, t e l evision critics do not get to schedule television programmes so there was no possibility of the changes he suggested. The supposed meeting of ITV chiefs was never proved or disproved and there was never any suggestion that Jeremy Isaacs was to be sacked as Chief Executive. When interviewing ITV executives during the next year, all told me that no such meeting had ever taken place. Christmas passed and as January 1983 dawned, the press seemed filled with new resolutions to be nice to Channel 4. Those who attacked with vitriolic passion seemed soothed and urged others to be compassionate and thankful for the good on Channel 4, and to forgive them their indiscretions. The mood was both patronising and conciliatory. In The Mail on Sunday, full of New Year joy, Elkan Allan wrote: Why It’s Time to Stop Bashing Channel Four – This is the year the bashing has to stop. Channel 4 is not going to change its ways, so we may as well come to terms with its feminism, radicalism, and quirky ideas about what’s funny. Instead of knocking it, let us look on the bright side and welcome its arrival as, on balance, the television event of last year.

Suddenly, more of the channel’s programmes were singled out for

46

CHANNEL 4

praise. Walter, The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, P’Tang Yang Kipperbang, Channel 4 News, The Friday Alternative and The Snowman all came in for fair praise from the journalist. He recognised that the channel was only fulfilling its brief from Parliament when it catered for minorities and predicted that the target of 10% would be reached by 1985! In another change of heart, on the 8th January The Daily Mirror implored ‘Be Fair to Four’, and asked: When ar e we going to give Channel 4 a chance? Mary Whitehouse, uninformed MPs and some of the more tacky TV critics looking for cheap headlines have all bashed it. In fact, Channel 4 is producing some excellent programmes. It is far better than the early BBC2 and I’m convinced it will pick up bigger audiences.

While the word hypocrisy may come to mind, it would be wrong to attribute this as the reason for the change in the attitudes of the TV critics. The change could be attributed to reasons both practical and physical. In practical terms there is only a certain amount of TV coverage allowed in column inches and two major events were taking over the interest of the newspapers. They were inextricably linked with the style of coverage which the press had been giving to Channel 4. The advent of breakfast time television in Britain was scheduled for January 18th from the BBC and February lst from TV-am on channel 3. These two new services were to take over the column inches and the physical energy which had been given to the coverage of the arrival of Channel 4. TV-am was involved in the same dispute with Equity and the IPA and was, therefore, potentially under financial threat before it began transmissions. During January and later when the services began transmission, the coverage and criticism of the two breakfast services began to take over. There was, however, an even more pressing event which took over the attention of the British press and was a matter of much more concern to the viewers and one which gave television writers an opportunity to continue with their front page articles. The subject of press interest was Granada’s soap opera Coronation Street where the love triangle of Dierdre Barlow and Mike Baldwin and her husband Ken, captivated viewers and sent the press into indignant outrage at the affair which they claimed ‘split the country’ into those who thought Dierdre should leave boring Ken and go off with Macho Mike, and those who thought she should remain the dutiful wife of her self-obsessed husband. With new problems on which

Television’s New Baby

47

to concentrate, the press had to retreat from its sense of outrage on behalf of the public about Channel 4. January also gave the press a handful of more conventionally successful prog rammes about which they could enthuse and give their readers a sense that perhaps Channel 4 could be for ‘people like us’ and was not entirely directed towards minority groups. Two new programmes made the breakthrough for the channel. The Irish RM, a drama series starring Peter Bowles, who had also received critical and popular acclaim for his performance with Penelope Keith in To The Manor Born and The Spanish Civil War, a major documentary series from Granada and the beginning of the coverage of the American Superbowl, which went on to be cult viewing with young males and the yuppie business men of the 1980s. These programmes provided the press with subjects about wh i ch they could be more enthusiastic with more assurance, knowing that viewers were likely to agree with them, and they were extensively and favourable reviewed. All were excellent programmes but only the new coverage of American Football could be seen as innovative. However, the press were happier to review the more conventional aspects of the excellent drama series. By the end of January the press appeared to be rather less hostile to the channel and for the first time the intense pressure was off in terms of the public stream of criticism which it had endured during the first three months. H ow mu ch the press hostility had affected the viewe rs ’ perceptions of the channel is hard to speculate. Those who watched the channel had been able to make their own judgements but since the whole point of the channel was that viewers were supposed to dip in and out, no one was watching a great deal of the channel’s output and the whole ambiance which had been created around the channel was one of ‘problems’. It was presented and perceived as having obscure or boring p rogrammes wh i ch we re for minorities, either feminist, ethnic or intellectual. It had not been a happy start and the recovery from this position and the change in perceptions was a difficult task. It is said that ‘any publicity is good publicity’ but it is debateable whether some of the early press publicity which was given to Channel 4 was beneficial in the establishment of the new service. A Weekend with The Board at Ascot At the end of Ja nu a ry 1983 the exe c u t ive s, management and commissioning editors of Channel 4 went off to a weekend retreat at a

48

CHANNEL 4

hotel in Ascot to meet the Board and discuss the progress of the channel during its first three months and to assess what changes needed to be made. The weekend proved to be a vital time in the development of the channel and was instrumental in changes which were made to the structure and output of the channel. There had been previous meetings with the Board when they met the executive staff and commissioning editors who all had presented their plans and ideas for their programme. This, however, was the first meeting since the channel had gone on the air and it was with a certain amount of trepidation that the channel met its Board. The meeting was to be one where there was ‘frank and full’ discussion about the progress of the channel and it was certainly a weekend where no holds were barred in discussing the way that the channel was seen. The opening speech by Edmund Dell signalled that the Board were to speak freely about the problems which were seen to be affecting the channel. It was taken as spoken that there had been successes and these were not to be discussed. The mood of the weekend was, therefore, not one which was going to be pleasant or positive. Edmund Dell had set the agenda and the Saturday consisted of discussions of the general philosophy; nonprogramming questions such as scheduling, complementary common junctions, and presentation and then the specific programme areas – Actuality, Minority Programmes, Entertainment, and Drama with a closing response from Jeremy before a dinner where informal discussion would continue. Like a presiding Deity, E d mund Dell opened the morning by announcing in ominous tones that the meeting should consider ‘what have we done which we shouldn’t have done’, and told the assembly that ‘We should be dissatisfied with the size of our audience’, but also that, ‘Our programmes are not getting the audience that they deserve’. The Board members on the previous evening had indicated that minorities should be defined more broadly, there should be substantially more entertainment and the buzz word for this conference became the call for more JOY, although not for feminists since it was described as a gesture which should be avoided. The battle lines were quickly drawn and the allegiance to the two sides was rev ealed almost as soon as anyone spoke. The ITV representatives, immaculately clad Brian Tesler, Managing Director of LWT, described by Jeremy in his closing speech as, ‘a natty dresser, if ever I saw one’; and Bill Brown, Managing Director of STV, concerned about ITV figures and the inevitable cost to STV.

Television’s New Baby

49

In an early exchange between commissioning editor for Arts, Michael Kustow took on Brian Tesler in an exchange which he could never win but which nicely foregrounded the different philosophies of the two sides of the meeting. It resulted in Michael being put firmly into his artistic place. In response to a comment about the need to limit the number of commissions which were given, Kustow began, Brian is speaking as a shopkeeper. What he did not talk about is the rather delicate and complex process which Commissioning Editors who are trying to create a new relationship with programme suppliers… ‘You invite them into your house, maybe there are different rules…’ Rapier-like Tesler incised, ‘Invite fewer guests so that you can spend more time on them’. Kustow responded, ‘It’s their house too’. It was to be Tesler’s style throughout the proceedings. Fast, cutting and usually with the interests of ITV at heart, his role was to bring the channel to the understanding that there was a commercial world in which they were operating, even though Channel 4 did not have to have any commercial considerations in their own world. The first part of the day was designated about the philosophy of Channel 4 and it largely centred round the relationship with ITV. Should Channel 4 be bidding against ITV for American block busters like The Winds of War, or should ITV make it available to Channel 4. Bill Brown thought the channel should not go to bid, ‘Perhaps’, he asked, ‘there should be an internal debate after purchase to decide who would show it’. Tesler offered, ‘Maybe a repeat of each episode in the same week on the other channel’. Here the ITV chiefs are making suggestions which would benefit both channels but which takes their interests as paramount in terms of saving money. During this exchange it was obvious that thoughts of ‘difference’ were not at the forefront of their suggestions. ‘I propose that we should spend more money on entertainment’, said the Chairman, uncharacteristically. ‘The way we treat subjects is too serious’. The direction in which the discussion was moving was too much for Roger Graef, who intervened in the voice of the Independent Producer and jilted Open Broadcast advocate. ‘There is a danger in too much entertainment and repeats. This could lead to ITV2 and Channel 4 must be separate’. Here at this meeting the two sides of interest were clearly defined and divided; should Channel 4 represent the cultural or the commercial? They jostled around thoughts about cross fertilisation, bias in certain programmes, problems with Channel 4 News. And then, suddenly, Edmund Dell threw in an attack on the IBT (International Broadcasting

50

CHANNEL 4

Trust) whose series of programmes had largely been about the development of the Third World and economic problems. He felt that the programmes were ‘sheer propaganda’. Carol Haslam, the commissioning editor defended the programme and said that a new editor had been appointed. She also explained that they did not set out to be objective, and the third programme in the series was much more analytical. Edmund responded with an opinion which was diametrically opposed to the committed programme. He said: The people who are making the programme should distance themselves from the subject and in any case what was wrong with them was that they were no good.

The fact that those who made the films we re politically and ideologically committed to the subject of the films seemed to have escaped him. The accusation that the films were ‘no good’ was a criticism of quality and opinion, not a comment on the subject. However, it did highlight the difference in approach which was fundamental to the views of Jeremy and the commissioning editors, that different views should be shown on the channel. What Edmund Dell was advocating was editorial control and input into the channel. Although Jeremy did not respond at this point it was the opposite of his philosophy that the point of the channel was that that many voices should be heard. The meeting continued with discussions across all areas of the channel’s business – scheduling, presentation, common junctions, cross promotions, all the programme areas, Actuality, Minority, Music, Arts, Ethnic, Education, Entertainment and Drama. The agenda was devised by the chairman and as he stated at the beginning of the weekend, this was not to be a time for praise. However when Jeremy Isaacs gave his speech at the end of the proceedings, he did speak on behalf of himself and all those at the channel who had been involved in the work of setting up the channel and answe red some of the negativity wh i ch had been predominant in the discussions. In a speech which was a tour de force, he answered every point made by the Board and gave an impressive account of the first three months, revealing that he was aware of all their points and would address them selectively: I think that a lot of the discussions that we’ve listened to, have simply ignored initial difficulties for a new channel of cracking a sort of audience

Television’s New Baby

51

inertia and audience habits that doesn’t exactly want to be challenged. The fact is that competing with three extremely professional British television channels is never going to be easy. Maybe we didn’t market ourselves absolutely correctly as we tried to get on air.

He continued by explaining that they we re waiting for certain entertainment programmes to be re a dy and pointed out that the entertainment which the Board sought, was available across a range of progra m m e s. He refused to accept their suggestions that fewer programmes should be made, and he adamantly supported all this staff and their aspirations and efforts. Part of his speech revealed the inspirational leadership which he brought to the channel and which took them forward over the next phase of the life of the channel: I think we have to strengthen each other in the difficult months ahead. The more we talk together, I think others will agree and the more we exchange ideas and the more we pass programmes across programme boundaries, the more entertaining we are likely to be. It isn’t going to be easy to get up to the share of audience that we want. It’s going to be a hard struggle, but I never thought it was going to be easy, and I don’t know anybody else who thought it was going to be easy. And had it been easy, how many of us would have joined?

Everyone working at the channel left the Board Weekend with renewed determination to continue to work to achieve their aims. How the various elements of the channel fitted together is the subject of the next part of the story.

The Players – Inside the Channel 1. Commissioning Editors Man came into Reception claiming to be Jesus Christ asking to see a Commissioning Editor. – Duty Log Entry

The story of Channel 4 is the story of different groups of people who were integral to the prog ress of the channel. The players who were to make the channel and its programmes work were individuals but they fitted into different groups who all had their own part to play. Inside and out of Charlotte Street there were individuals and groups including the commissioning editors, the management team, the ITV executives and the newly emerging independent producers all playing different roles in the unfolding creation of the channel. In this chapter, as with others in this book, I have had to select from many sources and interviews to give an idea of how those contributions were made and how they featured in the overall development of the channel. Many other people were involved and these who are selected are representative of others but also are showing how they contributed to the channel. One independent producer may have thought that if the man mentioned above in the Duty Log was Jesus Christ, there might have been a chance that he would have been granted an audience with a commissioning editor, others had the feeling that commissioning editors were the modern day incarnation of Jesus Christ, able to perfor m miracles, turn a prog ramme idea or a treatment into a successful programme. If your idea of heaven was to become an independent producer then the commissioning editors were the first rung on the ladder to heaven or conversely the gateway to hell if you were turned down. Who were the commissioning editors and why were they so important in the story of Channel 4? If there was one aspect of the structure of Channel 4 which was different from any other television company it was the creation and evolution of the commissioning editor. The concept was a new one for British television occasioned by the idea that Channel 4 would act as a publishing house taken from the model of a book publishing house. The

54

CHANNEL 4

idea was that anyone with an idea for a programme would send it in to the channel and the commissioning editor had the job of deciding which ideas could be suitable for eventual programmes. This method of soliciting television programmes was very different from any other television company where programme ideas usually came from within the company and the philosophy for the programming came from the controller, departmental heads or executive producers. In theory the choice of direction for the programmes could have come from outside the channel but in practice it was to remain to a large extent the ideas of the commissioning editors and in particular Jeremy Isaacs which determined the shape of Channel 4’s schedule. The appointment of commissioning editors was one of the most crucial decisions in the way that the channel was to develop but as important was the selection of the subject areas for which they were to be responsible for it was this initial decision which was to determine the initial tone and style of the channel. Channel 4 was not a production company. They had no in-house productions, except for the initial Comment programme and later the Right to Rep l y progra m m e. All programmes were commissioned from outside, ideally from all over the country, in practice mainly from London and also from all over the world. The first three commissioning editors who were appointed were designated as senior commissioning editors and these were Liz Forgan for Actuality – news and current affairs. Naomi McIntosh (later Sargant) E d u c ation and David Rose – Fiction. Only David Rose had any experience of television. He had a long and distinguished career in drama at the BBC where he had been responsible for the development of Z-Cars and the renowned series Play for Today. His appointment was a natural progression to be head of the new programme area which was to develop film and drama for television in the 1980s and beyond. The work of David Rose and his suppliers was to be amongst the finest that the channel achieved. The two other senior commissioning editors were controversial and were an indication of the type of people whom Jeremy Isaacs was to choose to staff his channel. Liz Forgan was a journalist who at the time of her appointment was editor of the Women’s Page of The Guardian. She had impressed Jeremy Isaacs when she had interviewed him when he was first appointed to his job, for a series about men in the media and she had challenged him about his plan for programmes which took account of the views of women. The third appointment was Naomi McIntosh, pro-Vice Chancellor at the Open University, whose career spanned education,

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

55

research and marketing. She was a woman at the top of her career in the academic world. Both were new to television and their appointments were a surprise. Each bought to their jobs a freshness of approach and important experience from outside the television industry. The policy of bringing new people into the channel who had not worked in television was to be repeated in other appointments. The full commissioning team consisted of three senior commissioning editors, eleven commissioning editors and two film purchasers. Each editor was responsible for a subject or programme genre. The programme areas which the channel chose to include in their first schedules were Actuality, Arts, Documentaries (Single and Series), Education, Entertainment, Fiction, Independent Cinema and Community Programmes, Multi-Cultural, Music, Religion, Sport and Youth. When the commissioning editors were appointed they were a very varied group of people and rather different from the type of people who were normally in control at television companies. What united them was that they also wanted to see a change in the voices which were heard and seen on television. Indeed, many of them had no experience of making a television programme let alone commissioning other people to make them. What they did have were views and opinions about the potential for change in British television. The fourth channel may not have gone to an Open Broadcast system but the lobby for such a form of broadcasting had been strong and remained as an intellectual fo rce within the philosophy of many of the commissioning editors. To various degrees the majority of the commissioning editors believed in and were committed to the philosophy of the channel and saw their jobs both as a challenge and an opportunity to facilitate the changes which were about to take place. The idea of the commissioning editor for television programmes was a new one and it was vital to the philosophy of the channel because they were to be the vehicle through which the programme makers could bring their ideas to the scre e n . Indeed there was often mu ch on-going discussion and disagreement as to the precise function of the editors in relation to the control of the programmes which they had commissioned. Jeremy Isaacs was always adamant that it was not their role to act as executive producers. At the Board Weekend at Ascot in January 1983 he told members of the Board that he would never have allowed any of the commissioning editors into his cutting room. The commissioning editors were the way in for prog ramme makers but their relationship differed according to who they were and those with whom they were dealing. Few

56

CHANNEL 4

were welcomed for their experience and advice but some programme makers were horrified at the thought that any editor would ever enter their domain. This was particularly the feeling with ITV companies who may have been making programmes in a particularly genre for many years and certainly did not welcome intrusions from a Channel 4 commissioning editor whom they knew had no experience. Commissioning editors were powerful but they had to learn to tread very carefully and prove themselves in the eyes of some more experienced programme makers. Some grew with the job and became well respected, others never moved beyond the stage of amateurs in the eyes of other broadcasters. Sometimes the commissioning editors were a confederation and at others a confrontation. In the early days at the channel they were definitely perceived and perceived themselves as a group. They were Jeremy Isaacs’ troops and they were at the frontline both as targets for hopeful p rogramme make rs and for the criticism wh i ch was made about programmes. When the channel began the commissioning editors were all located on the first floor together with Jeremy Isaacs, Justin Dukes, Paul Bonner, Pam Masters (Head of Presentation) and her team, and Ellis Griffiths (Head of Engineering). The first floor was the heart of the channel and the editors had their own area where their offices were clustered. Tiny and glass walled partitions meant that the editors and their visitors were visible to everyone passing by. Along one side of the floor were the offices of John Ranelagh – Religion and Ireland, Michael Kustow – Arts, Mike Bolland – Youth, and Liz Forgan – Actuality, adjacent were Cecil Korer – Entertainment, Adrian Metcalfe – Sport, Carol Haslam – Documentaries, Sue Woodford – Multi-Cultural, Paul Madden- Single Documentaries/Media/Community Animation. In close proximity were Alan Fountain – Independent Grant Aided Sector and Naomi Sargeant – Education. Secretaries were located near by and everyone was within a few yards of Jeremy’s office. They could walk in to question him, rail at some decisions, or just to seek advice. And they did. Everyone felt close to the heart of the channel and adrenalin flowed and energy abounded. Near to the offices of the editors was the small coffee area where visitors waited and drank the famous Channel 4 coffee, fresh orange or Perrier water – Mhe novel and ubiquitous metropolitan drink of the 1980s. Through the coffee area and the Reception of Channel 4 passed the famous of broadcasting and the hopefuls and some of those who would become famous and rich. In the early days, most of them were making their way to the office of a commissioning editor.

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

57

The Habitat of the Commissioning Editor Many jokes were made about the natural habitat of the commissioning editors being the restaurants of Charlotte Street and further afield and the nature of the job, combined with the fact that the only food available within the building was the notorious Robochef which provided less than exciting food for the late night presentation and security staff; certainly did mean that there were many working lunches and dinners, as was the case in all aspects of the media in the 1980s – but to be fair, their main habitat was certainly their offices. However, one place described as the domain of the commissioning editors was the Programme Review Meeting. This meeting, held every Thursday morning, was the forum where they met with Jeremy Isaacs, Paul Bonner, Presentation, and sometimes Marketing, to discuss the prog rammes. This was their time. The time when they talked about what had been on during the previous week, what was forthcoming, what had been the press reactions and the duty log and what were to be the presentation priorities for each week of the schedule. Sometimes there would be serious or even frivolous intellectual discussions. It was a time when everyone spoke freely and this was where many heated discussions took place. This was the place where the personalities of the commissioning editors were revealed, often in their response to criticisms. Fiercely defensive of their programmes they would argue and support the work of their independent producers and their own commissioning decisions. The commissioning editors may have been a group of individuals but they certainly had an overriding collective attitude both to their programmes and in their personal philosophies. The mood at Programme Review Meetings in the early days at the channel was different from any other meeting which I had ever attended at a television studio. At Channel 4 there was a marked lack of sexism, racism or indeed any other ‘ism’ to a deg ree which I had not experienced outside a university seminar. If any group of people were able to create a channel which was free of the prejudices that permeated both society and television, it was the people who were working at the channel. That is not to say that they would have described themselves as subscribing to any specific cause. What they shared was a feeling that discrimination of any sort was a bad thing and not something which they would want to perpetuate at any level. It was often unspoken but it permeated the atmosphere of the channel.

58

CHANNEL 4

Controller of Programmes When Paul Bonner applied for the job of Chief Exe c u t ive the interviewing group were very impressed with him and although they did not think that he was the right person to lead the channel they did want to include him in the team. Edmund Dell offered him the job of Channel Controller and asked him to work alongside Jeremy Isaacs. Paul Bonner talked about how he was appointed to the job: I’d been interviewed for the second time and Edmund Dell rang up and said, ‘We wish you to accept a job, not as Chief Executive, which was the only job advertised, but as Channel Controller’. And I said that I had argued at the interviews that I thought there were two jobs and that Channel Controller was the one that I was actually suited for. Given that a Chief Executive, in my view, needed experience of the ITV system.

Bonner accepted the position and after meeting Jeremy, whom he already knew from the BBC, they agreed that they could work together and set about deciding how the work would be divided: We agreed certain things, basically that he would deal with the managing director, the business and the political and all the other public statement side, while I was very happy to get on with the actual recruitment of staff, choosing the building, choosing the equipment and all of that. But that at the level of programmes we would work entirely together and no one of us would take a major decision without consulting the other. It was a very simple arrangement and it worked absolutely.

Paul Bonner had a very important but difficult role at the channel. Because of the total involvement of Jeremy Isaacs in the philosophy, the choice of commissioning editors, genres and often, programmes with which the channel was involved, he did take over some of the work which the channel controller would have normally pursued. What Paul Bonner did contribute to the channel was a quiet authority and knowledge in the ways of working with creative talent. Having worked at the BBC he had all the qualities and skills which were the best aspects of the bureaucracy of the major broadcaster. Since Channel 4 needed to have some of the qualities which were included in the work shown on BBC 2, the abilities and training of Paul Bonner were invaluable in the development of the

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

59

channel. Paul Bonner negotiated with the IBA and was a mediating influence within the channel. He was also involved with the work of all the commissioning editors and argued on their behalf. Commissioning Editors and their Genres The initial appointment of commissioning editors was for certain programme areas or genres. These were, in fact, a mixture of subject areas and programme genres. While genres are by definition evolving entities, Channel 4 made new programme areas to fit their innovative brief. Actuality – Channel 4’s new designation for the conventional news and current affairs departments was a subject area which could embrace all types of programmes within its scope. A news programme, a current affairs programme with a studio discussion or a half hour documentary made by a women’s production team. It offered a wide subject area and the possibilities for innovation in both content and form. Similarly, with sport, the coverage of sport could be the conventional style coverage of an event, or a documentary about a sports personality or a sports ‘topic’, or even a quiz show based on sport. Sport, Actuality, Multi-cultural or Entertainment are subject areas they are not genres. The genre in television programming is the single play or series, the soap opera , the quiz show, the ten minute news bulletin or the documentary. Channel 4 took the programme genre of documentary and created two commissioning editors to cover the area of single documentaries and documentary series. The documentary as a programme form was also one of the most common types of programmes offered to Channel 4. The documentary is the equivalent of an extended essay or thesis; indeed it is the televisual extended essay. It is the form most often used by television producers and directors who might be seen as the thinkers and intellectuals of the industry. It was to be expected then, that most programme ideas came in the form of the documentary both single and series. However, not only were they offered to Carol Haslam and Paul Madden but to commissioning editors in all subject areas. A great unleashing of documentary ideas which had been waiting for an opportunity to be realised. Thus, initially, the programme form of the new channel became the already established documentary. A discursive mode which expanded on a theme or idea and formed it into a television programme. It was certainly not innovative in form but the content of the programme ideas offered revealed subjects which had not

60

CHANNEL 4

previously had a place on television. However, the form did become seen to be the major programme genre and did contribute to the feeling that there were many serious programmes on the channel and not enough entertainment. Actuality – News by Any Other Name Senior commissioning editor Liz Forgan’s Actuality area was Channel 4’s new designation for the conventional News and Current Affa i rs departments and it embraced both types of programmes within its scope as well as some new programmes. A dictionary definition of actuality is ‘fact or state of being actual, realism, something that really is’. (McDonald 1972:13) ‘What really is’, became a major part of the channel’s output. Actuality had the same remit as other programmes, to be different and innovative. The output had to be distinctive and yet it was in an area which had strong traditions, the news and current affairs having dominated the television screens of both BBC and ITV. There was a sense in which the news had been done in a certain way on British television with little difference save for a difference of tone and style. Liz Forgan spoke to me about her plans before the channel began transmissions: We started at the very beginning with things like, take the news we started out asking the most radical questions. I mean we literally started by putting the question, ‘Do we want the news?’ We have no obligation to have the news, unlike ITV1, I mean I think it is absolutely our responsibility to sit down and to consider questions like that. Quite seriously, so we did. Then we decided, that we did, and after that the same old criteria leads us to everything – does that mean it has to be something different from the half hour news programme, because the time actually dictates much more than the programme. It dictates what sort of programme it is and at the point where you say, ‘Right we are going to have 60 minutes of news’, you immediately alter the basis on which you make the news. You cannot have sixty minutes of one and a half minute items, it would drive you crazy, so you have at once altered the whole texture of the news.

The decision that the news would run for an hour de t e rmined the stru c t u re of the new s. The provision of the other programmes for which Liz Fo rgan would be re s p o n s i ble was across a wide range of current affa i rs. She gave an indication of the restrictions wh i ch influenced her initial plans:

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

61

Jeremy gave me a notional number of slots and a notional amount of money and what I did was to sit down with a blank sheet of paper and say to myself, what specialist current affairs strands or series would have to be presented by any decent self-respecting channel and to set that out and the answer came to about 35. Jeremy said you can have three or something like that.

She continued and set out how she went about sourcing her programmes: One of the greatest freedoms which I have is that the structure of Channel 4, the fact that we make no programme ourselves, the fact that every single programme comes from a different autonomous independent place, I hope will mean that for the first time it will be genuinely possible, over a long period, to admit an enormous different range of political views and that when people turn on to Channel 4 and see the politics programme going on with Social Democrats and the alternative news programme with a slightly left wing flavour – and actually understand that no one programme is the voice of the channel. Our actual structure makes that easier because none of them are employed by us, none of them are on our staff, they have a commissioning, contractual decently separated relationship with us and I can buy another one next week and another one next year… and this exists because of a constitutionally commercial structure, which is a very useful thing.

Here Liz Forgan articulates the strength of the plurality of the channel wh i ch is enshrined in the constitution and wh i ch enables her to commission across a range of political opinion and yet not give the channel a political bias. While she speaks of this in relation to Actuality, it was indeed the fact which permeated the entire channel’s output and enabled all the commissioning editors to select programme ideas without fear of giving the channel a definite and identifiable voice. One of the most contentious areas into which Liz Forgan moved in her Actuality brief was the inclusion of women as the producers of a current affairs show. Liz gave the credit for the idea for the programme to Jeremy Isaacs: The current affairs show was Jeremy’s idea, way back, long before I came here. It is a wonderful idea, but almost universally misunders t o o d . Everybody thinks it is the place where we are going to do women’s issues. Those who don’t think that, think it is a programme for women. It is not. It

62

CHANNEL 4

is simply a programme by women. It is the world at large reported by women just to see what happens that is different.

Liz confirmed that not all women were happy with the plan but nevertheless it was one of the programmes areas which she pursued with consequences for both the channel and other channels. While some argued that it would create a ghetto if women were given their own programmes and some ITV executives laughed up their sleeves when they suggested that they would be willing to give their male employees the right to have maternity leave – if ever they asked for it. Little did they suspect that this would become law in the next 20 years. But one positive story came from Liz Forgan: A young woman who is a researcher at one of the companies said, ‘I have to tell you that before Channel 4 starts it has already made a difference. For the last one and a half years I have been regularly putting up ideas to my Head of Department for women’s issues and I would regularly get a memo back which said, ‘Thank you very much for your interesting ideas, we must talk some time, we must talk sometime’. And nothing ever happens. Yesterday, I happened to see on the desks of some of my colleagues a memo from that same head of department which said, ‘Jeremy Isaacs seems to be kicking up a great stink about women. Should we do a series?’’

Liz Forgan was delighted that even before her programmes had gone on the air, the prospect of her themes was moving other broadcasters into planning similar programmes. Liz was responsible for some of the areas which were the most controversial which the channel produced, and while the Actuality department extended the range of available programmes, including the controversial Diverse Reports, it is still Channel 4 News which must be seen as the flagship programme of her commissioning. Fiction – David Rose The most high pr ofile and experienced commissioning editor to be appointed by Jeremy Isaacs was David Rose who had been Head of Drama at BBC Television since 1970 producing a number of Plays for Today. While in that post in Birmingham he had been responsible for producing a number of Second City Firsts, successive series of new plays by new writers finding more than sixty new writers for television. Among the

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

63

writers whose work David Rose had brought to the screen before he came to Channel 4, were David Rudkin, Peter Terson, Philip Martin, David Hare, Willie Russell and Alan Bleasdale. His reputation was immense and he was held in high regard by writers, producers and directors for the work which he had done. David Rose spoke of his initial meeting with Jeremy Isaacs: When Jeremy first invited me in December 1980 to go and see him I didn’t know anything really about the plans for Channel 4 and I thought he was talking about a conventional head of drama. I very quickly in the first few minutes realised that this was not the case but it was something else and Jeremy from the outset has always said, commissioning editors are there to commission and to sort of monitor, because finally we are going to publish the work. But it is hands off time and I think any editor who would interfere in perhaps, let us say the wrong way, or too much or whatever, might have his knuckles wrapped and told hands off. On the other hand, I can only operate in the way that I’ve operated before.

The way that David Rose would have operated was to have had hands on advice during the editing stage. He spoke of his interest in filmmaking: The greatest fun in this job, the bit that gives me most satisfaction is the involvement in films when they are emerging. I believe films are finally made in the cutting room – when the script has been written, when the film has been shot, you then have the material in the cutting room. You know what has worked better in the shooting than was expected, you know what has not actually not come off awfully well, therefore adjustments can be made to make perhaps an even better film than you had envisaged. Or you may actually be trying to sort of salvage something – but that is the fun. That is where you restructure a film, you can bring a whole new depth, a new sort of subtext to some scenes by simply restructuring and that’s enormously satisfying.

The work which David Rose did was outstanding and Film on Four was hailed as a success in changing the British Film Industry. Film on Four created a new relationship with the British film industry and this was brought about by the work which David Rose did in his development of the new area for Channel 4. David Rose gave credit to Jeremy Isaacs for his philosophy at the channel and to Willie Whitelaw for enabling the

64

CHANNEL 4

channel to exist, and he pointed out that the resultant cre at ive opportunities within film were the envy of people around the world. I asked him what he felt he had achieved after 5 years in his job. Well I think Film on Four, I should be the one who says it, that it has emerged in a way that I couldn’t have imagined in 1981. I mean it was so immensely encouraging that the films were received particularly in the film industry and in film festivals round the world very soon, very early and that sort of feed back they gave me. And other film makers were coming to us with more sort of determination and energy to try to match what we had done, and standards have actually improved but they’re making overall better films now than they were in 1981 but clearly there were enough at the beginning to get the spark, and winning the top film festival prize for the first and second year with Remembrance and then Another Time, Another Place. Engaging with the members who wins the top prize at Cannes with Paris, Texas and the prize for the screenplay of Moonlighting which was one of our very first commissions. We were enormously encouraged by the response and I think, did you say achievement, was that your word? [Yes, what did you think was your greatest achievement’, I asked] Well, I’m told that this is a major achievement and I’m not going to disagree.

The work done by David Rose had an effect on the whole of the television industry and the film industry. They developed a partnership with the film industry that did not exist before and the channel led the way. Speaking in 1987 David Rose could identify the changes which came about, and explained what these changes meant: Now talent simply makes films. I think they’re making films and they know that they’re being shown both in cinemas and on television because that’s what film making is today. The cinema as a film industry needs television. There is hardly one film a year that’s made without television money in the industry at large, and most of the films are made very much with Channel 4. I mean Channel 4 shared in more than half the British film production of films in 1987 and that is the situation. The film industry needs television and we need the film industry. We both need films but it’s really within the common grasp. It’s a partnership.

As well as the Film on Four strand, David Rose was also responsible for the channel’s soap opera Brookside. When I originally asked him what he

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

65

felt were his achievements, he replied that he was just delighted when things work and people respond well. But he then went on to talk about Brookside. I think B rookside was a major achievement in two ways. I mean we commissioned it. Jeremy expressed a need for a twice weekly soap opera to gain a continuing loyalty to the programme, because we needed a level of audience to satisfy the advertising revenue and so forth. I think it was an achievement that Phil Redmond came along and perhaps understood some of what the remit was about or perhaps it was by accident. But he did innovate in the way he set up Mersey Television and Brookside as a location unique in soap opera production out of the four walls of the studio. So that there we had a certain degree of innovation in production terms and it has simply with a few exceptions been number 1 or 2 in our top ten, which is the job it was set up to do and I’m really pleased that it sustained that until today and sustained that with an integrity that I think might have been difficult to hang on to but they have hung on to it. I think in the main, which is trying to set that series firmly in the 80s and make it more than just a piece of escapism so that I think it is Phil Redmond’s and Brookside’s and Mersey Television’s achievements and I think its one of Channel 4’s achievements in being able to draw the audience in that way.

David Rose, along with Jeremy Isaacs, was the most experienced programme maker in the channel. He brought to the channel a level of experience and knowledge which was instrumental in the development of the area of Fiction encompassing film, television drama, and cinema and creating a number of successful films for both television and the cinema. David Rose was integral to the success of the channel but he always transmitted a sense of being part of the wider world of the television industry and his presence brought respect to the channel which came from his experience and his willingness to be part of the whole new philosophy of the channel. Education – Naomi Sargant The inclusion of education was part of the Broadcasting Act which gave Channel 4 its remit which included the requirement that it should provide a suitable proportion of educational programmes. The appointment of Naomi Sargant as senior commissioning editor for Education was one of

66

CHANNEL 4

the most unusual yet inspired choices which Jeremy Isaacs made. Naomi had no experience of television but a vast experience of many aspects of education. A combination which might not have been ideal for a departmental head of education but an innovative choice for someone who would be commissioning in an area where she would normally have more knowledge than the prog ramme makers. Naomi had started her career as a market researcher with Gallup and then had taught at Enfield College of Technology. In 1969 she joined the Open University and was appointed as Pro Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Professor of Applied Social Research. Among other areas of expertise she was a member of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education. Naomi came to the channel with a huge experience of social science and research and knowledge of how people learned. A year after they went on air, she spoke about how she had developed her area: There was very little guidance either from Jeremy or from the IBA. The framework of my programmes is partly structural simply because of the time that we were going to be on air during the day and therefore because we weren’t going to open up till the early evening or lunchtime on Saturday and Sunday, that meant that the nature of the time that one was asked to fill was ve ry diffe rent from that wh i ch educational programming wa s conventionally filling other channels. It meant by definition, that we weren’t going to do much for children, that we were never going to do schools and that, therefore, we were in the general area of the education of adults, with this broad canvas.

The planning of the educational output of Channel 4 had to be coordinated to a certain extent with that which was transmitted on ITV. The additional provision by Channel 4 meant that there would be a far greater quantity of educational programmes than ever before and together with Jeremy Isaacs, she decided that there should be regular provision – all year round 52 weeks of the year, available like a utility, a water supply. The philosophy behind education programmes was quantity, variety, regularity, flexibility with a commitment to proceed with the prog ramme area. Naomi also convinced Jeremy that the concept of repeats was a valuable one in educational terms. Her experience had shown her that repeats and indeed, repetition was a good thing in terms of education and that also became a feature of educational programmes. Naomi had the benefit of her knowledge from the transmission of Open University programmes

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

67

and also from the research for which she had been responsible which told her how the commitment of an audience to educational programmes was often dependent on more than one opportunity to view. Immediately prior to coming to Channel 4 Naomi had just spend 3 years chairing the National Committee on Continuing Education and having written half of the report, she had the research at her fingertips when planning her work at Channel 4. She commented: I didn’t have to go and commission new research. I had literally just written this and had a total mapping of people’s educational background, what their needs were, what their interests were, age groups, class, the rest of it. Things they would have liked to study when they were young, that they hadn’t had a chance to do – things that they would be interested in doing. So I had this in my head and we were in an incredibly fortunate position.

Naomi also worked to co-ordinate educational provision to prevent clashes across channels. Working in a way that attempted to ensure that there was sufficient shared forward planning to give the most benefit to viewers. They agreed that they would compete in the market place of general adult education – gardening, cookery, but that they would share information about programmes in disadvantaged areas – priority groups and issues which might need back-up services outside in the community. What she obviously brought to the channel was an overview of the area and level of understanding of her brief that had the potential to spread education across a wider range of subjects than had been previously available. The obvious question for someone in such a high profile position, who had gone into the job with no experience of half of her job, was asked by Naomi herself: The question came from me as whether I could do the job. I knew what I wanted to achieve. I didn’t actually know that I would have the right judgement, how could any of us know? You know, how could Liz know that she was going to? So there was a funny year of limbo, when I knew I was meeting all these acts of faith. I didn’t know that they would all be... I didn’t actually know that none of them would be bad.

I assured her that this was a feeling which every producer or executive producer would have experienced and she replied with her professional

68

CHANNEL 4

voice: ‘But aren’t we all professionals, insecure as we change to new jobs until we have some evidence that we can do it? It was all totally different’. Multi-Cultural Innovations Sue Woodford was the first commissioning editor for multi-cultural programming. She was an experienced television professional, who had worked in independent television since 1969 and had produced and directed Granada’s award winning current affairs programme World in Action. Her brief was to provide programmes which addressed the multicultural nature of Britain. In the Channel 4 Launch brochure they promised, ‘Channel Four will portray Britain as the multi-racial society it is, encouraging different ethnic groups to speak to us, entertain us, tell us how they perceive the world we share’. Not exactly of one united people – even this was setting up the perceived difference of the various groups within the audience. For Sue Woodford the task was to counter the already existing stereotypes on British television. She set out her own thoughts and plans: The whole argument that has been put forward is that both blacks and Asians in this country are never shown on television, or if they are shown, they are shown in their standard stereotypical roles, like bus conductors or doctors, or they are the butt of a racist joke and that television basically projects an image of a male dominated white middle class society. That programme makers on the whole are middle class male and white and that programmes that are made, if they are made, either go for the standard stereotype of an arranged marriage or rioting in the streets. They show blacks as problems or as idiots, and for a long time, there has been a sort of growing discontent if you like, about that, and a belief that something should be done about it, and I suppose at the moment everybody is turning to Channel 4 because Channel 4 is supposed to be doing everything about everything for everybody.

The aim of the channel as a whole, not just in the multi-cultural commissions, was that it would show Britain is a multi-racial, multicultural society. The fact that they had a commissioning editor for the area was not their sole commitment for there we re a number of commissioning editors who were trying to change the mix of people who were to appear on the channel. When the channel first committed to this

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

69

change there was an argument that Channel 4 would become the conscience of ITV and BBC and no one else would bother to change their programmes. Sue Woodford suggested that the opposite was what was happening: For example, the BBC is coming out in October before we are on the air, with something called The Black Magazine which their attempt to rival Black on Black which is my magazine and they have already changed the image of their Asian programmes. They are now calling it The Asian Magazine and they are making it more accessible, slightly brighter, a bit younger, a bit more lively. So I think that it is beginning to happen.

I asked how much interference or control she expected from the IBA but as an experienced programme maker she had experience of the mixed and often unpredictable response which she might expect from the Authority. Nevertheless, she knew even before any prog rammes were transmitted that the constituency which she was serving had very strong views on the state of British television: It is terribly difficult to say in advance. All one can say is in terms, less the Asian communities, but certainly the black communities here, certainly they are very angry and they have very tough things to say about British society and the way the system works, and if for example, a programme like Black on Black is going to genuinely reflect the views of a lot of those people, it is not going to be a nice quiet cosy programme where everybody pats everybody else on the back.

Sue Woodford also had a plan to change the representation of ethnic minorities in positions behind the camera on her programmes. One of the problems which she encountered was that there were not enough trained black or Asian people to work in television production. She believed that if her programmes were to be authentic and actually acceptable to a black audience then they had to have black involvement in the production. She set up training schemes and courses with the plan that she would have a bigger production base in the future and saw this as an important part of her remit. Sue Woodford left Channel 4 when her husband moved to America to work. Her initial work at the channel set in place the two programmes which were to form part of the early reputation of the channel, Black on

70

CHANNEL 4

Black and Eastern Eye. She also created a feeling that there was a future of inclusion for a whole area of the population who had been denied both access to and provision of programmes which reflected their ideas and cultures. Her work had a huge influence in the early days of the channel and was one of the innovative areas in content, form and intention. Sue Woodford’s successor was very different. The writer Farrukh Dhondy took over multi-cultural programmes and introduced some more popular and contentious programmes. He commissioned fictions, dramas, comedies and other cultural programmes which also reflected a wide ra n ge of mu l t i - c u l t u ral issues and intere s t s. The current affairs programme The Bandung File was one of the most famous contributions to the channel and one which attracted both criticism and critical approval. Young People – the Elusive Audience When Channel 4 began, the group of the audience who were most desirable to television companies was the young audience. Hard to attract to television, the task of securing this new audience went to Mike Bolland, who was a BBC producer with 18 years experience, working as a producer and editor on various documentaries and programmes for young people. His programmes became very successful and he was one of the editors who brought a new audience to television and gave an opportunity for new voices to be heard. Mike Bolland was responsible for commissioning some of the programmes which shocked the main audience but showed that the channel was speaking to his target audience. His early commissions included The Comic Strip, Whatever You Want, The Tube, Loose Talk, and later Who Dares Wins. Many of his programmes were made by and for young people and succeeded in bringing new voices and talent to the screen and to production. He gave opportunities to many across a range of talents. People who have developed successful careers in various areas of television and who were given their first opportunity by Mike Bolland included Keith Allen, Jonathan Ross, the team who made Who Dares Wins, produced by Denise O’Donohue and Jimmy Mulville who went on to be one of the most successful independent production companies Hat Trick. Others at both the production and performance level, had already started in the television industry, but Mike Bolland gave them opportunities to develop their own brand of programmes and skills and they went on to be major talents in the industry. Some of the outstanding programmes commissioned by Mike Bolland are discussed in

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

71

the programme section of this book. Often his programmes were the cause of complaint, but equally often the complaints came from those for whom the programme was least intended. Youth to Entertainment Bolland was very successful in his work and when Cecil Korer left he was made commissioning editor for Entertainment. This was a very difficult period both for Korer and for Bolland, who spoke of the way he experienced this time: The most difficult period of my life here at Channel 4 was the changeover from Youth to Entertainment and that was a sheer nightmare because no one had ever thought through what it meant to change commissioning editors. Like everything else, it sort of just happens. Nobody had really stopped to think what effect a departing commissioning editor would have or what effect moving a commissioning editor would have. I got both the backlash of the outgoing editor and all the grief of being an incoming editor as well as seeing what I had done change character and the people I’d worked with and the effect on their business.

As well as losing those he had nurtured, Bolland needed to establish a relationship with new producers and sever relationships with producers who he no longer wanted to work with. His achievement was that he managed to retain the best of the Entertainment commissions and bring new programmes to the area. As a result of the change of commissioning editor the channel did commission programmes which had grown out of the philosophy wh i ch Bolland had begun in the area of Youth programming and while he found the changeover period particularly difficult, he later was able to say that: Out of that time came Saturday Live and The Last Resort, and all the other things which all had their roots oddly enough in my time at the Youth part. If I have a regret in entertainment it’s that we never did a Blackadder and we’ve never really cracked situation comedy and I don’t know whether it is a tired old format, or that we have not had the right offer or haven’t had the eye for the right script.

Mike Bolland’s achievements were impressive. While the Board and the

72

CHANNEL 4

Press may have complained that there was not enough entertainment on the channel, they had obviously not seen the number of innovative and sometimes, outrageous programmes which were offered to their target audiences. Arts on Four M i chael Ku s t ow was commissioning editor for Arts and he wa s representative of those editors who we re new to telev i s i o n . His background was across a range of artistic institutions. He had been Associate Director of the National Theatre, Literary Director of the American Repertory Theatre and former Director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts. Michael Kustow was steeped in the Arts and his challenge was to bring Performance to the channel. Being so experienced in the worlds of art, theatre, opera and literature, he was well aware of the problems which might have been incurred in transferring them to another medium. What he achiev ed was a cross-over of the talent and the successful presentation of many arts onto television. Kustow believed there were four different types of arts programmes: There are four categories that I think about as art; there is performance, there is documentary, there is talk and thought and there is news.

These were the categories and Kustow did commission what appeared to be a vast number of artistic productions. Perhaps his most outstanding early production was Nicholas Nickleby which was transmitted in 4 episodes over 4 Sunday nights. The transmission of the National Theat re production which was to go on to international success marked the channel as a major entrant into the coverage of the arts. However, it was in his discussion programmes that the reputation for arts programming became more esoteric and intellectual. When he spoke of his plans he told me that he had a programme Voices which was to be a fortnightly discussion programme – a regular long programme which was to handle issues which arose in the arts or cultural developments. Later he was to introduce After Dark which at this point he described as ‘a very long Talk Show 75-90 minutes long, which was to put a premium on talk and thinking rather than on pictures’. These two programmes were to become famous in that they attracted attention for their intellectual scope and their innovative content. They became the programmes which gave the channel

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

73

its reputation for being different and even those who found it a refreshing and innovative development had not seen this kind of programme before. The programmes which Kustow commissioned attracted much attention from both the broadsheet papers and the popular press and could certainly be described as fulfilling the brief of the channel and providing television which was different. Music on Four Music was an area of programming which had much potential but which suffered from being an arts form which spread across a number of genres and was handled by a number of commissioning editors. Andy Park was the commissioning editor for music who had joined the channel from Radio Clyde where he was Head of Programmes. He was an aficionado of all types of music and commissioned across a wide range of styles within the genre. He brought to the channel, jazz, classical music, contemporary music, and opera. However, he was joined in his commissioning task by Jeremy who was a passionate opera fan, and who had his own ideas about music on the channel. Andy Park was one of the editors who were passionate about his subject as well as his job. Many of his programmes were reflections of his own musical choice. He commissioned programmes about jazz, about musicians, about composers. He sought to provide an outlet for the music which would not have otherwise been seen. He was adamant that he did not want, nor had he commissioned, programmes about classical music, symphonic music, and chamber music. Not that he lacked an interest in that musical form but because they had been covered in a predictable way on television already. He was, however, interested in composers and amongst his multitude of commissions, one example of his innovative approach in content and form and bringing exactly the epitome of difference to the channel and its audience, was Four American Composers - four documentaries about the lives of the quartet of the most avant garde modern composers. Made by Peter Greenaway they were visually exciting, a series of unexpected delights and a representation of the work which was commissioned by Andy Park. He came to his job from the position of being in Management at Radio Clyde and he appreciated the management structure which had been created at Channel 4, but he always wanted more opportunity for the innovation which he thought should permeate the whole channel. What could have been innovative was if he had been able to work across a range of genres and

74

CHANNEL 4

ensure that the music which was part of every programme area was seen as having to fulfil the remit. But it was not the way the channel was planned but the work in his area was innovative and different but needed the audience to be taken to it. Park himself saw the channel as missing opportunities to expand the area and make ge nu i n e ly innovation scheduling decisions: I don’t see why the company couldn’t give over from 9 o’clock every night for a week to the music films. Or, all of Sunday. Just let it be the music films and let me put someone in there to talk about them. Let the film makers talk about them. I think there is an absolute vacuum in Channel 4’s work that it will perhaps attend to; and if I were to remain I would have like to have done this.

Andy Park here encapsulates his own feelings and his ideas for a different and genre specific one-off scheduling plan which could have brought more music to the Channel 4 audience and could have perhaps extended the concept of music as being part of all genres. It could be said that Channel 4 suffered from a surfeit of music knowledge, but never really utilised the talents of its music specialists in a way that could have changed the way that music was heard and seen on television. From Olympic Silver Medallist to Commissioning Editor Adrian Metcalfe was a maverick amongst the commissioning editors. Former Olympic silver medallist he was experienced in his subject, but was also experienced in television production, having worked in television at London Weekend Television. Both as a programme maker and as an athlete he had access to professional sports men and women and to the sports bodies which controlled many of the sports. His two major triumphs were to bring American Football and The Tour de France to British screens. These became synonymous with the channel and both were surrounded by an additional event atmosphere. The sports coverage created by Metcalfe was amongst the most creative work on the channel. Even the music loving Isaacs once commented, ‘Do they have to have music accompanying the athletes jumping about?’ But this entertainment production value developed in the programmes commissioned by Adrian Metcalfe permeated the whole of sports coverage across all channels and the legacy of innovative and hugely entertaining presentation of sports

Inside the Channel: 1. Commissioning Editors

75

has remained a feature of Channel 4 Sports in its present coverage and has become a major part of all sports coverage across television. The Workshops One of the most innovative ventures on which the channel embarked was the funding of a number of Independent Workshops across the country which was administered by Alan Fountain, who had been active within the grant aided film and video sector as a film maker, programmer, writer and organiser. His expertise had been gained across the grant aided sector and his expertise was welcomed across the workshops which he funded and which made some of the most original and innovative films. Shown in the 11th Hour series these films were recognised as part of the remit of the channel and seen as an area of the work which was a crucial part of the output. Collective Creativity All the commissioning editors were passionate about their genres – some developing new programme areas, all attempting to change what was available both to television audiences and to producers who wanted to make programmes. Each had to feel their way into what for many was a completely new experience and for others was a new way of looking at an industry which they knew well. It is impossible in the space available to give more than a brief introduction to the commissioning editors and their hopes for their areas. Some were completely ignorant of what they needed to do, and did indeed need to learn ‘on the job’; others had the advantage of experience and knowing their way around the culture of broadcasting but they had to forget the knowledge they had because this was an entirely new world which they were inhabiting. Some of their wo rk is discussed elsewh e re in the ch apter on programmes below, and in other parts of this book. Every commissioning editor was dedicated to the aims of the channel and tried to make their output fit the remit in any ways which they could. It is fair to say that they were inundated with proposals and the sheer job of reading the ideas and seeing both ITV producers and independent producers was a massive task. They had their budgets and their programme areas and they also had the philosophy and remit of the channel to serve. Each had their views and opinions on their own areas and the rest of the channel. That they

76

CHANNEL 4

succeeded in their tasks is evidenced in the strength of the early programmes which were seen on the channel and in the fact that some of those programmes remain part of the schedule after 25 years.

The Players – Inside the Channel 2. Managing Creativity Were the Grey Suits Really Necessary? The initial and institutional funding of the channel gave Channel 4’s commissioning and creative talent a unique protection during which the distinctive nature of the channel could develop. It allowed for innovation to play. Mistakes could be made and there was time to learn and grow. One of the most noticeable aspects both of the channel and the production companies who have made programmes for them is that they have all learned by their experiences. Learned not only to work within their own organisations but to work in a new relationship with other companies. However, the ability to grow creatively in a high cost business needed a strong management plan. One of the areas which were necessary in all organisations was the need for strong but effective management. The management of creativity is a special skill which has to respond to the peculiar needs of people wo rking within that industry. E ffe c t ive management should serve both the company and its employees and its end result should be to secure a solid foundation in which the product can be developed, created, marketed and distributed. The basis principles are the same whether the company is a car manufacturer or a television company but in the case of the latter, there are different needs and tendencies which have to be considered. The structures which Channel 4’s management team contributed to the channel enabled it to operate and survive in an extremely competitive and hungry commercial world. The establishment of the management structure of the company was achieved under the control of Managing Director Justin Dukes and his team. The early flowering of creativity among programme makers was in retrospect something which happened almost as a massive surge of hitherto repressed creative energy. This was made possible by the creation of Channel 4 but also crucially by the appointment of Jeremy Isaacs as Chief Executive but also in the appointment of a programme maker as the Chief Executive in the company. Most television companies have their chief executive as Managing Director and even though sometimes these positions are filled by prog ramme makers, the position is that of a

78

CHANNEL 4

company managing director and therefore it is the business side of the company which is their foremost concern. This has always been the case with ITV companies, wh i ch are commercial organisations whose responsibilities are to their shareholders. The difference was that Channel 4 had a programme maker as its Chief Executive. However there was never any fear that creative anarchy would rule because the business and management team provided a structure which proved that the grey suits were not only necessary but were also a crucial part of the creativity of the channel. The growth of the management team and the organisational structure whose whole raison d’être was to serve the creativity of the programme makers is an integral part of the Channel 4 story. For as important as the programme ideas, programme makers and what could be termed the ‘creative enablers’, were the management’s structures which enabled the programmes to be made. Under the leadership of Justin Dukes there developed a separate structure at the channel, which had to tread the delicate path between aiding and abetting creativity and not intruding or stifling its talents. The growth of the management team and its structures which were beneficial rather than bureaucratic was one of the unsung triumphs of the channel. Dukes commented on his philosophy behind his work at the channel: My concern has always been the corporate management of the channel – where it is going as an entity, what sort of people it hires, what sort of policies it pursues, how it anticipates the future, plans for the future. How the channel as a whole handles itself in the wo rld not simply in programming terms but in all other senses. My particular concern has been to establish procedures and systems and standards which ensure the channel is unassailable on two important matters. One is integrity about decision making, in other words, it isn’t basically people meeting each other in the street and dishing out millions of pounds of what in a sense could be regarded as tax payers' money or commercial television’s money. Secondly, that in all matters it gets what it wants at the most economic price. In other words, there is no soft dealing in the channel.

The initial assured funding of the channel gave the creative talent a unique protection during which the distinctive nature of the channel and its programmes could develop. It was given time, but time which was supported by management systems which were developed to the service

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

79

of the programmes. The creativity of Dukes and his team meant that the management techniques were developed with the aim that they would strengthen and support the creative needs of the channel. However, Justin Dukes maintained that conventional management techniques were applied to Channel 4: This company has alw ays been r un as a reasonably tightly managed company using very conventional management techniques. If I were building aeroplanes or steel locomotives or setting up a petrol refinery, I would do it in exactly the same way and we’d have the same concerns but if you don’t have those concerns you finish up with shambles on your hands.

The creativity of engineering companies was not seen by Dukes as being so very different from the creativity of newspaper journalists or of television producers. The attempts at veiled threats to the business interests of the newspaper if the editorial did not suit advertisers was also relevant to and resisted by management in both parts of the media: I did 10 years at The Financial Times and a good newspaper isn’t a bad business to come from. It had some of the same industrial characteristics as those of making aircraft but also some of the ego problems… I mean you encounter the same sort of issues and you can find precisely the same sort of pressures. You will find the director of well known companies will ring you and say, ‘I gather that you are doing an article, or one of your people are doing an article about xxx company. Let me tell you that if such an article goes ahead we will withdraw all our advertising’. So if you have spent a few years in the newspaper business in a good newspaper, you will actually find that it’s a half way house between the chaos of television and the absolute regularity of running a power station, so it’s not a bad training. So I don’t think the channel has suffered by being run in a fairly methodical fashion.

Far from being a pro blem it was this strong and methodical management, using conventional techniques which became part of the strength of the channel. Justin Dukes accurat e ly encap s u l ates the importance of the two parts of the business working together: ‘I think that it is the integrated team of the right editorial skills and the right orga n i s ational skills standing together, e a ch respecting the other’s contribution which will undoubtedly produce a strong business.’

80

CHANNEL 4

Not all members of the team were as enamoured with the efforts made by Justin and his team. For at least one, the free flowing creativity of the programme makers was in conflict with the management which was part of the channel. Early in the life of the channel, in December 1982, one commissioning editor ex p ressed doubts about the importance of management: Channel 4 is either about good management or it’s about good programmes. Ultimately, and quite frankly the two are not reconcilable. Programme makers are alw ays bad manag ers and management is always c hasing programme makers, always. It’s part of the anarchy of programme making. I’m not going to justify it, I’m not going to say that it’s right or that it’s wrong, but there it is. We are going the way of every single other company – The Square Briefcase Brigade is taking over.

These comments were ludicrous and these doubts and opinions were completely incorrect and the work done to establish the business stability and transparency of the workings of the channel was crucial in its success. By the time that Jeremy left Channel 4 he and Justin were working as a team, each respecting the other’s qualities. They worked in unison and indeed Justin was undoubtedly Jeremy’s preferred choice as his successor when he left the channel. But in the early days there was not the same mutually beneficial working relationship. For the first year in the life of the company it would be fair to say that the two departments of the channel developed in parallel, adjacent but not exactly united. They were working for the same ends, but the programme side was not fully conversant of the need for the development of the structures of business. Jeremy and Justin appeared to be following their own ways, not united to face, in particular, the Chairman Edmund Dell. The proof this potential power vacuum was first challenged during the late spring and summer of 1983 when Edmund Dell made a play for power against Jeremy on matters of editorial decision. At this time Justin supported Jeremy and thereafter there was never a sense that they were not united as a team. Over the years they grew closer tog ether in a professional sense and Jeremy was always first to acknowledge Justin’s twin role in the success of the channel. Planning for any eventuality is one of the functions of management and Justin Dukes saw this as the major contribution which his

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

81

departments had achieved. To have made the channel unassailable was his aim and his working project: Jeremy and I did spend time planning for difficulties which could arise. In the early days of the channel before I even came full-time to the channel, I spent a number of nights with a flip chart and a bottle of whisky trying to identify all the things that could go wrong in this non-existent business – getting from nowhere to being on the air. Problems of – we could fall out with people, we could have a row with ITV companies, we could disagree with people, etc., I tried to identify all the pressures which could come upon us, all the possible things that could go wrong and how we would allocate our resources to make sure that we weren’t caught out. And then we drew up a critical path analysis which told us what we had to do to get to the launch by the right point in time and all the steps you have to take to get to that point. It’s all about planning but without it if you launch on the right day with the right programme budget, it’s more by luck than anything else. This business has never been run by luck. Never, ever, always been run by management, by a proper management process.

The areas which reported to Justin Dukes were Finance, Acquisitions, Marketing, Sales, General Management, Engineering, and Technology, including the computer systems. In fact, a massive part of the channel’s activities. Only the programmes and their commissioners were part of the editorial side of the channel but all of the departments of Justin Dukes were there to serve the product and enable it to be made and to reach its audience under the best possible terms. Aspects of business were vital for the success of the channel. Finance at Channel 4 was the domain of David Scott who came to the channel from the accountants Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, to work as the financial accountant whilst a new accountant was appointed. Extremely young, he was so impressive that the company offered him the job as financial controller which he accepted. David Scott ran the finances, serviced the Board as Company Secretary and contributed to the stability of financial management with charm, wit and impressive expertise. As with all who worked at the channel, when I interviewed him David told me his official duties and then elaborated with the aspects of the job which he found most interesting and which in fact became a further part of the creative management which supported the work of the editorial teams:

82

CHANNEL 4

If you want me to be serious, which I suppose you do, my job as Controller of Finances is to head up the finance function to make certain we are totally in financial control over operations. The way that this is done is to divide my department into three groups, one of which is looking forward and is planning and organising the channel’s forward thinking for a couple of years ahead. The second, which is a perfectly normal accounts department dealing with payrolls, etc. normal accounts functions. And the third, which is the most unusual and something which didn’t exist very easily before I came to the channel, was the notion of a Programme Cost Control Group, where one has a group of people who have a variety of production and accounting experience and who link and work closely with commissioning editors and p roduction companies to make certain that programme bu d gets for individual productions are properly thought out so that the production company has a reasonable chance of making the programme on budget. My job is to make certain that all three of those functions run smoothly, so that the channel at any moment in time knows that it has entered into contracts which can be fulfilled, which won’t run away with us and that we know what commitments we’ve made against the money we have available.

The notion of a cost controller who worked with the commissioning editor and the production team throughout the planning and production of a programme was indeed one which was new to television. Television companies had finance departments, but for large organisations such as ITV and BBC much of the cost of programmes was ‘below the line’, that is, it was already paid for within the organisation which existed and had to be financed whether an individual programme was made or not. For a new independent producer who needed to cost exactly all aspects of the new company, the provision and insistence on cost control from the channel was invaluable and essential for both par ties. That accurate costing was not an integ ral part of television production had been something which had intrigued David Scott before he came to work for Channel 4. I asked if he had ‘devised the cost control function for the channel’: It was something which was very clear to me from the outset that we needed. I remember before I came to the channel, I worked in the city for Peat Marwick & Mitchell, and whilst I was there I had a number of television accounts and I remember years earlier coming across an ITV company who made a series of programmes and after much discussion by

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

83

the Board about whether they could afford the prog rammes or not and eventually they just about persuaded themselves that they ought to make the programme, which they did make, which cost about 50%-70% more than they should have, than they had been budgeted to cost. And the finance director at the end of it when I questioned him, said ‘Oh well, programmes cost what programmes cost’. That amazed me and it has always bothered me that programmes ought to cost what they are budgeted to cost and people ought to approve the budget and know before they go into it how much it is going to cost. It’s a role which is getting that link between the financial function and the creative function and honestly, it’s not for the financial function to dominate but much more to enable. Working closely and knowing what’s going on it is possible to enable more to happen than standing back and doing nothing until after the programme has been made and then 2 years later trying to find out how much it cost, which is a totally pointless exercise, 2 years afterwards.

David Scott even had an idea of a specific type of person who he saw as suitable for the job of cost controller. Initially, David Scott had to train people to work in the job which he had devised: I can’t go anywhere and recruit a prog ramme cost controller who could immediately arrive and start functioning. We are a very specialised job. I have bought people in from outside the industry but with financial ability and trained them in the production area. People who have no production training but have got a production feel. It’s very hard to find people with financial training and production ability and personality because personality is very important to link in with the commissioning editor.

I asked what sort of personality they needed to have and the answer revealed: I think that they all have diffe rent personalities but the over-riding one is a ch a racter wh i ch will co-operate with people or want to work with people, wh o ’ll have a sense of tolerance, with a sense of humour but also will have a firmness when it comes to actually having to have an argument with either a commissioning editor or the production company, if that’s necessary, wh i ch one hopes it never is. But there is on occasion a line wh i ch has to be draw n wh i ch they’d need to be able to stand on. But if you get someone who is terr i bly aggressive it would never work.… It is a finely balanced relationship.

84

CHANNEL 4

Although some independent companies did have their ow n accountants it is nevertheless correct to confirm that it was the cost controllers who enabled many small companies to get started and to maintain themselves as companies without the need for expensive cost controllers of their own. The Channel 4 cost controllers worked at a level of giving organisational information as well as budgetary advice. The need for planning, correct budgeting and strict cost control throughout the production process was part of the philosophy pursued by David Scott and his team: We have to be sure that they know what they’re doing and that they are going to be able to do it at the price agreed, otherwise we can find ourselves having advanced all the money for the programme and only having half the programme which is a very painful process for everybody.

What David Scott put in place was a system wh i ch enabl e d independent companies of whatever size to maintain their financial stability and to ensure that the channel received finished programmes. Again in the current production climate it is inconceivable that cost control and financial transparency would not be at the forefront of programme production planning, but it was Channel 4 who set this practice as integral to its method of operating. It should be said that within a few years there was no ITV company who did not know how much programmes cost to make and financial control of companies was one of the major concerns in the broadcasting industry throughout the 1980s and beyond. The idea that Channel 4 bought in new ideas which were then taken on board by other companies, and which changed the nature of the broadcasting industry was as much a function of the business management as the creat ive editorial processes. The implementation of cost control was wholly beneficial both to Channel 4, to the independent producers and ultimately to the whole of the television industry. It was a fine example of innovation in management and it was not the only example in the management working with the editorial side of the channel. Rather than the ‘square briefcases taking over’, the management team were always part of the action and were creative in their own right. *****

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

85

Aspects of Management The development of a management structure to support a massive creative project had many facets. Acquiring programmes from suppliers who were not commissioned to make programmes for the channel and selling the programmes wh i ch they had the rights to were two departments which had to be developed to ensure that the channel had a place in the international television markets. Colin Levanthal was the Head of Acquisitions and this spanned the work of independent producers, ITV companies and the purchase of programmes made by international companies, mainly American. Dealing with the ITV companies was perhaps the most trying of the tasks which had to be managed. These were the most difficult relationships because of the ‘pseudo-familial’ basis of the two companies. The fact that ITV was the superior partner who was paying for the new channel meant that there was a need for a working partnership to be established by Channel 4. Colin Levanthal explained: A lot of the early days were spent sort of feeling our way to, I think, a working and business relationship with the ITV companies. I think a lot of the people in this company feel, and I think it is very, very important for Channel 4 to do this, have a healthy working relationship with the ITV companies on the production level. … There is bound to be continued pressure by the ITV companies for us to guarantee them a certain percentage of work, which no doubt will be strenuously resisted. But one of the interesting assets of being a sort of outside customer to an ITV company is that it becomes clear very rapidly what the programme making skills are at the individual ITV companies and in particular what areas they are experts at as well. To know that certain companies will be able to give good light entertainment programmes; certain companies do good documentary type programmes and they all have their own strength and weaknesses.

Levanthal also had experience of working at the BBC and was able to recognise the work cultures which were developing within the channel. He saw that the sheer effort which was required to get the channel up and running and the need to work at levels which were not experienced at other broadcasting companies at that time. He was aware that adrenalin had played a huge part in the early achievements of the channel and at some point this would have to recede:

86

CHANNEL 4

When we start to consolidate what we are doing, when we start reducing the level of new work that we are involved in, it’s going to bring with it its own tensions and difference which we haven’t been operating with in the past. What we need to preserve is the willingness to go to considerable lengths to make things happen. But we need to take more risks, by having more live programmes… We have had remarkable success and relatively few things that have gone wrong. You can count the problems on two hands really, because people are extremely cautious.

Levanthal was one of the management team who worked to establish the structures of the channel and crucially to work with the suppliers of programmes to ensure the smooth running of the channel. He was part of the team who combined management and innovative approaches to supporting the aim of the Chief Executive. Marketing the Channel Sue Stoessl was Head of Marketing and Research at the Channel and was responsible for advertising, public relations, press activity. She described her job before the channel began: I think it was to get people to watch it. The same as it is now, which is all the things related to explaining to people how they can find what they want to watch on Channel 4.

Sue Stoessl was aware of all the problems which the channel was encountering. She was in control of the research which told the story of what the audience thought of the channel and she was responsible for advising and supporting Jeremy in his ideas for the scheduling of the channel. She was aware of the nuances of changing habits of the viewing public and knew how the competition on other channels was often instrumental in deciding which channel was watched. She also knew that audiences were fickle and that in the early days, viewers had sampled programmes and if they had not liked what they saw then they had to be won back as viewers. Rather than rely on the conventional age, class and gender breakdown of audience research, she used audience research methodology which relied on those who were described as ‘experimenters’ had found the channel and had liked some of the programmes and this gave her the info rm ation she needed to believe that those same

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

87

‘experimenters’ would come to the channel again and that the audience would grow. Sue Stoessl was assured in her views about the way that the channel was scheduled and stood firm in support of Jeremy in his wish to schedule in a different way. She also had a wide experience of marketing and promotion and was aware of some of the weaknesses which resulted from the channel inevitably not having creative control of its output. Titles could be misleading and in a situation where the channel had to attract viewers to individual programmes she knew that the input of experienced marketers would have been useful. However, this was not the way which Channel 4 chose to proceed and although she was one of the most experienced television professionals at the channel with expertise in marketing it was not within her power to c hange the methods of operation of the channel. Channel 4 Board The Board of Channel 4 gained a reputation which was more public than the Boards of other television companies. The first Chairman of the Board of the channel was Edmund Dell who was a businessman and member of the Social Democratic party. He became Chairman by default as the original choice was Richard Attenborough doyen of the British film industry with a huge amount of experience as Chairman of Capitol Radio but unfortunately, he was unable to take the chair when the channel began because he had just raised the money to make the film Gandhi and felt that he could not take on the full responsibility of the chairmanship of the new channel. According to Attenborough, the IBA had wanted a ‘media leader, a programme leader’ as they did not want the channel to be led by a business element. While being adamant that he could not commit to the chair, he agreed to be deputy chairman and in the event was a great support through the early years as a mediating influence between Jeremy and Edmund Dell. Edmund Dell was involved in the appointment of Jeremy as Chief Executive. Attenborough was away making Gandhi during the early months of the channel, but he played a part on the Board and became the second Chairman and integral in the second phase of the development of the channel. There was much talk and speculation about the role of the chairman of the channel and how much influence he tried to exert in the running of the channel. Certainly, until Jeremy Isaacs and Justin Dukes began to work more closely together, there was always a danger that the chairman would

88

CHANNEL 4

seek and take more control than was appropriate for the position of the chair in a non-commercial organisation. The idea that the chair of Channel 4 should be someone who was a media expert was an important element in the development of the channel. The fact that this channel had a remit which asked it to be different meant that the nature of the work which was to be developed needed to be free from the constraints which might be attached to it by someone not experienced in media production and theory. While most of the output of the channel was not of interest to the Chairman, he did watch news and current affairs programmes and it was this area of programming which attracted his attention. Although his confession/revelation at the Ascot Board Weekend in 1983, discussed above, that he had not owned a television set until ten months before he began the job at Channel 4 might suggest the need to reflect on the judgement behind the appointment of someone with a complete lack of knowledge of the business of the company which he was to lead. He told me that he took much of his opinion of the channel from Right to Reply, the programme where complaints from viewers were answered by the programme makers or commissioning editors. The problem with this was that it was only the negative aspects of programmes which he was picking up. Also, the number of complaints varied so much between different weeks. If it was a week when the complaints were few the chosen topic would be still be covered in the same way as a programme which had attracted many more complaints. Right to Reply was an interesting and innovative prog ramme, but definitely not one by which the channel or its programmes should have been judged. The question of balance was one which troubled him. He did not accept the principle of authored programmes which did not give a balanced view. He was not alone in this opinion, because it was the concept which caused problems and misunderstandings to others who were judging the channel. The idea that a programme could take its own perspective on an issue was a difficult concept and one which was alien to his sense of fair play. For it was the unfairness of the revelations which had been made in some of the programmes of which he disapproved. He cited a programme made by the independent production company, Diverse, a programme of which he was particularly critical: The thing that did infuriate me about The Friday Alternative, was that one Friday, I was very angry about it because it seemed to be exactly the sort of

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

89

thing we shouldn’t have on Channel 4. It was what might be considered to be quite a small mat t e r; a social wo rke r. Th ey we re discussing the concealment from people of papers relevant to their circumstances and they were arguing that people should not be judged without the opportunity to see the evidence against them.

The argument went on that one young girl who had found herself in this position had stolen her report and the social worker in charge of the case had reported her to the police. The programme had according to Dell, shown the social worker being ‘harassed’ in the most aggressive way by a voice off screen, for having reported this to the police. Dell’s objection was sound: Now the general principle was fine, but this social worker, not a great personality, not a leader of the people, not a person I guess who has ever been on television before and unlikely to be again, was put then in a position of being harassed by this aggressive interviewer, ‘Why did you do it? Why did you do it?’ And the truth of the matter was that she had no choice but to do it. The confidential file is stolen from her office. So I said this is not the sort of treatment I like to see. It is one thing taking that line with a politician or the Prime Minister, but you shouldn’t do that with a person like that. So I was actually rather angry about that.

Edmund Dell insisted that changes were made to the programme and although initially he wanted the contract to be cancelled, Jeremy did instigate other changes and there were no immediate draconian actions. The importance of this intervention on the part of the Chairman was perhaps his strongest moment. He stood for the integrity of the channel and for the protection of the ‘ordinary’ person from the excessive enthusiasm of the programme makers. He was particularly disturbed by the programme A Question of Leadership made by Central Television which he felt had not allowed for people to speak for themselves. His view of the programme which caused the outcry was simple and again based on his belief that everyone had the right to defend themselves. He was also dubious as to the value of the programmes versus the damage to those who were vilified. Perhaps this revealed the diffe rence between a Chairman who might have the broadcaster at the forefront of his opinions, and one who felt that anyone who was part of the programmes had to be able to defend themselves,

90

CHANNEL 4

and that in any case, the programmes were never as powerful as their makers imagined: I have a thing about the idea that these things are being censored because if shown they will bring the establishment tumbling down. I mean, actually, they won’t. I mean it is part of the illusion of a producer who thinks that this thing is really so powerful that if ever it is shown it will make some dramatic difference. It will make no difference at all. Apart from anything else hardly anyone will watch. Even if the whole population watched it; it would have little complaint of that sort, but if you are making specific charges against people, then I think people have, at any rate, the right to decide whether they want to reply. And one of the problems is that people may, and not without reason, not be terribly willing to reply through the media. They may say, ‘what reliance can I place on a producer to give me a fair statement of my position, when he starts by being so heavily committed on these issues?’

What Edmund Dell wanted was what he termed ‘fairness’. He denied ever wanting balance which he described as a ‘horrible concept’ but he did feel that the television industry had a duty to give people who are attacked to have the right to reply. The changes which he insisted were made in relation to commissioning, was to instigate what he called The Current Affairs Committee which was intended to consider problems of balance and forward planning. Dell wanted to set more controls in place, as he articulated his and the Board’s attitude to the channel and its programmes: ‘I think formalising a few things, such as we have done and making sure that everything is thought about a bit better, a bit more, without I hope, ruling out inspiration.’ The disparate nature of the Board, with the commercial and televisual knowledge of the ITV members and the intellectual perspectives from Anthony Smith and Roger Graef who supported an alternative view of how the channel should have been formed, meant that it was a difficult Board to satisfy. However, Edmund Dell was positive in his support of the Board. I asked him how the Board reconciled itself with the mixture of expertise and political aspirations and commercial needs: Well, it usually does and sometimes it doesn’t. I think compared to its respective contemporaries, it’s probably the best Board that exists in the television industry and it’s a very interesting Board with very diverse views

Inside the Channel: 2. Managing Creativity

91

and to that extent it is very interesting how common the purpose has been that there have been some differences is not really so remarkable. When we started this thing in 1980, before 1980, a group of people had been brought together for the purpose of being the Board of this channel, the general question was, ‘How can we work together?’ and the answer has been shown by experience, partly I think, and this is a very great tribute, partly because of Jeremy, who has been able to satisfy what was being done, was consistent with their own spectrum. One of the things that has been very interesting has been the extent which the ITV representatives have joined in the spirit of the thing. I mean they obviously have very different interests which they would not want to conceal. And on certain matters, like for example, the size of the subscription, we really as a Board had to shrug our shoulders and they are prepared to shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Very well, we realise that on this matter what the Board puts to the IBA about the levels of subscription would be what we want’. Or for example, we’ve had these little discussions re c e n t ly with ITN which at one stage invo l ved certain disagreements as to our relations with ITN and in that situation we’ve got Brian Tesler and David McCall, who are directors here and directors of ITN and again this put them in a bit of an awful position and Bill Brown (STV), he’s not a Director of ITN, but his company invests in ITN, for there to be any thought even of change in the subscription is something that hits them rather sensitively. So again this is an issue on which they will feel understandably to state a view which may not be exactly a Channel 4 view, but it is remarkable on how few occasions this has happened. Generally, the view of the companies is that they want to get advertising income on Channel 4, combined with the view of these individuals who after all have an interest in television, and therefore, apart from the commercial aspect, want Channel 4 to be a success; combined with a view of the rest of us who are entirely truthful, single minded, I think things have worked out extremely well. It could have turned into a hornets’ nest, but with just one or two exceptions it has come right.

Edmund Dell may not have had a television set until immediately before he became Chairman of Channel 4, but by the time the channel was established he had gained as he put it ‘intensive viewing within a certain sector and very limited in other sectors’. What he did have, was an understanding of those who were both Board members and those who were running the channel. His aims were to see that the channel ran as a well respected cultural force and he was concerned that those members of

92

CHANNEL 4

the public who were included in programmes were given their rights as citizens rather than as characters in a story to be told by the producers. He held together a disparate group of Board Members and managed to keep them focussed on the importance of the channel wh i ch was a management strength in the early days of the channel. Management Structures and Creativity The work of Justin Dukes and the full management team was vital to the success of Channel 4. His management structures and wise planning together with a team of committed professionals was a major asset in the development of Channel 4 as a strong business. While he did not come from the television industry, Dukes had an understanding of all aspects of the business. In an early interview with me he spoke about Channel 4 in a way which forecast the way that Channel 4 changed the whole ecology of British broadcasting. ‘We are the Trojan horse which will eventually change British television.’ It would have been difficult to know this in the mid-1980s, but the growth of the independent sector resulted in changes in commissioning across BBC and ITV in the next few years. Dukes recognised that the political intentions and the practical changes which were taking place would have cataclysmic effects on the nature of production in the industry. That the channel was equipped to take its role in the new structures which were to become the next phase in the development of broadcasting, was ensured by the work of the first management team of Channel 4.

The Players – Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies: Whose Baby? The relationship of the ITV companies to Channel 4 was from its inception one of the most complex in television history. Channel 4 could clearly be seen as being in a symbiotic relationship with ITV and although ITV may not have liked to admit it, they were in a similar relationship with Channel 4 since the terms of their contracts to hold their franchise to operate in their areas included the obligation to finance Channel 4. The ITV companies were already smarting from the fact that they were not given control of the channel to operate how they wished and working out the relationship between various companies, individuals, and their artistic and financial perspectives both at Channel 4 and within ITV, was a major factor in the early growth of the channel. They were also potential programme suppliers and the Broadcasting Act expected that they would be providing the majority of programmes with up to 25% coming from the independent sector. Hence the relationship between ITV and Channel 4 was complex. In the early days it was less evident to viewers that there was a relationship between the two, and even five years in the clashes of scheduling caused comment from viewers. In 1982 the ITV system comprised a closely integrated but widely flung group of companies all linked into a single broadcasting organisation. Although viewers were aware of their own regional company, Central for the Midlands, Granada for the North West and so forth, for the most part they did not normally k n ow the full implications of the re l ationships between the two organisations. However, they were aware that they were connected, and as the press reported the problems of Channel 4, their perception was that the money which ITV had to pay to Channel 4 would result in ITV having less money to spend on prog rammes. Programmes which they already knew, and knew they would want to watch. For although the ITV system may have been seen as a family, this was a family with different fortunes, all were relatively wealthy, but some were much more powerful than others. The five major companies, Central, Granada, Yorkshire, Thames and LWT were lords of all they scheduled and scheduling was their major source of power. They were all powerful and even when individual controllers changed, the companies remained

94

CHANNEL 4

powerful because the power was vested in the job. They divided the slots within the schedules to their own satisfaction and allowed the other regional companies to have their programmes included only when it suited the Big 5. They were an exclusive and excluding club. Charming and confident, the five controllers and their respective managing directors had ruled supreme in the world of commercial television. Not surprisingly then when they were presented with the prospect and then the reality of the new Channel 4 Television Company, they had a totally new set of feelings with which to cope. This new television company did not simply make serious financial demands on them, it hit at their deeply felt power and control of the market place. The whole set of relationships can best be explained and explored through a family analogy. In the early days of Channel 4, one point which puzzled me was the lack of contact and support which was contrary to that which I had expected to be given to the channel by the ITV companies. I asked one ITV controller why this was so. He asked why I would have expected otherwise and I replied that I thought that ITV would have seen Channel 4 as their new baby brother or sister whom they would have been pleased to welcome and help. His reply accurately encapsulated the way that ITV saw Channel 4 during its early days: It’s not our baby brother; it’s the IBA’s baby and if anything it’s our step brother but it is the favoured one, who will get to do all the things we’re not allowed to do. If you want to extend your family analogy – you should see it as sibling rivalry with a step parent.

Such was the truth of the matter. In the early days the ITV companies felt that they had much about wh i ch to feel aggrieved in their relationships with Channel 4. Their main cause for complaint was the fact they must fund the channel. The funding obligation had, of course, been one of the conditions of their fra n chise awa rd in 1982 but nevertheless, t h ey did not like it and when audiences we re low and they had difficulty selling a dvertising space, coupled with the IPA/Equity dispute, t h ey found it near impossible to feel filial benevolence towa rds the new channel. The notion of Channel 4 as a new sibling was perhaps a naïve error of p e rc eption on my part . In re t rospect it was much nearer to being an ex t re m e ly bright, enthusiastic and opinionated young person who carried with it all the fre s h , buoyant, vigo rous and obstrep e rous attitudes of a youthful state of mind.

Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies

95

Programmes The ITV companies had specific objectives in relation to programming and Channel 4. They saw the channel as an opportunity both to make programmes which they could not show on main channel and to have a better slot for serious programmes which they made. ITV had few slots where they felt able to schedule serious documentary programmes and these were rarely in peak-time. A usual time for these programmes was 10.30 on Tuesday after News at Ten. With Channel 4 there existed the possibility of a transmission slot in mid-evening. The first showing of Granada’s Spanish Civil War was transmitted at 9 o’clock on Friday evenings, a slot they could not have achieved on ITV. The possibility of making programmes which could be described as having a more ‘serious content’ was also beneficial to the ITV companies in terms of their staff satisfaction. Within the ITV companies there were many who wanted to make programmes which were ‘different’ but who knew that until the coming of Channel 4 there was very little chance of an outlet on their main channel. One ITV controller spoke to me about the feelings of his company in relation to the new channel before it began: Before it started – well it’s quite a complex situation isn’t it? It was a new channel starting, with which we had a relationship which varied at one end from a really intimate one, and that is where our own programmes are being made for the channel. And also, it’s at levels where, for example, controllers are meeting and talking about the schedules and joining in the discussions. To the other end – an extremely arm’s length one, which is an independence which never existed before, getting important time slots and inevitably invoking some kind of primitive reaction I suppose in the hearts of people who are accustomed to their share of sovereignty over a single channel system, whereas they have a much more arm’s length control situation – if they have any control at all over Channel 4. So you will be picking up that kind of range of opinion dependent upon whom you talk to. I think that we obviously work with the channel because of the programme making and showing opportunities it presented. But because we are a fairly virile, some would say arrogant, bunch of people, we do not much like that arm’s length relationship.

This is a very honest statement from one of the major ITV controllers which perhaps encapsulates part of the way which they felt about their

96

CHANNEL 4

relationship with Channel 4. What were brought into play were a lot of feelings about the position of the new channel which was both dependent on the ITV companies for their finance, and yet in a superior position to the ITV companies. The previously held supremacy of these companies has to be kept in mind in understanding the way they felt in the early days of Channel 4. When the controller described the collective group as ‘a fairly virile, some would say arrogant, bunch of people’, there are many who would say that was brilliant understatement. To say that the reaction was ‘primitive’ and coming ‘from the hearts’ was also not an exaggeration and there were plenty of examples from other executives and controllers who all had very similar statements to say about the channel. There was no open hostility but rather a sort of collective ruffling of feathers or a puffing up of chests as the established leaders watched the newcomer and observed its behaviour. However they could not sit by and watch with detachment because they were both financially and creatively intertwined with the channel. Their feelings, apart from the sense of an intruder, were in relation to the handing over of their programmes for transmission to another channel. Needless to say, this controller was one of the Big Five, for any controller from the other ITV companies would have been delighted for their programmes to be commissioned and shown at any time on a network channel: We couldn’t actually say, ‘This is our programme and this is the way we are doing it and we are having our opening credits at the front’, which Channel 4 never wanted, ‘and we are showing this programme at such and such a time and we wish to make sure that the schedule is such that it protects it’. Because the whole art of scheduling is protecting and finding your peaks and troughs and hammocking the troughs between the peaks, so that there was a certain amount of a slight feeling of dispossession, if you like. We are always accustomed to placing our jewels, our pearls, more or less within our own power structure, and here we are making them and lopping off the first caption which we have always regarded as a very important selling point.

I asked if he saw the programmes which they had made as pearls which they were giving away to the channel: No, I said pearls, jewels and others, not all of them, but look, we obviously have very strong connections with our programmes and that connection can

Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies

97

be retained more when it is placed on ITV than when it is delivered to Channel 4. It doesn’t radiate from our television centre. It is really rather like, not necessarily physically, but it is rather like bundling up your programme and posting it to an address and trusting that the person who receives it will unwind it carefully, and treat it with the reverence that you would. So there is a slight feeling of dispossession and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise, but on the other hand there is the opportunity for more programme making and placing.

This is a very powerful statement which illustrates the natural creative pride and professional protectionism which the ITV companies felt about their programmes. They were pleased to have a ‘good’ time slot but very uneasy about handing over their creations to the hands of someone else to transmit them. The question of scheduling of programmes was also a point on which the ITV companies had many different opinions from those held by Channel 4. This controller discusses the conventional and hitherto accepted way that programmes were scheduled, The whole art of s cheduling is protection and finding your peaks and troughs and hammocking the troughs between the peaks. This version of scheduling works on the principle that good or popular p rogrammes can carry audiences on to other good programmes or lead v i ewers to programmes which they might not have wat ched. It also works on the principle that more serious programmes should be set opposite similar programmes so that they are protected from the competition of the popular programmes. Channel 4 wo rked on an entirely diffe rent principle and expected that their viewe rs would seek out programmes wh i ch i n t e rested them and not wo rk to the conventional principle of hammocking and protecting. The comments wh i ch are made by the programme c o n t roller re flect the fear that their programmes would not have such c a re f u l ly protected slots when they we re scheduled by Channel 4. Their fe a rs we re not unfounded, for the new scheduling methods caused many p rogrammes to be lost in the melange of programmes on the channel. Scheduling was a pro blem for the channel but this was a technical area of ex p e rtise wh i ch was held by the ITV companies and wh i ch they looked on in horror as Channel 4 adopted a method of scheduling wh i ch did not a d h e re to any of the accepted norms. One ITV controller who was very i n t e rested in scheduling explained wh at he thought was wrong with the channel’s ap p roach. His views in one form or another were ex p ressed by every ITV person to whom I spoke:

98

CHANNEL 4

It’s like a game but this is the most significant thing that they are getting wrong. There are other things they are getting wrong but that’s the most significant… The key to scheduling is to take something you know is strong, and they’ve got strong points in their schedule; Paul Hogan and Film on Four, and to build around them. To take something that you know will have a similar appeal, has a similar audience profile, whatever, and put it around and start building in that sort of way… There is very little sign of them building a schedule, building landmarks and identifiable spots. It hasn’t solidified.

I questioned him about the validity of the idea that inheritance was an important tenet of scheduling policy. His answer explained where the theories were correct and where the channel may have been going wrong: It is true to say that inheritance is not so important as many people involved in scheduling think it is, that’s true. But it is important.

I offered a comment: They should never, for instance, lose an audience after Brookside. There should never be a programme with one and a half million viewers, where they lose that audience at the new programme. He concurred and continued: You can steal an audience from another channel as well by watching; inheritance isn’t always your own, you can take somebody else’s. But it is something you have got to pour over, there’s no social habit which is better documented than television watching and you’ve got to pore over statistics the whole time and work out what is happening. There isn’t anybody there who has that curiosity and interest.

Scheduling is a very different skill from prog ramme making and commissioning. It is part of the marketing function and as such removed from the editorial function of the channel in most cases but as the ITV controllers were aware, it is an essential skill to be employed to maximise the value of the programmes which are available. For them, the weakness of the schedule also affected how they knew they could sell advertising space on the channel in their region. The way that the ITV companies were able to recoup the money which they had to pay to support the channel, was by selling advertising space in their own region for Channel 4. Talking to ITV sales managers was an

Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies

99

entirely different experience from having detailed discussions about the philosophy of the channel and the plans for its prog rammes with production, editorial and new audiences. The sales manager was the most sophisticated analyst of the way that advertisers sought audiences and audiences found programmes. One sales manager told me how they had planned for the new channel well in advance and how they had to circumvent the difficulties of selling space on the new channel to advertisers: I suppose in the initial days it was very difficult to get people to commit themselves. There was no schedule and all you really had was Jeremy Isaacs stomping round, quoting from the Act and that’s what he did in the early days. And in a way a lot of it was not what the advertisers wanted to hear in all honesty, because when they heard about the ethnic programmes they thought ‘Oh, no a nil rating’. They just equate it to a nil rating, not because there is anything biased in their thinking but because they know that ethnic programmes do not get ratings and no ratings does not sell a product. And then you learned about Nicholas Nickleby and Basketball and various other things, so it flowered from there.

This sales force sold packages which promised the advertisers a certain number of viewers in the categories which they wanted, over a period of 4 weeks with the guarantee that if they did not achieve the required reach they would have a refund or continue to play the advertisements until they reached the agreed figure. This was the deal before the channel began transmissions, but once they were up and running there were two new problems. The two problems which emerged were that the majority of programmes did not reach anything like the expected figures although some did reach higher figures: Paul Hogan on a Friday is into double figures and the movie on a Tuesday is doing quite well; the stuff we predicted would do well is doing well. The Tube is doing well for youngsters. Hogan is doing well all round, Upstairs, Downstairs is doing well. American Football hasn’t done too badly also the Golden Movies on Sunday nights. But apart from that it is frankly – death.

The second problem for the ITV companies was the IPA/Equity dispute. This meant that there were so few advertisements being made for showing on Channel 4 as the industrial dispute showed no signs of being

100

CHANNEL 4

settled. Every ITV executive, to whom I spoke during the course of the early part of the research, cited the IPA/Equity dispute as greatest threat to the channel. I asked Brian Tesler, managing director of London Weekend Television and a member of the first Channel 4 Board, what was the prognosis for the dispute, and why it did not seem to be progressing in any direction. His response encapsulated the feelings shared by other executives: Because no one is being heard except ITV. The actors are not being heard because very few actors actually work on commercials quite a small crew. Secondly, they are still working on commercials aren’t they? ITV hasn’t stopped. This would have been additional income. It’s not that ITV has suddenly stopped making commercials, it is that the additional source of revenue has dried up. But no one’s worse off than they were a year ago. It hasn’t hurt Equity and it hasn’t hurt the IPA, the advertising agencies themselves.

I asked if he thought the dispute could go on indefinitely and his answer was that it could because no one was actually suffering. The only people who were suffering were the ITV companies because they were unable to sell advertising space on Channel 4 because there were few adverts which could be shown on the channel. The problem which would occur would be when they had to pay their next subscription to the IBA for Channel 4 and they would have difficulty in meeting their commitments and this was at the forefront of the views which they held about the channel. However, this dispute was not of the making of either of the television channels, and eventually the dispute was settled and did not result in financial disaster for any of the parties involved. ITV Controllers Analysing the transcripts of interviews for this book, it was clear that the expertise and knowledge which the ITV executives had in relation to Channel 4 was very interesting. The notion of the commercial family explored at the beginning of this chapter was an important element to be understood in relation to the development of the channel. The ITV companies had always wanted the fourth channel to be theirs to run in a complementary manner to ITV1. They had wanted their own BBC2 on which they could transmit their own alternative schedule, programmes

Outside Channel 4 and the ITV Companies

101

which were more intellectual than they could afford to make for the popular tastes of their audience. When ITV began transmitting in 1965 it had tried to emulate the programmes made by the BBC and it had lost money and not gained audiences until it produced more entertaining programmes. Many of those who were now senior executives of the ITV companies were part of the early programme makers from ITV and they would have liked to have the opportunity to make more intellectually demanding programmes. Granada Television, in particular could always be described as the intellectual giant of the ITV system and its executives and their aspirations could have been at the forefront in prov i d i n g programmes for Channel 4. However, what was clear from talking to the ITV executives of the Big 5 was that they were torn between wanting to supply programmes, and not being happy with the cost of supplying programmes. Others from the smaller regional companies welcomed the opportunity for another outlet for their prog rammes rather than the restricted access they had to the main ITV schedule. The feelings and reactions of the ITV companies were complex but it was in their interests that the channel should succeed. They wanted it to succeed because of their own commercial interest in the success; they wanted to give more advice than they were invited to offer, but in the end, they still retained a competitive and slightly patronising attitude to the channel and they never seemed to be offering a united front against the BBC, who was and is their main competitor. Independent Producers While the independent television companies were one of the main suppliers of programmes to Channel 4, one group of people were to become the major power which developed from the new commissioning processes was the independent producers who had originally been seen as a force which would benefit from the new opportunities on the channel. At the beginning of the life of the channel, the independent sector offered their programme ideas to the commissioning editors and the hopes of hundreds of small and large companies were at the mercy of the channel. The stories of the independent sector are numerous and outside the word limit of this book. Many became major suppliers. They were responsible for the development of the philosophy of the channel and the new voices which resulted from their programmes had a major influence across all the areas of the channel’s output.

102

CHANNEL 4

The combination of the many people made the channel successful but these were not what were seen by the public. For them it was the programmes which characterised the channel and their sources were irrelevant. The programmes form the next part of the Channel 4 story.

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes For the audience the story of a television company is the story of onscreen performance. Interested or enlightened viewers may have had a complete understanding of the philosophy behind the setting up of the channel, they may have watched with informed interest to see whether the brief was being fulfilled. However, most viewers were completely ignorant of the particular brief or philosophy behind Channel 4 and they remained to be convinced by the programmes. This chapter will endeavour to take a very small selection of programmes to illustrate how they contributed to the early success and reputation of the channel. Hundreds of programmes were transmitted during the first 6 years of the channel and it is impossible to consider even a fraction of them. Some genres were much harder to follow as productions, others were less accessible to fo l l ow, even using ethnographic methodolog i e s. Documentaries and drama productions have long production times and as a lone researcher, it was not possible to spend time watching them. The programmes and programme areas have been chosen to represent the way that the programmes had to adapt to the new expectations of the channel. Channel 4 News We have to provide enough money to sustain the news. All of you will know that none of us is satisfied with the news and that is a matter which is being kept under extremely close review. I am talking to you as close colleagues in the close confidentiality of this meeting. Liz Forgan and I have the very difficult task of sustaining the morale of those who make the programme for us without mincing our words about telling them exactly what we actually think of their performance and it isn’t easy to get that balance right. I personally will tell you that I remain of the view that 7 o’clock is the right time for us to be doing a longer news than anybody else and that eventually the programme will be got right. How long that will take or what measures will be required to ensure that that happens, I cannot now predict. Jeremy Isaacs 31.3.1983 Programme Review Meeting

If one programme could be seen as encapsulating many of the teething

104

CHANNEL 4

problems of Channel 4 it was Channel 4 News. Its problems began long before it went on the air and they came from the fact that the contract to provide the news was given to ITN. Many independent producers and fellow travellers were horror struck that what they saw as an establishment organisation, geared up to pro vide daily news bulletins on existing channels, could ever be versatile and intelligent enough to provide the type of news programme which was envisaged for the new channel. The programme began with the disadvantage that two of its most openly hostile critics were board members Anthony Smith and Roger Graef. Each had deeply held convictions that the news should be different and they genuinely felt that the appointment of ITN was a calculated mistake. Roger Graef expressed his early views on the programme: I was against it from the start. I predicted exactly what happened from the day we first considered it? I would never have given it to ITN… We were under instruction to work with ITN from the IBA and even to a certain extent from Parliament. There was an inference that ITN should do our news and virtual instructions, that’s no secret either, I mean that was the brief of Channel 4. What some of us were trying to do was to get that brief challenged from the beginning and in the end it became clear really from State political reasons, that we had to let them try and fail. We could not win the debate, it was pointless because there was too much formal political pressure. DH – And was that simply in terms of bringing it up on a par with BBC News giving it another outlet? RG –Yes, also because they lost Breakfast Television.

There was then a feeling among some of the critics that ITN had been foisted upon Channel 4 and that they would never produce the kind of programme which the channel wanted. There was so much criticism of ITN before the programme even went on the air that it was not surprising that when the programme began, it met overwhelming hostility. However, the early programmes were not good and the initial hostility to the appointment of ITN soon turned into justifiable criticism. It might be thought that ‘The news is the news, is the news!’, and it would be difficult to ‘mess it up’ or for it to cause so many problems and angst within both companies. But as with the expectations for the whole output of Channel 4, this news programme was supposed to compensate for the shortcomings of the other television news programmes. There was a

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

105

feeling that the tradition of short news items left no time for an explanation of issues behind the news. The job of explaining the larger implications of any issue reported in the news was left to the current affairs programmes and only Newsnight on BBC2 came anywhere near to combining news and analysis. Analysis within a news programme was what Je re my Isaacs wanted from Channel 4 News and it was the understanding of exactly what he required, coupled with the execution of those requirements which caused the most problems for the programme. The first editor of Channel 4 News was Derrick Mercer, who had been a well respected print journalist who came from the Sunday Times Insight Team. His appointment was an indication from ITN that they were prepared to have someone from completely outside their organisation to run the new style programme. Mercer reiterates the feeling within ITN for wanting to get the contract for news on Channel 4: ITN needed this contract, needed it for prestige and for continued expansion. There were people within the company who felt passionately that they wanted to be able to answer some of the critics on television news, that it was superficial. To show that ITN could, rather like a newspaper publisher, produce say The Sun and The Times, using the core material that ITN does generate. So they had ITN pitching it on the low and on the other hand you had Channel 4 with a Board who felt they didn’t want any news, secondly, didn’t want news with ITN, therefore, the effect of these two arguments when they were overcome, was ‘It had to be ITN, but we are not going to give the buggers much money’. So it was set very low and what a lot of people don’t realise is that quality journalism is labour intensive.

In the event, Channel 4 News was criticised for its style, content, and for completely missing the point about the need for analysis of news events. The ‘Look’ of the programme caused much concern when it was first shown, although that was not the first thing that would appear to be of vital importance to a news prog ramme. Derrick Mercer takes up the criticism: Looking back at mistakes we made – obviously the set, it didn’t work. It was meant to create a different atmosphere, but the weight of the scripts made people look awkward and distracted attention from what we we were trying to say. That was a mistake – a cosmetic one. In a sense, when people look at you, first impressions count and you have got to overcome that but we

106

CHANNEL 4

are not the first people to make a mistake, so we’ll get over it.

A mistake in the set was avoidable but certainly excusable. They had decided to get away from the conventional news set with a desk which could be felt to separate the audience from newsreaders – creating a sense of talking down to them and delivering tablets of stone from a protected and elevated position. Channel 4 News had its newsreaders sitting on chairs, with nothing between them and the camera/viewers; and nowhere to put their scripts. The result was very unwieldy in practical terms because the newsreaders had to hold large scripts, but it also created a change in the perception of the news. The semiotics of television was such that the conventions of the news programme had been established and required the newsreader to be sitting behind a desk, in control. The appearance of a newsreader sitting on a seat, looking distinctly uncomfortable, juggling papers and appearing vulnerable and exposed, did not create the correct image for the audience to warm to the new programme. Not that it is impossible to be relaxed and informal but it was necessary to establish credentials before the audience felt ready to accept the informal approach. The scheduling of Channel 4 News was one of the most controversial decisions that were made at the channel. The news was to be shown at 19.00 hours each week night and run for one hour, except on Fridays when The Friday Alternative, a programme of alternative news ran from 19.30 – 20.00. Also contained within Channel 4 News was a 10 minute slot called Comment, during which literally anyone could speak for 10 minutes on a topic of their choice. The production team at Channel 4 News hated the way that Comment interrupted their programme. In time, Comment and The Friday Alternative were dropped from the schedule, but the 19.00 time slot for the news was immoveable. Any attempts to move it were resisted by Jeremy Isaacs, who said that he would never give in on this principle. When the programme had difficulties in attaining what was seen as acceptable audience levels in the early days, it was the place in the schedule which took some of the blame. Debate raged as to whether it was too early for those influential news-hungry commuters to be home to watch the programme. However, in parts of the country outside London most people were home from their work by 6.00 or 6.30 and they would have watched the news before Channel 4 News came on. Once you have watched news on any channel, it is unlikely that you will watch it again half an hour later, and more importantly, it is unlikely that your family will let you watch it again, when there are more interesting programmes on the other

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

107

channels. As well as the opposition on the other channels there was the opposition of people getting on with their everyday lives and this was the hour when those who were targeted were particularly busy. Derrick Mercer identified the strength of the opposition which they met and suggested that this came as a surprise to those at Channel 4: Certainly nobody, not Jeremy, not Liz, not Paul, not anybody from Channel 4 ever realised the degree of competition in that hour; not against other programmes but what people are doing. It’s the competitive demands for what people are doing at that hour. We planned the programme that people would sit down and watch it for the hour. The difference is that people are coming in or they are going out; they are trying to feed their families, they are trying to get their young children to bed, they all do these different things and it’s a busy time. That was the way we structured the programme that people would sit and watch and that was our biggest mistake. We had to make it much pacier, had to have much better signpostings in the programme.

The competition for the attention of the audience during this time period was one of the most important factors in assessing the reasons for low audience figures. The competition which Channel 4 News faced was not quite as simple as the combination of the programmes which are on other channels coupled with the call of domestic or familial duties. The existing channels had planned their programmes on the assumption that viewers are busy with many domestic duties during this period and any programme which needs a high degree of concentration is in a difficult time band. This is the time period of the genre of soap opera, which traditionally has the highest audience figures across all channels and left fewer viewers available to watch the news. The question of whether the audience wanted an hour long news at this time remained a bone of contention between Jeremy Isaacs, Liz Forgan and practically everyone else. Many people opined that this was the wrong time for the news, that it blocked up the schedule and that nothing could start until after 8 o’clock and many vowed that it would have to go. Jeremy was adamant that it would not be moved. In 2007 Channel 4 News remains at 7.00 every night – established and respected. It seemed that everyone had an opinion on the programme but no one could actually pin-point what was wrong with it. Certainly the question of what was meant by analysis became an issue between Channel 4 and ITN

108

CHANNEL 4

but this was by no means the only problem. It was difficult to know what were structural difficulties and what were the difficulties which resulted from the structure. I arranged to go to visit Channel 4 News during May and by the time I arrived the 1983 General Election had been announced and was to be held on the 9th June. News departments come into their own when major political events take place and this made the time I spent at ITN was very revealing as to how the place was working. This should have been their best time but it was also a time when any flaws in the system would show up. What was quickly evident was that there were problems other than those which were perceived by Channel 4. Anyone who has spent any time in a newsroom knows that they are alive, fast, frantic and buzzing with noise, both mechanical and human. The newsroom at Channel 4 News was the first one to use new technology and the near silence of computers as opposed to the clatter of the type-writers in the conventional newsroom, gave an unnatural sound to the working environment. There was less chat, less shouting and discussion than in other newsrooms. There was no buzz in the newsroom and there was no moment when the adrenalin began to rise and the whole place moved into the overdrive gear which accompanies any live television programme and particularly any newsroom. How much was cause and how much effect, whether they were low key because everyone knew the programme had problems or whether the problems caused the programme to be low key was impossible to discern. What was discernible was that the people were worried about the programme but fiercely defensive and anxious that they should get it right. A first impression was that there were many things which were wrong with the programme, some should have been easily remedied and others required the drastic measures which were eventually taken. The perception of the programme by viewers was affected by the time slot, by the strange appearance of the set, which was quickly changed, and by the whole notion of a new kind of news programme. As with other aspects of the channel and indeed, with the acceptance of the channel as a whole, this was a ‘different’ kind of television and needed time for the audience to adjust. However, there were aspects to which the audience were not going to adjust. In the early reports there was a tendency for the items not only to be longer but also to be written as if they were meant to be read not spoken. The effect when delivered by the newsreader was that of a long involved and stilted prose because it was written to be read not spoken. This may seem like a nice distinction but when the prose was delivered by

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

109

newsreaders who were not completely natural or at ease, it gave the impression of being too complex and alienating. This is not to say that all the presenters were ill at ease but one of the main presenters was so stilted and over correct that the resultant bulletin had the effect of alienating the audience. It was fortunate for the programme that they had chosen enough experienced presenters who could carry the show, while the majority of the less experienced gained confidence and expertise. A further problem which had to be assimilated rather than overcome was that of new technology. It seemed impossible to remember that in the early 1980s word processors and computers were only just coming into regular use and the journalists who were working on Channel 4 News were the pioneers at ITN to use computers and leave the familiar typewriters behind. It was one of the differences which were noticeable in the newsroom of News at Ten, when I first went there to compare the different approaches to news production within ITN. The different in atmosphere between the two locations was immense. The main newsroom encapsulated what was clearly the ITN ethos and style and Channel 4 News was the new comer which needed to create its own ethos within the organisation. This again was the ‘difference’ which permeated the philosophy of the channel and which affected the expectations of the audience in relation to the news that they were used to. Whether Channel 4 News would have ever established itself within ITN without the changes in personnel which were to ensue, can only be a matter of speculation. However, after the 1983 General Election the dissatisfaction with the programme resulted in the editor Derrick Mercer leaving his job and the search for a new editor began. The appointment of the new editor was made after a summer of searching both soul and potential candidates, and more disputes between Channel 4 and ITN. Well known and well respected news editors were approached and considered for the post, although it was reputed that ITN refused to appoint the forerunner from Channel 4. ITN had their own candidate and he was the perfect choice for the job, not only because of his own qualities and qualifications, but crucially because he was an ITN editor who had worked on special projects, was a ‘thinking newsman’, an intellectual as well as a journalist, but vitally for the success of the appointment, he was someone from within the organisation – thus proving that ITN had staff who could successfully lead the new programme. The initial choice of ITN to supply the news programme for Channel 4 had led to criticisms already described and the attempts by ITN

110

CHANNEL 4

to choose an editor who was from outside the organisation had resulted in a news team and a prog ramme which was not working successfully together. Channel 4 was not satisfied with the programme and the unit within ITN which was producing the news, was a source of dissatisfaction at ITN. Every organisation has its own culture, its working practices and the shared knowledge about how to work the systems and culture to get the maximum benefit from within the organisation. The successful candidate, Stewart Purvis, was steeped in the culture of ITN – one of their protégés. Stewart Purvis was appointed as the new editor of Channel 4 News. He was the perfect choice for the job. Stewart told me the story of how he had lunch with Jeremy Isaacs, E d mund Dell and Sir Rich a rd Attenborough after he had been appointed to the position. Throughout the lunch Jeremy impressed upon him the importance of analysis and the need for Channel 4 News to get it right. Edmund Dell expounded at great length about politics, news, balance and such important matters. It was a fairly intense lunch and he was left in no doubt that if the news was not considerably improved in six months, actions would be taken. Sir Richard let the other two have their say and towards the end of the lunch, he turned to Stewart Purvis and said, ‘Never forget, darling, you’re in entertainment!’ – a dictum which can be applied to all of the output of television. Stewart Purvis had certain distinct advantages which he bought to the job. His own professional expertise stood without question but there were other qualities and conditions which prevailed to make the changes which were necessary to change the ailing news service. Purvis was an ITN person, he was their choice and if he succeeded it meant that in effect, ITN had succeeded and shown all those sceptics and critics that they were capable of providing the additional news service which was required. He knew his way around the organisation and knew how to work the informal cultural work system to get the best for his programme. He was a television newsman, but one who had worked on programmes which were slightly different from the normal news bulletins. The press release which was issued when he took up his appointment highlighted both his achievements and the regard in which he was held at ITN. Aside from his normal journalistic experience he had been responsible both for some of their major spontaneous and planned extraordinary coverage. By chance he was editor on the night when the Iranian Embassy siege ended and the live coverage took over from ITV’s scheduled programmes – resulting in

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

111

three prestigious industry awards for ITN. He produced ITN’s coverage of the Pope’s visit to Poland in 1979 and to Britain in 1983. Royal weddings and tours also formed part of his experience. In 1982 he produced the programme which recorded the return of HMS Canberra from service at the end of the Falklands War. He had worked on what were known as special projects, and this had meant a concentration on much longer programmes than the normal news items. When Purvis took over there were changes in personnel and the programme began to move towards its goal not particularly in the need for high viewing figures, although he was expected to increase figures over the next six months. The main aim was to change the programme to one which was respected both by its audience and the television industry. The improvement was gradual and in Purvis’s view the breakthrough came during, if not because of, the miners’ strike of 1984, and the way that he chose to cover the conflict. This is not the place to detail the long, painful and acrimonious battle between the Thatcher government personified in the form of Ian McGregor, specially appointed to be Head of the Coal Board, with the intention of breaking the National Union of Mineworkers and the single minded General Secretary of the NUM, Arthur Scargill, whose aim was save pit closures, and the jobs of his members, even if it entailed bringing down the government. In the event, the union was powerless against their opponents but the treatment which they received from Channel 4 News meant that the programme and its staff were held in high esteem by the union. This was also a reflection of the way that the union felt about their treatment from other news organisations and even from ITN itself. This is not to say that ITN and Channel 4 News were biased towards the strikers but at least they were given the chance to put their points of view on a news programme. In a gesture which was unheard of, Purvis gave a camera crew to Arthur Scargill and Ian McGregor and asked them to make their own 15 minute news programme giving their views of the situation which prevailed during the conflict. It was hardly world-shattering journalism but it was the first time that it had been done. Another programme which they did during this period was a news report in which Jane Corbin, one of their reporters, covered the strike from the perspective of the miners’ wives from within their community. At times of crisis, disasters and national tensions, news programmes always improve their viewing figures as viewers turn to television to satisfy their need to be aware of ‘what is happening’, and it is true that the crisis

112

CHANNEL 4

and turmoil which was experienced in this country during the miners’ strike resulted in an increase in viewers for all news programmes but it was during this time that Channel 4 News can be said to have established itself as a well respected and original news programme. The three people who have to take the main credit for the achievement are Jeremy Isaacs for his unreserved and unending support and belief in the prog ramme, Liz Forgan who took much of the criticism within the channel, had supported Channel 4 News while criticising them and persuading them to change, and Stewart Purvis who took over the programme and led the team to the successes which it went on to achieve. Channel 4 News went on to be the most respected news organisation and developed the concept of news and analysis to provide a unique form of news on British television. The Tube – Channel 4’s First Major Innovation It is so easy in television to become an ivory tower person – you go to a business lunch here and you do an interview with the press or someone like yourself [the author] and then the head of Warner Brothers wants to take you out to dinner …and there’s got to be a time when you say ‘No, I’m going to see a bloody band and I’m going to talk to some of the people I’m making this programme for’. Malcolm Gerrie – Executive Producer The Tube

When Tyne Tees Television produced The Tube for Channel 4, they created the best live television programme on the channel and one of its most innovative. The Tube became synonymous with youth, good live music, lack of pretence or pretentiousness and energy. It also managed to speak to its target audience without employing electronic gimmicks and it retained integrity with its audience and the performers who appeared on the programme. The single most important factor which contributed to the success of The Tube was that it was made in Newcastle upon Tyne and not in London. The production and the company started from the position that they were pleased that bands were coming to appear on the programme and there was never any sense of the production team attempting to be less involved and enthusiastic, than those who were appearing. It was pure pleasure to be in Newcastle, at Tyne Tees Television and working on The Tube and the pleasure experienced by the production team, transferred itself to the bands their management, guests and onto the screen. It was a joy to work on and a joy to watch.

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

113

The Tube was instantly successful. The audience loved it! It even pleased Jeremy Isaacs who had been involved in wanting the programme not because he had any great affinity with pop music but because he remembered the atmosphere of Ready Steady Go! at Thames Television in the 1960s and wanted to recreate something like that atmosphere on Channel 4. At the end of the first programme he telephoned Andrea Wonfor, the Controller of Programmes at Tyne Tees, and said: ‘That was bloody great. I want a five-hour special in the summer!’ The Tube has a special place in the history of Channel 4 and I have chosen to write about it because it brings together many of the elements which illustrate aspects of the history and development of the channel. It crossed boundaries of commissioning editors, brought in the target audience, caused skirmishes with the IBA, became part of the cultural life of the audience and was mourned when it came to an end. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Tyne Tees Television had built an expertise in making prog rammes for young people which included a magazine programme Check it Out and a rock magazine programme called Alright. They also had a pro gramme on children’s television called Razzamatazz, which was a pop programme that attracted major recording artistes to appear on a 5.15 afternoon programme. Tyne Tees knew that if they could attract major stars to appear on children’s television, then they would have no trouble in attracting them for a network evening programme. Tyne Tees had a track record in the area which was to enable them to offer suggestions to Channel 4 to fill the new area of Youth programming. However, they first made their offer of a rock music show to Andy Park, commissioning editor for music. Malcolm Gerrie told the story of the commissioning of the programme: We put the idea originally to Andy Park but he rejected it. We went up to see him at Radio Clyde on his last day, which was perhaps a mistake, and talked to him about an idea of a programme but we didn’t get anywhere really. And when Mike [Bolland – commissioning editor for Youth] was appointed, we offered it to him. The original idea was to do a series of 45 or 40 minute programme over a run of about 8 and I was actually in Sweden doing an interview with Abba for Razzamataz when we got the news. Andy [Andrea Wonfor] rang up at about one o’clock in the morning and said: ‘Do you want the bad news or the good news? The bad news is that Channel 4 don’t wan’t eight 40 minute programmes based on a marriage of Check It Out and Alright Now.’ ‘What!’ I said, ‘After all the press that we’ve had, we’ve won the Silver

114

CHANNEL 4

Award at the New York Festival for ‘Alright Now’. She said, ‘Hang on, what they do want is 20 one hour forty-five minute programmes for peak time on a Friday’. I said, ‘What!’ I thought she was joking, I really did. And after the elation I thought, ‘Crikey, how are we going to do it?’ And then we found out that we were doing it live!

At the time of the birth of The Tube t h e re we re two A n dys at Tyne Tees Television; the late A n d rea Wo n for who was director of p rogrammes and had fo rm e rly been the head of children’s programmes and A n dy Allan wh o was managing director. Th ey we re known as A n dy and A n dy among the staff at Tyne Tees and the affection and esteem in wh i ch they were held was of a degree wh i ch I have never encountered at any other television company. The staff was proud of them and confident that they we re wo rking together for the interests of the company and the staff. A n dy Allan p rovided a management and financial structure which enabled the programme dep a rtment to work with confidence that they could make the kind of p rogrammes wh i ch they wanted. When Channel 4 had begun its commissioning he had agreed that ex t ra studio space should be built to enable them to make programmes for the new channel. Andrea Wonfor provided the production knowledge and cre ative flair to encourage and enable original programmes to be made. The result was that everyone at Tyne Tees wanted to make the new programme and their enthusiasm perm e ated the programme and was instrumental in making it such a success. The agreed programme of one hour forty-five minutes – Live – was a feat which television was not used to tackling. Early discussions revolved around the content, the presenters, the style, the title which was originally intended to be TX105 – the transmission time. Mercifully while lying on a beach in Benidorm, Malcolm Gerrie was glancing at his wife’s magazine and noticed a piece on the effect of television on young people, entitled ‘Woman’s Own look into The Tube’. ‘That’s it’, he thought: Thinking of the new building here, we were keen to make it an event in Studio 5 into which the cameras would look and to create the atmosphere of a gig with live music, a green room and there was the connotation of television being the ‘tube’ and there is the tube leading to the building into studio 5. Th e re were also quite a lot of rock connotations too – Tubular Bells, The Tubes, Tubular Army and I like titles which don’t tell you straight away wh at it is.

Very soon The Tube became perceived as being the best youth

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

115

programme, with good bands, and total unpredictability as to what might happen during the progra m m e. One thing wh i ch was pre d i c t able, however, was that the bands would be playing live, unlike Top of the Pops where the bands played live, but the programme was pre-recorded. Bands from Britain and America were prepared to travel to Newcastle to appear on the programme. What made The Tube so special and successful was that it immediately spoke to its audience. We watch The Tube and record it and we watch it say five or six times during the week – a whole crowd of us. 17 year old youth

For a television programme to be very successful it has to be right for the moment when it was born. It needs to capture the imagination and support of its intended audience by being a programme which speaks to them in a voice of which they approve and give them ideas and entertainment which they might not have known that they wanted, but when they see it, it instantly strikes a chord and they know it is for them. If that is achieved then the programme is assured both of success but also of moving into the position of being part of the popular culture of its time. The Tube was not the only Channel 4 programme to achieve this status but it was certainly the first. Together with The Young Ones on BBC2 The Tube contributed to making the autumn of 1982 a celebration of youth values through music and humour, before the move to the rather more contrived ‘Yoof ’ programmes of the later 1980s. Before The Tube there had been few music programmes on television which were directed at young people. The classic Top of the Pops on BBC1 and the more esoteric Old Grey Whistle Test on BBC2 were the only programmes which regularly presented music to a younger or youthful audience. There had been other programmes directed at young people but they were for the most part tinged with that particular brand of patronising which assumes that young people need to be screamed at while music is playing or spoken to by a presenter balanced on a scaffold with a light shining in their eyes. Gerrie was determined that this programme would be different and not fall into the traps of early attempts to make programmes for this audience: In the late 70s you would get a classic thing on a youth programme – you would have 10 minutes on abortion and then Spandau Ballet for 2 minutes.

116

CHANNEL 4

It was a case of we have got to sugar the pill, we’ve got to keep them sweet. This silly idea of talking about unemployment and herpes and then you get a bit of Boy George, do you know what I mean? It’s bananas. You either go for the serious thing in a proper way or you say, ‘Right, here’s an entertainment programme’. That’s what we’re trying to do with The Tube. I don’t want to fill it with home movies on fox-hunting and running off to London and bits of sort of Cathy Come Home films. I think that’s a time warp.

Gerrie and his team set out to entertain his target audience and to bring them the best music whether it was well known or new and to have all the bands playing live in the studio. It was a new formula and one which was successful. It brought both an audience and advertisers to the channel and became one of the programmes which proved the philosophy of the channel to target audiences in a specific slot. To the audience The Tube became famous for its presenters, Jools Holland, already an accomplished musician with his own band, The Squeeze. His style was casual but totally respectful to musicians who appear on the show. Well described by his co-presenter, the late Paula Yates who said that when she met him every Thursday morning to travel to Newcastle from Kings Cross, ‘… looking so depraved first thing in the morning. He always has his little bag with his Mickey Mouse toiletries and his one sock – he only has three socks which he rotates….He has his little copy of the Exchange & Mart and The Times.’ (Cummins 1985:71) Perpetually dressed in a black suit and never without a smart remark, his input into the programme was vital both in content and presentation. Jools, together with the two women presenters Paula Yates and Muriel Grey (plus Lesley Ash, who worked on the series when Paula gave birth to her first child) created the style which was distinctive of the programme and which made it unique. The whole production team was unique in that it contained researchers who were knowledgeable in the music which was to be featured and with the ability to recognise and find new talent and bring the artistes on to the show. Before I went to visit The Tube the thing which had always intrigued me was how so many bands with musicians, roadies, instruments, sound equipment and accompanying entourage could ever be happy in a t e l evision studio wh e re the needs of the perfo rmers is hard ly of paramount concern. I had envisaged a frenzied and authoritarian floor manager, trying to control the bands and keep a director happy. The Tube had its own magic ingredient – long blonde hair, black moustache, tight-

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

117

jeaned, diminutive and totally in control – their stage manage Colin Rowell. When the management team went away for their brainstorming retreat in a Northumberland Hotel, one of the things which Malcolm Gerrie had argued for was a professional stage manager. I’d known Colin for years at the City Hall, because he used to get me in through the back door and everybody in the business rated him number one in the country and he actually left the City Hall and went to do a world tour with Shakin’ Stevens and he had fallen out with his manager and I met him in Newcastle and this is when The Tube was bubbling and I still hadn’t won my fight to get him in and I said to him, ‘Would you like to come and work with us?’ He said, ‘What would I be doing?’ ‘Exactly what you’re doing at the Hall.’ Thank God we got him because he knows everyone and speaks the same language. Yesterday, for instance, I walked into the studio at about 9.30 and there was just cases, amplifiers, black boxes everywhere and in the middle of this mayhem was Colin and by lunchtime all the black boxes had gone and all the bands’ gear was on stage.

Colin Rowell made sure that the bands were treated properly, with respect and their equipment was moved, stored and arranged in the way that they would have wished. He was the link between the bands and the television company and his appointment was as crucial as any in the team at The Tube and without him it is doubtful that the show would have been as successful as it became. The researchers may have found the bands, the producer might have put together the perfect show, expertly presented by the presenters and the director might have made a visually exciting and innovative show, but it was the absolute professional expertise of Colin Rowell as the f loor manager, which ensured that management from artistes from both sides of the Atlantic were happy for their artistes to travel and to appear on The Tube. One manager of an American singer told me that he would happily let his artiste appear in Newcastle because he knew that the integrity of the music and the needs of the performance would always be respected. The team and the channel was rewarded by a hugely successful programme which was held in high esteem by audiences and advertisers. Such was the power of the programme that another manager of a band told me that if his band appeared on the programme on a Friday night after they had released a new record, then it would have moved its position in the charts after the audience had gone out shopping on Saturday. Similarly, advertisers found a perfect targeted programme for

118

CHANNEL 4

their products if their customers were the young males who watched The Tube. The Tube was one of the most successful programmes both from a creative and commercial point of view. Entertainment Entertainment as a programme category on Channel 4 was originally seen solely as light entertainment although there were other programme areas which would have been seen as ‘entertainment’ in more conventional television companies. The special area of youth contained programmes which would have been in an entertainment area and the subject area of music which covered jazz as well as classical music, had many programmes which would have fitted into any entertainment brief. In the beginning Channel 4 saw light entertainment in a conventional way. The original blurb in the channel’s information brochure (Channel 4 1982) described light entertainment on Four, as: We all need to laugh; Channel Four will put the emphasis on comedy; old favourites such as I Love Lucy, The Munsters and Get Smart; new wave humour from the irreverent, anarchic contemporary comedians of The Comic Strip. Appearing as themselves will be great comedians of the British theatre, like Max Wall and, from the North East, Bobby Thompson… And from ‘down under’ Norman Gunston and Paul Hogan, Australia’s two top comedians, will be seen on British TV for the first time. From the simple game show to the lavish spectacular, including Brazil’s Fantastico, comedy will play a leading role on Channel Four.

It was hardly a mixture to set the audience falling off their sofas. ‘We all need to laugh’ gives a feeling of a bodily function needing to be satisfied. The audience soon changed the ideas of the importance of entertainment on the channel. The a ppointment of commissioning editors was seen as a crucial element in the development of programme areas. Some commissioning editors were unknown quantities in so far as they had little or no experience in television. Cecil Korer, who was appointed as commissioning editor for Entertainment, did not fit into this category. He had a track record which was completely observable from his work at the BBC wh e re he had worked for many ye a rs and had been responsible for the development and production of among other

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

119

p rogrammes, Ask the Family and It’s a Knocko u t. His entertainment record was certainly diffe rent from some of the ITV brash comedy fo rms. H oweve r, it could never be described as being in the fo re f ront of innovative c o m e dy wh i ch was cert a i n ly present on BBC2, both in some of the s i t u ation comedies and in the entertainment coming from the variety departments. In the event, Cecil Korer brought to Channel 4 some of its most popular programmes. Countdown was the first programme shown on the channel and has built a steady audience, often appearing in the top 10. Korer’s job from the outset was a difficult one. Entertainment was not at the forefront of the thoughts of Channel 4’s editors and management. It was not seen as an important area in the early conception of the channel. It was expected that it could ‘get by’ with showing a combination of old American comedies and some new commissions. The newly commissioned programmes proved very effective for Channel 4 with programmes like Countdown and Treasure Hunt bringing a regular and increasing audience to the channel. However it was with a programme bringing young children to the screen where Cecil Korer met most opposition. Minipops resulted in attacks both from certain elements of the press and from within the channel. At a programme review meeting he was attacked quite vehemently by some commissioning editors, but it was clear that Korer was unaware of the potential furore which could break out around the programme. The problem came from the belief that the children were wearing too much make up, and were dressed and performed dances which were too provocative and likely to encourage the wrong sort of response from paedophiles. Cecil Korer was horrified at the response to the programme stating: Minipops was for kids, it was not for adults. And the kids adored it… The thing that was wrong with Minipops was that the make-up was too heavy. I apologised and the second series would have taken care of that. But the phrase Minipops has become legendary. We have a winner.

According to Cecil Korer, the parents of the children who appeared in the programme applied additional make-up which made the young children look too sexual. Minipops achieved good audiences but it was an example of a programme was attacked because of a fear of its potential effect of being able to feed the worst aspects of the paedophiliac. It was a genuine response by those who worried about its effect and yet it was

120

CHANNEL 4

completely incomprehensible to those who had little or no knowledge of the nature of paedophilia. Young children dancing and mimicking pop stars was not a theme which it could have been expected would cause such criticism. However, the perception in retrospect is much worse than it actually was at the time and some press coverage praised the programme as being innovative and fresh, until it was suddenly picked up by a journalist and criticised. It would be wrong for Korer’s legacy to only be connected with Minipops or for him to be seen as someone who did not make a serious contribution to the development of Channel 4. His purchases of American and Australian comedy and comedy drama series were among the programmes which defined the channel in its early years. Paul Hogan and Cheers were series which drew audiences and were seen as fresh new areas of programmes. Paul Hogan was an ir reverent and politically incorrect comedy series which brought fame to the actor before his success as a film star in Crocodile Dundee. Often giving a satirical slant on the Australian view of the British, it was successful in audience terms and singled out by one of the ITV sales managers to whom I spoke, as a programme during which they could sell advertising space. Cheers was an American comedy drama, which became one of the leading programmes on the channel and one of the first programmes to establish Friday night as a night when comedy was shown on the channel. A Change of Direction Cecil Korer was elevated to the position of senior commissioning editor. Entertainment was recognised as being important and Cecil Korer thought that this was a recognition and sign of approval that his work in commissioning and purchasing entertainment programmes had been seen as satisfactory. It came as a dreadful shock when his contract was not renewed in November 1983 and the change from Cecil Korer to Mike Bolland as senior commissioning editor for Entertainment marked a definite change in strateg y by the channel from a wide-ranging fairly middle of the road type of representation of the genre, to a more radical and targeted form of comedy. This was at its best youthful and daring, at its worst, self indulgent and boring. However, it did herald a type of comedy which definitely fitted into the chosen ethos of the channel as being ‘different’. There was a difficult hand-over period when Cecil Korer was still technically in charge of the area but producers knew that Mike Bolland

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

121

was the person who would be commissioning new work. The changeover was not well handled. It was experienced as unsatisfactory by all concerned and particularly by many independent producers. Of course, there were some who were pleased at the changeover, expecting that a new commissioning editor would have a different perspective and different preferences. But for every optimistic producer hoping for new commissions there was a pessimistic one fearing that the change of direction would mean the end of their programmes. Under the new regime, the development of comedy became part of the changes which were taking place across a whole range of programmes and trends in the country and on other channels. However, before Channel 4 there was a programme which made the supreme contribution to changing comedy in the early 1980s. This was the BBC2 programme The Young Ones which was first transmitted in the summer of 1982. The series portraying communal house-sharing by four outrageously hideous and hyper-realistic students presented not only a quartet of totally believable characters who ve n t u red into a surreal wo rld of eve ryday living wh e re toilets complained of their filthy condition, washing machines rejected dirty washing wh i ch even they found unaccep t abl e, and rock bands competed with sound systems, lighting engineers and part i c i p ating audiences, l u rked in the front room and when parents visited the revolting Rik (Mayall), was tamed to a simpering well behaved good son when introducing his parents with ‘this is my house and these are my friends’, like a typical midd l e - class student. The series rap i d ly ach i eved cult stat u s. Young people could recite the script wo rd and voice perfect and every episode wh i ch was video-re c o rded wa s played many times. F i g u res for programmes such as this we re misleading. When they we re first transmitted in the early 1980s they we re ra re and the number of times that the programmes we re wat ched was far gre ater than the figures could reveal. While I was conducting some audience interv i ew s about Channel 4 I visited a unive rsity hall of residence at Birmingham Unive rsity and had to wait for the students to finish wat ching The Young Ones in a communal viewing room. At least 30 people had been wat ching. The programme had a status with its audience wh i ch was carried over to a nything else in wh i ch the perfo rm e rs ap p e a re d . The stars of The Young Ones fo rmed the nu cleus of the cell of people who developed the new c o m e dy strand under the auspices of Mike Bolland for his youth p rogramming slots. The Comic Strip was a series of dramas wh i ch used bu rlesque to cre ate witty and humorous parodies of various cultural fo rms. The first one wh i ch was a paro dy of an Enid Blyton Famous Five children’s

122

CHANNEL 4

book, was one of the programmes on the first night of Channel 4. The Comic Strip benefited from the fact that The Young Ones had already been seen on BBC2. The Comic Strip bought its own audience to the channel. A less well known fact is that Channel 4 had an indirect role in ensuring the production of The Young Ones for BBC2. Paul Jackson the producer of The Young Ones spoke openly on BBC1’s Pebble Mill at One, saying that the impetus which moved the relevant BBC department head to take up the proposal for The Young Ones, which had been on his desk for a number of months, was when he heard that Mike Bolland had commissioned The Comic Strip for Channel 4. Comedy on Four Comedy on British television has passed through phases and fashions and while new comedy became a major part of Channel 4 it has by no means been exclusive to Channel 4. There was in the early 1980s a flowering of comedy which spanned all channels, but was the work of a small group of people who have worked separately and together to develop the form and provide a new and relevant type of modern comedy. On Channel 4’s opening night they showed the first drama from The Comic Strip, Five Go Mad in Dorset. The young stars of the programme Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders, Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson and Peter Richardson were part of the team who were to provide a strand of programming which made Channel 4 popular among young people and those members of the audience who might be described as having youthful minds. The genre of comedy was one which developed over all four channels. The modern phase which incorporated the new comedy on Channel 4 can be seen to have developed in a line from The Goons, through Monty Python’s Flying Circus having a resurgence in the news satire Not the 9 o’clock News. Monty Python’s Flying Circus introduced a form of anarchic and subversive satirical comedy after which it was difficult to take seriously any form of pretension or pomposity. Not the 9 o’clock News, which was shown on BBC2, was originally produced by John Lloyd and Sean Hardy and it combined current affairs with satire producing a show which was the culmination of the Oxbridge form of comedy. Fermenting in the regions at ATV was a further type of comedy in the guise of the Saturday morning children’s show TISWAS which brought anarchic sophistication to Saturday morning viewers for young viewers but it also captured their parents and the elusive thirty year old males who were so sought after by

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

123

the adve rtisers. The programme became cult viewing and was instrumental in bringing Lenny Henry to the screen. At the same time from 1984 Central Television produced the outstanding programme Spitting Image. This period of the 1980s was a golden age of comedy across all the broadcasting channels despite having to push against existing boundaries. Entertainment on Channel 4 evolved through two distinct routes. The early comedy, entertainment and imported programmes, which was part of the Cecil Korer era and the newer style comedy which developed via the youth programming which Mike Bolland initiated and then continued when he took over as senior commissioning editor for Entertainment. However, the route for new comedy and entertainment was not easy for when programmes tried to move the boundaries within which they were constrained they often brought censure and criticism both to the channel and the programme makers who were brought to task by the channel. Interesting to consider also was the shifting opinions about comedy at different times in the channel’s history. While the 1980s was a period of excess and personal advancement it was also a time when a climate of censorious opinion became even more narrow minded than it had been. The attempt to censor comedy and drama was part of a wider repressive force which was prevalent through the earl y years of the channel. Censorship can take various forms. It does not necessarily have to be the ultimate censorship of deletion or omission. It can move in a more subtle manner. Self censorship is employed by writers, performers and producers who know that certain matters are taboo or likely to cause a problem. More interesting was the development of censorship based on time of day. A spurious category posing as protectionism. This is based on a notion that a joke or a programme can be transmitted at certain times and not at others. It takes the form of censorship dependent on where programmes are placed in the schedule. The scheduling would appear to have been designed round a belief that the ‘mood’ of the audience is receptive to certain forms of entertainment at different times of night. Behind the belief is the twin-feeling of what is acceptable and what must be censored, not in itself but at different times of day or night. It was not simply a matter of the watershed for children, although the 9.00 o’clock and 11.00 o’clock time boundaries had a part to play in overall scheduling on Channel 4 as with all other channels. Scheduling is an important aspect of television production and in the 1980s before the advent of multichannels, it could be seen as equally a part of the programme as its

124

CHANNEL 4

content. All programme makers, commissioning editors and artistes wanted their programmes to go out in a ‘good slot’ in the schedule. However, if the programmes had ‘bad language’ or violence at that time, they were scheduled after the watershed and even after 11.00. Saturday Night Live – Prime Time Innovation Since the early days of the channel Jeremy Isaacs had wanted some sort of Saturday late night programme. His idea was something along the lines of an updated Late-Night Line Up. Mike Bolland asked for submissions from independent producers. After much discussion the commission went to London Weekend Television with Paul Jackson as producer of the event. For although this was a two hour live programme, it was also seen as a television event which briefly became an important part of the channel’s output. Ever since the channel began there was a feeling at the channel and among the audience, that the channel was one which showed prerecorded programmes and apart from news and sports programmes and The Tube, there was little sense of live occasions on Channel 4. Various attempts were made to imagine a show which would give Channel 4 a presence in the field of live entertainment. The decision to pursue this goal was brave because entertainment was not a genre which was overtly innovative and progressive. I chose to follow the production of this series because it was one which was important for the channel and was one which brought together many of the themes and debates which were relevant to Channel 4 and its remit. One of the major tenets of the Broadcasting Act was that the channel should provide a service for audience ‘tastes and interests not catered for on other channels’. Saturday Night Live was produced by London Weekend Television and it revealed the power of the established ITV companies. The programme began with a pilot programme which involved a huge commitment on the part of London Weekend Television. Saturday Live was important for London Weekend Television and for the Independent Television Companies Association (ITCA). The opportunity to work on a major live programme with a producer and performers who were talented and working in a new way was greatly appreciated by the staff at LWT. While watching the studio preparation for the programme there was the feeling that this was ‘an event’. Everyone who was working on the set was interested and enthusiastic about their work. When the set was being constructed the crew worked fast and talked about the excitement of

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

125

working on something which was ‘something different from the usual LWT-LE’. The set was a fairground with a massive merry-go-round. It was a major contributory factor in the whole atmosphere which pervaded the days in the studio. It provided a challenge and a stimulation to those who worked on its construction and the performers who worked on it. It was a major feature of the production – innovative, attractive and integral to the concept of the programme. One senior member of the technical crew told me, ‘LWT needs a show like this. You can get very stale and bored doing the main channel shows’. Saturday Live had an importance for LWT and for the ITCA. If the major Channel 4 entertainment show were to come from the ITCA system. It would have had the effect of progressing the output of the companies for the main ITV channel. The most important ingredient in the success of the project was its producer Paul Jackson. His record in the field of innovative comedy was unsurpassed at the time when he produced Saturday Live. He had been responsible for a number of the most exciting and successful programmes during previous years, producing Jasper Carrotts’s Carrotts’ Lib, Three of a Kind, with Lenny Henry, Tra c ey Ullman and David Copperfield. Immediat e ly befo re producing Saturday Live, he had been responsible for the brilliantly anarchic and innovative comedy series The Young Ones for BBC2. These programmes became cult viewing for youthful viewers and those who appeared in them became part of popular culture. The discovery and more important, the nurturing of these young talents who wrote and performed the comedy was mainly done by Paul Jackson and his experience and expertise of working with young and creative people, yet guiding them to be accessible and acceptable to their new television audience, was one of his skills. Those who appeared in the show were a combination of new talent and experienced performers. Many of them knew each other as they had worked together on the emergent alternative comedy scene and the atmosphere which prevailed on the show was one of excitement, energy and a joyful enthusiasm. Lenny Henry who was the host of the pilot prog ramme was talented and professional, a young performer who had a reputation gained by appearing on the cult Saturday morning children’s show TISWAS from ATV. This was a prog ramme about which I conducted a brief audience study which related to the pilot of the programme. However a brief comment from one 28 year old assistant in a chemist’s shop, who had little knowledge or interest in Channel 4 except for their films which she found ‘more contemporary and

126

CHANNEL 4

different’. She had watched Saturday Live because her boyfriend had told her about it. We talked about her opinions on the programme and she gave an insight both into the programme and the way that the audience felt about Saturday night television. DH – Karen – DH – Karen – DH – Karen – DH – Karen –

DH – Karen –

How had you heard of it? Chris told me, he had seen it in the paper, and because Lenny Henry was in it we watched, because he’s fantastic. Had you seen any trailers for it? No. What did you think of it? Brilliant, the best 90 minutes I’d seen for a long time. I could have watched it all night. Why did you like it? I liked the set – that was fantastic. It was exciting. I love Lenny Henry. I love his sense of humour, he laughs at himself as well. What can you remember about it? I remember Rik Mayall. The Dangerous Brothers. They make fun!

Saturday Live was successful but was subject to changes in scheduling and moved to a different time slot. It was made to be a mainstream mid Saturday night prog ramme and brought some of the most distinctive comedy of the 1980s to the screen and introduced some of the iconic characters to the Saturday night audience. The Dangerous Brothers – Rik M ayall and Ade Edmondson – and the Harry Enfield ch a ra c t e r Loadsamoney all were part of the show and were part of the 1980s comedy developments which came from the channel. Brookside – A Hyper-real Soap Opera You see, we expect more of Brookside than we would of other soaps, we rely on you to tell our stories to the world. Liverpool woman to Jimmy McGovern – Brookside writer at the Script to Screen Conference, Burton Manor

Soap operas are traditionally programmes which are used by television companies to attract audiences and in the 1980s were expected to retain

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

127

them for the whole evening’s viewing. Conventionally they had always been scheduled during the early evening with Granada’s Coronation Street at 7.30 being the latest start time. The programmes were seen as the stronghold of women’s viewing, although they were also watched by men as well. From the perspective of its role in the history of Channel 4, Brookside has relevance both as the television programme and the growth of Mersey Television, the company which made it. Both were innovative and fulfilled the brief of the Broadcasting Act and the story of the programme is inseparable from the story of its founder and creator. Brookside was the creation of writer Phil Redmond and the story of his company Mersey Television is as interesting as those within the series and the growth of the series has paralleled the growth of the channel. Their stories are interwoven and the role of Brookside was crucial in the early years of Channel 4. Isaacs and Redmond had met at a meeting at the Royal Institution and Isaacs tells the story that at the end of the meeting, Redmond, who he described as ‘a young man in sneakers’, then known as the creator and writer of the BBC Children’s drama serial, Grange Hill. He approached Isaacs and asked, ‘How do you feel about bad language?’’ ‘I don’t mind it’, replied Isaacs. ‘Then I have a soap opera for you’, offered Redmond and the partnership was formed between Isaacs and Redmond which was to result in the twice weekly series which changed the genre of British soap opera and the growth of Redmond’s Mersey Television, the largest independent television company and arguably at that time, the only major independent company outside London. A Different Type of Soap Opera Brookside was a serial set on a Liverpool Housing estate and the storylines revolved round the lives of the residents of that estate. The first programme was transmitted at 8 o’clock on the first night of Channel 4 and 4.7 million people watched and met the new residents of Brookside Close and saw them move into their new houses. Nancy Banks-Smith writing in The Guardian christened their families of the Close, ‘The Harrods, the Habitats and the Hooligans’, revealing a witty if incorrect metropolitan assumption about the series. The downwardly-mobile Collins family, moving from their Wirral home, would have most likely bought their furniture from Brown’s of Chester certainly not from Harrods, and the Grants who were buying their first home after living in

128

CHANNEL 4

council houses, were working class but certainly not hooligans. Only the Havershams, Heather and Roger, the accountant and solicitor could possibly be identified as Habitats. The three families along with Gavin and Petra Taylor, the young married couple with their flash but dodgy lifestyle, were picked to represent different aspects of class and age which would have been potential owners of houses in the area when the series began. They represented aspects of Liverpool and they were there to tell the stories which the creator, Phil Redmond wanted to tell about his home city in the 1980s. As is the style with all soap operas, Brookside has had its share of controversy and even before it had been transmitted there were stories that the director had walked out because of the bad language which was included in the scripts. When it was transmitted, the first episode certainly did cause a certain amount of criticism because of the so-called bad language, although the use of language was only ever used when it may have naturally occurred in the lives of the characters. Young people swore when they were with their own age group. Men swore when they were at work and their livelihood was being threatened by redundancy and middle class Roger, told Heather to turn the ‘bloody thing off ’ when their clock radio alarm went off. What seemed strange at the time was not the presence of the odd ‘bloody’ or ‘bugger’ or even the ‘piss off ’, ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘BOLLOCKS’ scrawled across the bathroom wall of the empty house which was to become the home of the Collins family. It was when Paul Collins described his young neighbour Damon Grant as a ‘bloody little hooligan’, and buggers – which did seem out of place at the time. The climate of opinion at the time was such that swearing in a programme did seem out of place. The serial, along with other early transmissions on Channel 4, had to tone down, if not cut out the realistic language and indeed, had to live down some of its initial hostile publicity. While early problems could be sorted out, what was never discussed and certainly never realised was that for an independent company to produce a soap opera was a considerable achievement. A soap opera is a continuous series which once it has started, has to roll on relentlessly with scripts, actors, production teams, editing and support staff. Before Brookside, soap operas had been made by massive broadcasting institutions, either the BBC or one of the ITV companies. The power and size of the companies gave the programmes access to the vast facilities in terms of staff and production support which were not available to the newly

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

129

formed independent company, Mersey Television. While many commented that the greatest achievement of Channel 4 was keeping on the air, it should also be stated that the greatest achievement of Mersey Television producing Brookside from a standing start, was an equal achievement. Brookside was the achievement of Phil Redmond and his track record showed that he had an affinity with his audience and an awareness of the cultural issues which are the oxygen of popular drama with particular emphasis on young people. To be successful in dramatic terms a soap opera has to reflect the issues of the moment when it is conceived. When Brookside was first produced, the experience of British soap operas had not been such that social issues were at the forefront of storylines. Crossroads from ATV/Central had the strongest record for tackling social issues while Coronation Street and Emmerdale Farm, did not have them high on their agendas. When Brookside came to the screen it did include social issues but tried to restrict them to those which rose naturally out of the storylines. However, very quickly, social issues became part of the storyline planning and were seen as integral parts of the planning process by Phil Redmond and his team of writers. They were as vital to the drama as the characters through whom the issues were raised and explored. In its early days, Brookside reflected issues which were thought of as important by the Brookside writing team, and which they thought would be important to their audience in the social and political climate of the 1980s. These included reflecting the devastation which Liverpool was experiencing through mass unemployment and closure of industrial and commercial businesses. Industry and shipping had deserted the city and the people were losing their jobs and their dignity in work. The seething pain, both silent and screeched aloud, that was part of living in many areas of Britain during the 1980s was realised and told to the nation through dramas, many of which came out of Liverpool. Redmond’s Brookside, Alan Bleasdale’s Boys from the Blackstuff, Willy Russell’s Educating Rita; all told different stories of Liverpool and her people. They portray the hope, horror, pain and humour of shared problems and experiences. Common as a storylines now, but certainly many of their storylines were first tackled on the programme. The series was to include stories of menstruation, rape, male redundancy, both working and middle-class, homosexuality, lesbian affairs, incest, and the famous ‘body under the patio’ story which brought domestic violence and child abuse to the forefront of the national interest in the series.

130

CHANNEL 4

Realism and ‘Too Real’ Sound The setting for Brookside was a new housing estate in Liverpool and the innovation in ter ms of television production was that real houses provided the set for the series. In creative terms it was a touch of genius. In the past critics had accused series of not being realistic enough, suggesting that the walls of the houses moved when viewing the existing soap operas. No one would ever be able to levy this criticism at Brookside for their sets were real houses, with real walls and every detail was checked with the builders to ensure that they were sociologically and economically correct in their allocation of houses to characters. The script came first but then the ch a ra c t e rs we re given the appro p r i ate house. Colin McKeown, the technical manager, explained the juggling of technical aspects and sociological realism: As you look round this cul-de-sac now these houses came secondary. What came first were the scripts. Phil gave the personality breakdown to Brosleys (The Builders) and they said, ‘On a market survey the type of people who buy semi-detached houses are up-and-coming married couples, hence in those two first houses there are up-and-coming married couples, Heather and Roger (an accountant and a solicitor) and Gavin and Petra, (until Gavin died). Then they said, OK a guy on his way down would buy a detached house but not as big as the somebody on the way up, hence the bigger family detached house went to the Grants and the smaller one went to the Collins. They even looked at it psychologically and said that the woman on the way up and on the way down would chose the best kitchen, so both families have the same kitchen. All the houses are different but they have been chosen to match the personality, and even the types of plants they have in the garden is being suited. The realism has gone right through the production.

To make the houses and the situation of moving into a new house, in November, seem real, the sound had to be seen to be correct and appear televisually correct as well. In the early days of the serial I heard criticism from within the industry, never from the audience, both of the lighting and the sound quality of the programme. The sound was natural because the new inhabitants who moved into the houses did not have carpets, and the floors were bare and sound echoed around the houses. The sound reflected reality, because moving into houses in November, it was unlikely that people would have bought new carpets and they would have been

A Kaleidoscope of Programmes

131

walking round on bare floors. However, the programme was attacked for its echoing sound and the sound of people walking round on the floors. It was remedied by the technical crews, but the critics had to be placated. Innovation The whole production of Brookside was an example of the innovation required of the output on Channel 4. While the genre was an established one, the way that Phil Redmond developed his soap opera incorporated i n n ovation in both content and the production of that content. Embracing new technology Phil Redmond and Colin McKeown used the Steadicam (camera) to get complex moving shots and they abandoned the normal static five-camera shooting tradition of the studio-based soap opera. They also used single video cameras to achieve a film technique. Methods which are now routinely used in television production were pioneered in this form of serial drama by Mersey Television. Similarly, computers were in their infancy in general use, but they were written into the storylines and used by some of the characters in the drama. Redmond had both the power and the interest to include new technology in his serial. One of the significant strengths of Brookside was that in its early days, Phil Redmond always retained complete power over the whole of his production. As a writer himself, he also ensured that the power of the writer was paramount, and the script, once agreed, was not subject to change during the production process. The series became one which pioneered many ideas in continuing drama, with the development of the ‘bubble’ when a storyline was taken outside the series and transmitted in a different time slot. Redmond used this device to include the story of the death of Damon, who was stabbed to death in a storyline which took him and his girlfriend to Newcastle. The legacy of Brookside was that it changed the content of soap operas and made the themes and issues which were handled in the storylines much more adventurous. Sometimes its storylines were outrageous but in its early years it established a new type of programme both in its content and in its production methods. It could be described as a hyper-realistic series because all its storylines were credible although not always in the tight confines of the small housing estate. Nevertheless, Redmond established a series which became synonymous with the best in British soap operas and with the perceptions of the channel. *****

132

CHANNEL 4

Programmes The programmes discussed above are a small representation of the hundreds of programmes which were shown on the channel during its f i rst 5 years. They give a fl avour of wh at was invo l ved in the commissioning and production of these new ventures. For every story there is another to be told, but what all the production companies wanted was to have the programmes shown on the new channel and to be part of its creative innovation.

Channel 4 and Its Audience Channel 4’s remit was to provide programmes which would serve an audience not already catered for by ITV and to provide programmes which were not already seen there, together with the famous charge to be innovative in content and form. The way that the audience received and perceived the channel had no relation to this remit; to them it was a new channel with new programmes. How they responded to the offerings was varied and interesting and helps to understand the way that the channel established itself in its early years. Research Methods The audience research wh i ch I undertook for this project was eclectic. While some was conducted using re c ognised qualitat ive methodology, other parts of the re s e a rch was undertaken in much more info rmal, but n eve rtheless intellectually sound manner. Wat ching television is a major l e i s u reactivity as is talking about telev i s i o n . Vi ewe rs voicing their opinions a re ubiquitous. Th ey talk about television in the stre e t , on a train, in a taxi, in pubs, at wo rk , at home, at the unive rs i t y, at dinner parties – everywh e re. Sometimes views are passed about television programmes in the House of Commons, even when the members have not seen the programmes although in the houses of their constituents this is ra re ly the case. Everyone has opinions about television even those who rep u t e d ly never wat ch . When Channel 4 began many people never did wat ch and the gathering of re s e a rch in any systematic way was difficult, not to say impossible. But t h e re was talk about the channel and even the negat ive views we re of i n t e rest because it began to fo rm a picture about the way that the channel was initially re c e ived and perceived. During the first six ye a rs people spoke to me, with me and around me about television in ge n e ral and with a little e n c o u ragement, about Channel 4 in part i c u l a r. When I told people wh at I was doing, t h ey inva r i ably told me what they thought about the channel. What ever it is, if people feel you are interested in their opinions they are ve ry pleased to share them. Hence talking about the audience in this book invo l ves both fragmentary and systematic research. It is based on tap e d interv i ew s, c o nve rs ations both reco rd ed , noted and remembered. *****

134

CHANNEL 4

Travelling Re s e a rch ‘Channel 4, where’s that, Thames or LWT?’ ‘60 Charlotte Street’, I replied. ‘Never knew that,’ replied the London taxi driver, in a manner which indicated that he did not totally approve of something existing in central London, of which he did not know the exact location. Or conversely, an already formed opinion of the channel and its staff. ‘Channel 4, you don’t work there do you? Shocking lot they must be, judging by the programmes.’

In my early days travelling to the channel, these views would typify the way t h at taxi drivers talked about the channel. Ignorance of its physical existence thereby denigrated its status. If t h ey did not know wh e re it was, it was hard ly worth knowing. Or they offe red a respectable street-wise dismissal of the p rogrammes. L i ke other viewe rs, t h ey had not always seen many programmes but the rep u t ation had spread and they often relied on the opinions of their wives who wat ched more television than they could, restricted as they were by their shift work. Th ey also read the press comments and this added to their perception of wh at was ava i l able on the channel. Indeed they we re a group who pro fessed to wat ch little television and who definitely subscribed to the critical opinion held by many members of the viewing public that television in ge n e ral was ‘a load of rubbish’. Th ey saw themselves as selective viewe rs and from the start they had an ex p e c t ation that the channel would offer them programmes wh i ch we re transmitted at a diffe rent time. Th ey had expected programmes late night through into the early hours wh i ch had been promised when the channel f i rst began transmitting and they we re disappointed when no programmes appeared. Gra d u a l ly, they began to change their opinions and gain more specific views and to express the feeling that , ‘Channel 4 is getting a lot better’. The greatest tribute paid to Channel 4 by a London taxi driver came three years into the life of the channel when one driver became so engrossed discussing the funding of the channel and the high standard of the programmes wh i ch ap p e a red on Channel 4 compared with those shown on ITV, t h at he sudd e n ly found himself driving me along Regent Street, a little off his route from Euston Station to Charlotte Street. He sudd e n ly realised t h at he had driven quite out of his way, and said that he was so interested talking about the channel that he had forgotten his route. To prove the validity of his interest, he did not ch a rge me for the extended journey!

Channel 4 and Its Audience

135

The feeling that Channel 4 was constantly ‘getting better’ was a view that was to spread right across the public perception of the channel and appear in many interviews both formal and informal. Of course, the notion that the channel was getting better was a double edged compliment. It was only getting better for those who we re not immediately satisfied with its performance. For those who had wanted a channel which was completely new and ever changing, it could never provide satisfaction. The level of innovation and change had to be constant if it were to satisfy the wants and aesthetic aspirations of those who considered themselves to be amongst the most avant garde of the audience. Not least of the problem with this latter group was they did not watch very much television as their lives took them to other cultural and social events. However, the general television audience was not different for Channel 4 than for other channels and their opinions were for the most part formed in conjunction with opinions which they formed across their general viewing. They did not judge Channel 4 differently from programmes on other channels except that in some cases they expected more from Channel 4 than the other channels. Viewers’ perceptions about Channel 4 remained as a part of their general perceptions about television. Only those programmes which grew to have a definite Channel 4 identity and which were popular were readily discussed. For the most part viewers had opinions on the channel in general but for a long time they had relatively little to say about individual programmes. There were obvious exceptions – Brookside, American Football, and Treasure Hunt. Right from the first day people talked to me about Countdown, Channel 4’s first programme and one which captured the i n t e rest of older viewe rs and was immediat e ly identified as being ‘different’ in a positive sense. Also right from the beginning people started talking to me about Brookside and their opinions were less hostile than those of the press discussed elsewhere. The initial switch off from Brookside seemed to be to do with the predominance of storylines which were unfamiliar to the viewers in terms of soap opera; the preponderance of trade union problems which were not part of other soap operas. For every viewer who thought that there was too much bad language in Brookside, there was another who thought that it was realistic. But audiences cannot always ‘take’ the realism of television fiction, because the viewing situation is often with other people and this affects what they feel can be tolerated. A sixteen year old boy watching Damon, Gizzmo and Ducksie swearing when the characters were ‘dossing around’ on their

136

CHANNEL 4

own and who thought that the swearing reflected the way that they acted when they were with their friends but he thought that the swearing had to go because he thought it was unacceptable for family viewing. Similarly, in scenes which reflected the feelings of the workers who were made redundant in early storylines featuring Bobby Grant, there was swearing which would have been perfectly normal for men talking together about the redundancies which were to affect their future. Men did swear at work and the language was perfectly natural. But it was not deemed to be suitable for inclusion in the serial. Realism had to be tempered for its representation on television. The use of so-called bad language could be seen as the Achilles’ heel of the channel and its early programmes were heavily criticised for its inclusion. Bad language became part of the folklore of Channel 4 and it took a long time to live down this early aspect of its reputation. The Elusive Young Male Viewer Despite the early criticisms for bad language, there were two programmes which were instantly successful in audience terms both in the figures and the way that viewers talked about them. They also make a breakthrough in terms of the elusive young male audience between the age of 16 and 34, who were sought by advertisers and producers. These programmes were The Tube and American Football, and they provided a rich source of comments from the audience and in the case of The Tube from an unexpected group. Throughout the research for this book I travelled regularly by train particularly between Birmingham and London and it was during these journ eys that I learned of the favourite Channel 4 programme amongst business men who talked about the channel and its programmes. The favourite programmes for these men were The Tube and American Football. They were never home in time to watch The Tube as they were not its obvious target audience group and 5.30 on a Friday afternoon was not a time when they were able to sit at home watching television. Their wives recorded the programme for them and although they were in their late twenties and early thirties they saw this programme as being of particular interest to them. It kept them in touch with new bands and enabled them to see the big names w ho regularly appeared on the programme. They were far from being teenagers in age and lifestyle, but the programmes kept them in touch with an area of their life which they still felt was very important and enjoyable for them.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

137

The second important programme to this group and indeed to a large number of young men was the introduction of American football to British television. This brought a new sport which was to become one of the most popular programmes on the channel and to bring the coveted young AB males to the advertisers. Talking about American Football became one of my main activities on the Inter-City train. This was the programme which most of my fellow travellers said that they watched and enjoyed amongst the programmes offered by the channel. It was something new, exciting and interesting to watch and it was transmitted at a time which was particularly convenient for them. Sunday at 6.00 was a time when they were at home, they were relaxed, they were not travelling home from work and the general domesticity which takes place at that time during weekday evenings, and it was not a time when there was a direct clash with other programmes on the other three channels which other members of the family wanted to watch. It was a perfect match of an audience with its interests and its lifestyle. A very important factor in the consideration of when a targeted audience is available and able to view. There was a vital factor in the growth of the popularity of American Football which can be used not only to account for the increase in the number of viewers for that programme but as an example of one of, if not the most important fact in the understanding of the way that any television programme becomes popular and indeed, moves into the cultural consciousness of its audience. People talk about television programmes. If a programme has captured their interest and imagination in any way and for any reason, then they talk about it with their friends, colleagues, peer group, family and even with people whom they do not know. If you are part of any group where a programme is discussed then you are culturally deprived if you have not watched the programme and if you want to remain a part of the group, then you begin watching so that you can share in the discussions. This was the way that many men told me that they began watching American Football. They would relate the way that this happened. ‘Well, I didn’t watch it at first, but then on a Monday morning all the guys in the office would come in and be talking about the game. If you hadn’t watched you couldn’t join in, so I started watching myself and I must admit I became hooked on it’. Some viewers were not avid sports fans but they liked the coverage because it was different. One man with whom I spoke could serve to illustrate the effect that American Football had on its audience. He was in his late 20s and was the sales manager of a large holiday company with its headquarters in the Midlands.

138

CHANNEL 4

Originally from Manchester, where he had been a Manchester United supporter from his childhood, he had moved to the Midlands to take up his current position. He told me: American Football has become a part of my working life. Every Monday I go in to work and although I have little in common with my Managing Director, who owns the company, we talk about the game on Channel 4 on Sunday afternoon. He is 38, left school with a few ‘O’ levels, a real Brummie who is a self-made man. Normally, we would have little in common except work, but we talk about American football without any introduction to the topic. “What about Smith’s…?” Neither of us say what we are talking about, we just know it’s about the game. And then someone else will come in and join in and a whole conversation follows. It’s all about the game. If you haven’t watched you’re at a real disadvantage.

Here was an example of the way that a television prog ramme had become part of a work culture for the group. Being able to talk about the game was an important part of the social intercourse at work and social equaliser between the self-made millionaire and his university educated employees. When I was talking to this man it was the week before the Superbowl when the channel transmitted live coverage of the game which was the highlight of the season. This match became a regular feature of the schedule. Held on the last Sunday in January it had become an event which was often celebrated by Superbowl Parties when groups of friends or fans got together to watch the game into the early hours of Monday morning. For some this was a pleasant event, but for others it had become part of the company take-over of the programme and event. I asked the sales manager whether he enjoyed the Superbowl weekend. His answer was surprising and amusing: Well no, I hate it actually, because it has become a big thing now to have Superbowl parties and these are always held at my boss’s house. Every year all the executives are invited and I have to go and drink ora n ge juice all night because at 3 o’clock I have to drive home 40 miles in the middle of winter. I can’t relax because I’m in my boss’s house, I can’t have a drink because I don’t want to stay the night and I have wind for a week from all the ora n ge and fizzy drinks that I have during the programme. I just wish I could wat ch Superbowl in my own house and lie about drinking and fall into my own bed at the end of the game. I used to love Superbowl. Now I dread it coming around.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

139

These men on the train were a group, talking as individuals, who found a new programme on the channel and made it their own and contributed to the success of the sport on the channel. At the Unemployed Drop-In Centre The notion that Channel 4 was an elitist channel only catering for liberal ‘trendies’ was not borne out in talking to viewers. Talking to people about what programmes they watched continually revealed what they looked for on Channel 4 was more of the same of the programmes which they saw on other channels. Again pursuing the elusive young male audience, although this time definitely not the affluent viewers who watched American Fo o t b a l l, I talked to young men in a drop-in centre for unemployed youths. These were not easy interviews; they were conducted in a tiny planked shed which just accommodated a pool table with barely enough room to walk around and play. I had to sit on a window ledge and go through a period of ducking and weaving and exchanging jokes with the young men before we could talk about television. They were certainly not reticent nor hostile but I was on their territory and I had to accept their slight defensive posturing as they tested me out and decided how much they were going to tell me. As with all questions about television, what you learn is as much about the life-styles of those who are talking as it tells you about their viewing habits. This is not surprising since television is part of the everyday life of the audience. When people tell you what they watch, they also tell you what they do, and what are the possibilities for alternatives in their lives. The young men to whom I spoke felt that they had little which was positive about their lives. They were not expecting to get jobs and saw only a future with bleak Youth Training Schemes with little money and few prospects for their future. These men used television to fill the hours when they could find little else to do. Before the advent of 24 hour television, many young unemployed men and women used to tell me that they selected their late night viewing by choosing the programme which finished later than the others. This meant that they could stay awake later at night watching television and then sleep later in the morning, leaving fewer hours to fill before they came to the Centre or watched afternoon television programmes. Mark, a 16 year old, had left school with a few CSEs (Certificates of Secondary Education, the fo re runner to the GCSEs of secondary education). He said, ‘I’m waiting to hear if I can go on the building’. His

140

CHANNEL 4

interests were football and sports of all kinds. His lived at home with his parents and his older brother who was 25. They had two televisions, one colour and one black and white, and a video recorder. However, they only had two tapes, one 180 minutes and one 90 minute, so they had little opportunity to watch and save. They used the video mainly to record films and watch them when television had closed down. Mark could be termed a heavy viewer. He watched from 3.30 to 6.00 or 7.00 each evening when he went out, returning to watch from about 10.30 onwards until close down nearly every night. If he went out it was to see his girl friend or just ‘messing about’. He would return home to see something which he specially wanted and this would be something like The Young Ones, which was the only programme he ever watched on BBC2 and if he ever missed it, it was ‘really tough’. His favourite programmes were The Young Ones, Hill Street Blues, and Top of the Pops. He hated programmes like Dallas, Crossroads, Coronation Street, or anything which was to do with the family. He read a number of newspapers, The Sun, The Star, the Birmingham Evening Mail and the News of the World and although he read the critics he took no notice of what they said. Sometimes his family would argue about the choice of programmes and his Mom and Dad won, because they always said that they paid for the television. He watched Sons & Daughters, The Young Doctors, Countdown, Razzamatazz and ‘anything on ITV after 5.15’. The only way that he came into the area of embarrassment with his parents was again over the question of swearing although he said that his parents ‘weren’t too bothered’: What they don’t like is words like ‘slut’ ‘slag’, ‘hooker’, and ‘prostitute’. They’re not too bothered about sex, they’re a bit old-fashioned but they know what goes on.

The interpretation of what is ‘swearing’ and ‘bad language’ and the degree of offence which can be caused to different people is well illustrated in this comment about Mark’s parents. Mark was a heavy Channel 4 viewer. He rapidly listed the programmes which he watched. All quizzes, Countdown, Jeopardy, Cheers, The Addams Family, The Tube. Asked what he thought of them he said, ‘They’re alright’. His opinion of the channel was that it was no different than any other channel, he did not see it in any other terms than ITV. ‘It’s not different from the other channels. Some quiz games on ITV are good and some are crap – it’s the same on Channel 4.’ Brief but effective criticism.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

141

Another young man, Neil was also 16 and lived down the road from Mark. They had gone to the same school and he too had left with CSEs but he had a YTS placing to go to in a couple of weeks working on a building site doing plumbing and construction. He was also a heavy television viewer, watching between 4.00 and 6.00 each evening and from 10.00 o’clock until close down. His favourite programme which he had ever seen on television had been One Summer on Channel 4 last year: It was great. And I watch Boys from the Blackstuff, plays, documentaries, about animals and insects, films, loads of things.

His perception of the different television channels was as succinct as that of his friend: ‘BBC1’s OK, BBC2 that’s shit, ITV – good. Channel 4 was seen in the same vein as ITV and this was praise from Neil. In fact the ultimate praise was that, ‘Some of their programmes are so good they could easily be on ITV’.

He had watched a good range of the programmes which were directed at him: I watch Brookside, every Saturday. Films if I’m in. And I watch The Tube and Earsay but that’s not been on for ages. I liked that ‘cos that kid’s alright – he’s more our age. I like Brookside a lot ’cos it’s funny, I’ve watched it right from the start. It’s got like real life in it.

He had watched Going Out, Phil Redmond’s drama series about young people and that had been his favourite programme until One Summer, which received praise with such enthusiasm that it should have brought joy to the heart of Willy Russell who wrote it and all at Yorkshire Television who made the programme possible. This was a series which reached Neil and his friends: ‘One Summer, I used to come in specially. Everybody watched it. Everybody would watch it again if they showed it.’ This for Neil had been a programme which spoke to him and of him and his friends. He could relate to the characters and their feelings and their behaviour. When he talked about One Summer his body language changed from being lightly hunched, head bowed, glancing at me from over his shoulder, as he stalked the pool table and threw me his answers with the pained shyness of the adolescent boy. As he spoke of One Summer

142

CHANNEL 4

he changed and looked straight at me and he smiled as he told me, ‘I used to come in specially’. There was no need to explain why, his face indicated the shared knowledge that it would take something very special to get him to come in early on a Sunday night in the summer. This programme had had that attraction for Neil and his friends. It was one of the moments when I felt that Jeremy Isaacs had delivered to his ‘one ecstatic viewer’. Mark (Two) another young man at the Drop-In centre was aged 20 and lived at home with his unemployed parents and his three sisters and two brothers whose ages ranged from 3 to 22 years old. He watched a lot of videos but he also watched a lot of television programmes. He watched films, sport – predominantly football, because his dad chose the sports programmes, Top of the Pops, Brookside, The Young Ones, Man About the House and programmes about sex. They always watched as a family and his mom and dad made the main selections of what was watched. The question of censorship came in over matters of sex. My mom and dad are embarrassed about sex and they say, ‘This is dirty, turn it over’, but they don’t care about swearing, they think that doesn’t matter.

However, Mark liked the sex prog rammes because he said, ‘I’m interested in that and I think that Channel 4 is good for things like that’. The pressure of watching with families came up again and again and the fact that young people did not have as much control over the choice of programmes which they would have liked to watch. The irony for Mark was that the only other television in the house was in the bedroom where his three year-old sister slept and she was in bed long before the programmes which were about sex were transmitted. His feelings about Channel 4 remained positive, he had difficulty watching the programmes but he was pleased that they were there and at least his friends watched them and talked about them to him. In his choice of channels he preferred BBC1 because it had no ad breaks. He had the young male generic put down of BBC2 – ‘crap’, saved only by The Young Ones, but when I asked him what he thought about Channel 4 in general, he replied: ‘You can’t really generalise about it, but I think that it is a decent channel.’ These young men were not viewers who were brought anew to television, they like others to whom I spoke, chose programmes rather than channels, but they sought out the prog rammes which they liked whether they were on BBC1, BBC2, ITV or Channel 4. But they also

Channel 4 and Its Audience

143

chose the programme genres which they watched on other channels and looked for programmes in the same genres on Channel 4. But as viewers they also found programmes which were not provided on the other channels. The targeting which the channel had set in place, did work for these young men and some of the programmes which they watched spoke directly to them and certainly met with their approval. Young Women at the Sports Hall One set of interviews I conducted was with a group of young women whom I met at a Sport for All racquet ball group. They were all housewives and went to a local sports centre during the mornings, taking their children with them and played the game. I talked to them while they were waiting for the squash courts to be vacant. They were aged between 23 and 35 although most of them were in their early thirties. They were all married and all but one had children. Most did not work but some had part-time jobs. Because they were attending the sports class, although they did not see themselves as ‘sporty’ they also saw themselves as having interests outside their homes and defined themselves as selective viewers. The interviews with these women were typical of a number of interviews with viewers and showed how they kept their previous loyalties both to channels and types of programmes, and as with the young men above, what they looked for on Channel 4 was more of what they liked rather than for something specifically different. What follows is an account of the way that these women watched television in general and the way that they made their own selections. By far the biggest majority had more than one television set and second sets were either in the kitchen or dining room or in the children’s bedrooms. For the most part, they did little viewing on the second set, only if they wanted to see something which was different from what their husband or the rest of the family were watching, would they go to watch on another set. If something was on which they did not want to see, then they would go and do something else or ignore the television while the programme was on. The favourite channel among these women was BBC1 although some pre ferred ITV. There we re a number of contradictions in the way that they talked about what channels they watched and which were their favourites. One woman said that she watched mainly ITV but that BBC1 was her favourite channel. There was an explanation. ITV showed more of the type of the programmes which

144

CHANNEL 4

she liked, films which were horror or ‘sob stories’ and documentaries if she liked the subject. However, she preferred to watch BBC1 because there were no adverts! Every apparent contradiction has an explanation. The only woman who said that Channel 4 was her favourite channel, said that she watched ITV and Channel 4 and only selected BBC if there were documentaries or comedies which she wanted to see. This woman was a very interesting viewer and she was typical of heavy viewers. Norma was 35 with no educational qualifications, and did not wish to say what she did before she was married. She was married to a managing director and they had one three year old daughter. She described herself as a housewife and said that her hobbies were knitting, crochet and watching television. They had three television sets, two colour and one black and white and they were located in the lounge, bar and kitchen. They also had a video recorder and radios. She was very exact about her viewing habits: I watch TV-am, and for one hour in the afternoon from 4 o’clock onwards. I then watch between 7 and 12 and I watch all day at the weekends.

Norma could definitely be described as a heavy viewer. However, she could not be described as an indiscriminate viewer. Her choice of programmes was selective and ordered. I watch quizzes, I love them. Mastermind, Countdown, comedies, University Challenge, Cheers, definitely not Sale of the Century. I never watch soap operas, Emmerdale Farm, or any of the others except for Brookside. When football comes on the video goes on then. I don’t like the BBC News.

Her choice of newspapers was the Daily Mail and The Observer and although she read the television critics she said that she did not take any notice of what they said. She and her husband watched the television together after 9 o’clock at night and if there was anything which he wanted to watch then ‘we record it and he watches it after’. Norma chose Channel 4 as her favourite television channel mainly because she liked Film on Four. It was a very specific choice, not a vague mention of more films, but the generic title of the series. She liked the channel in general because she felt it gave her extra choice but what she was meaning was extra choice of the programmes which she already liked. She saw it as providing a superior version of programmes which she could also see on the other channels, and this was a very important aspect of the

Channel 4 and Its Audience

145

way that the channel had enhanced the viewing of its audience. Norma did not see Channel 4 as being very different from other channels. She thought it was ‘sharper’ saying, ‘It doesn’t seem to mess about, it just gets on with it’. She did not see that any of the programmes were specifically aimed at her, although she said that she watched films, quizzes, serials, and repeats, like Upstairs Downstairs and Brookside because it was more realistic than any of the other soaps. She did not find difficulty with any of the subject matter of the programmes either on television in general or Channel 4 in particular. Her daughter was in bed by 9 o’clock but she said that if anything came on which she did not think was suitable, then she would distract her daughter but she would not turn the television off. There was only one thing which she objected to on Channel 4 and that was swearing. In answer to the question, ‘What do you think of Mrs. Whitehouse and people like her who attempt to censor on your behalf?’ Her answer was swift and succinct, ‘I think she’s an idiot. I don’t agree with censorship. People control the switch’. Norma was a very interesting viewer in relation both to her clear thinking about her own opinions and the way that Channel 4 had fitted into her viewing pattern. In many respects she articulated the way that heavy viewers felt about television. They did not watch mindlessly and they sought out programmes which reflected their interests. They ranged across channels actively seeking those programmes which they wanted to see. Norma was an example of the sophistication of the heavy viewer. She found her way around the schedules of all the channels and selected what she wanted to see. She confirmed that she knew the times of the programmes which she wanted to see. Another woman in the group interviewed could be described as the opposite of Norma. Joanne, aged 32, a nu rse married to a telecommunications officer, had two children a boy of 10 and a girl of 12. She said that she watched very little television and would not watch at all if there was not something which she specifically wanted to see. She did not have a favourite channel and she looked for programmes on all of the channels. She and her family chose to watch documentaries and nature programmes. She took little notice of critics because she was only selecting the type of programmes which she liked to watch. She was not worried about watching programmes with her children in case there was anything in them about which she would feel uncomfortable because she knew that the programmes which she chose would not contain anything which could cause offence. Her favourite channel was BBC1 for the

146

CHANNEL 4

documentaries and factual programmes and she said that she only occasionally watched Channel 4. She could not remember the names of any programmes which she had watched on Channel 4: They haven’t made an impression on me, so I couldn’t have found them very interesting. Even their documentaries weren’t put across well. It’s all factual programmes and repeats. I just don’t watch it… I’d like to see more up-todate films and less old repeats. I don’t like sub-titles. I think it is different but not very different. On average, I don’t think it is very interesting, it’s just dull. I wouldn’t think of it as a minority channel at all.

Asked to describe the channel Joanne was clearly not a Channel 4 fan in any respect: ‘I’m afraid I couldn’t find anything positive to say about the channel at all’. However even Joanne was not an advocate of Mrs. Whitehouse and her view on television in general: I am not sure that she has the right to impose her views on anyone else. I do agree with having programmes on late at night when children are in bed and sometimes they are not on late enough. But that’s different from Mrs. Whitehouse telling me what I should be able to watch.

Another example of a selective heavy viewer shows the way that it is this group who have found their choice of programmes on Channel 4. Ann, 32, left school with O levels and CSEs, married a tool maker, and she now works as a company secretary in his company. She has one child aged 5; they have two televisions, one in the lounge and one in the bedroom. She said that she watched for 2 hours a night in summer and 5 hours a night in the winter. She lists her hobbies as gardening, badminton, sewing and swimming explaining that her hobbies counted for much of her spare time during the summer. She said that she watched all four channels; the programmes which she preferred were drama serials, sport, children’s programmes and schools programmes. She did not like any soap operas – American or British. She chose her programmes from the Radio Times and the TV Times as they did not have any newspapers in their house. She and her husband selected the programmes to be watched and if there were any conflict it would be decided by a vote and the most stubborn would win. Asked if there was anything with which she was uncomfortable when watching with her family she replied, ‘I do not like my child to watch the news’. She saw Channel 4 as adding to the type of programmes which she

Channel 4 and Its Audience

147

liked to watch on the other channels: I watch BBC2 for the documentaries and the factual programmes because they do not have any ads. I object to the ads on ITV and Channel 4, but I do watch Channel 4 despite the ads. I think it gives a choice. I mean there is usually something you can watch there. I think that the details which they give in the educational programmes are first class. I like it better than ITV because it’s intellectual.

She felt that there were a number of the programmes on the channel which were specifically directed to her: I think all those history programmes, social and economic history, which are very informative but I don’t know any of their titles. I liked Jewel in the Crown… I would like more programmes similar to the schools programmes which tell you more about things.

Asked whether she thought Channel 4 was different, she gave a reply which was in contrast to many of the other replies which viewers had given about the channel over the first 5 years, ‘Yes it is different. It’s more professional’. Asked to describe the channel she said, ‘It is good for minority programmes and for always showing something different’. The question of whether the programmes were on at a convenient time for her gave an answer w hich should bring joy to the heart of the channel controller, ‘I make it convenient’. Ann saw the function of television as being specifically to educate and inform. She preferred to watch programmes for schools and colleges and any documentary which informed her about the world. She said, ‘I think that television should teach rather than entertain’. However, Ann held a clear distinction within the genre of information which definitely excluded the area of what Channel 4 had termed Actuality and other channels as news and current affairs. She was adamantly against these two programme areas for a definite reason. ‘I never watch the news or current affairs. I want to have information but I want positive information’. She was hungry for education, k n ow l e d ge of any kind. One programme suggestion she made was, ‘I would like to know, for instance, how do Heinz beans get from growing to being in the tin?’ Even though Ann selected serious programmes she illustrates a belief held by other women I have spoken to over many years of research (Hobson 1978:109) which

148

CHANNEL 4

is that the news is too horrific both for their children and themselves. They wish to protect their children from the news and they do not wish to see it themselves because they feel so helpless in the face of the horrors of reality which is shows to them. Television shows these horrors with monotonous regularity yet many women to whom I spoke, felt that nothing changes. Her own views of what she wanted to watch were reflected in her opinions of censorship and Mrs. Whitehouse: She goes too far. She would even think that Tom and Jerry was too violent and yet the news follows it and look what you get there.

The feeling that the news was too horrific was a commonly held view of many women I spoke to. Another view of the nature of the news was expressed by one woman I spoke to, ‘The news is not a programme’, was her opinion and it was a view also expressed by other viewers. Their opinions about television did not always include views on the news because they saw news as something quite separate from programmes. Lynne was a 32 year old secretary who was married to a dentist, she had two children aged 5 and 7 and said that she watched about 4 hours per night usually between 7 and 11, and although the television was on a lot, she was not always watching it. They did not have any daily paper but she knew the times of the programmes which she wanted to watch. She also read the Radio Times and the TV Times. She usually watched with her husband and the only thing which made her uncomfortable was ‘gory films’ but she would not put them on in the first place. She watched BBC1 and Central (ITV) equally, and then chose between BBC2 and Channel 4. However, she felt that since BBC2 and Channel 4 were for minority programmes, or so she was told, then she did not watch them. When asked if she watched Channel 4 her reply indicated a view also reflected in the views of others. I don’t know if I watch Channel 4. I can’t think what their programmes are and I never really know what channel I am watching. I know when Paul Hogan is on and when the films are on, but in general it never occurs to me that it’s there. You just get used to some programmes and you don’t think of them as Channel 4.

What these women revealed was that they were selective viewers and they chose their viewing carefully even if they were heavy viewers.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

149

However, what was interesting about their opinions was that they again chose programmes rather than channels and that if a channel had even a small number of programmes which they liked, then they would watch those programmes and ignore what was said about the others. However, they were not tempted to watch outside their areas of interest. One Ecstatic Viewer As television moved into the late 1980s television companies still sought the elusive young AB male viewers whom they needed to watch their programmes to satisfy advertisers. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel they sought him here and there but he and she remained ubiquitous in all the places save where the television companies desired them – watching their programmes. They were not hard to find, they were in cinemas, nightclubs, restaurants, in clothes shops, in record shops, going on holiday. But they are not, nor would they ever be heavy television viewers. But some of them did watch Channel 4 and find within its schedule individual programmes which were of appeal. One interview which I did was with an extremely desirable viewer for television companies and advertisers revealed some interesting comments about television and its relationship to him in his work and social life and in particular his views on Channel 4. Mark was a 25 year old, a graduate in Management Sciences who had worked for a major brewery since he graduated two years earlier. In that time he progressed through a graduate training scheme to area sales manager controlling 50 brewery-owned public houses. He owned his own home where he lived alone. His interests were cinema, film and theatre, music, travel and foreign languages. Entertainment in his home was an electronic art form. Remembering that this was the mid 1980s and the electronic explosion of more recent years was not the norm for many viewers. The celebrated Yuppies of the period were the desirable affluent spenders and Mark was a young rep resentative of that group. His television with stereophonic sound was the centre piece of a high-tech entertainment complex including stereo, video, CD and Hi-Fi, formed the entertainment corner of his living space. Entertainment for Mark was a matter of organised perfection in his home and there he felt he had complete control of the environment: ‘I sit in the chair next to the fire which is directly opposite, so that I get perfect sound, viewing has to be perfect!’ *****

150

CHANNEL 4

But even with this perfect setting Mark did not see himself as a heavy viewer. His detailed description of his own viewing gives a view of a self aware and perceptive viewer: At the moment I watch very little television because I don’t have the time or the desire. I have better things to do. There was a time when I watched a lot more, when I was in my first home last year and when I was at Kenilworth on my own. I would watch BBC1 and Channel 4. There are no programmes which I specifically watch myself but because of my social set, I watch a lot of programmes with other people, when the television is on in their homes. I have phases when I watch programmes which depends on other things which I am doing in my life at the same time. I watched Brookside recently when the Corkhills were having their marriage problems and Laura and Jonathon were living next door. And I watched Damon’s death. It was very good then and I would video it if I wasn’t there and I would specifically watch it. I always watch the news at some time during the evening and it’s either Channel 4 News or the BBC at 9 o’clock. I watch more news programmes around election times. I used to watch Panorama, World in Action, Question Time. If I want to be informed I will watch TV. I switch on to find out. I used TV as a source of information. I watch Channel 4 News because it has longer items. I find News at 5.45 and News at 10 biased. They lean towards the government of the day, they seem to be a little Conservative in their leanings and they are too popularist. They are not talking to me; they are talking to another part of society. Channel 4 News and BBC seems to relate to me more and at the same time they seem to be talking to a much wider group of people… I do not buy newspapers, I read other people’s although if I do buy one it is The Independent. I know when the news is on and other programmes I might want to see, but I mainly watch programmes because other people have told me about them, my friends and colleagues. People say ‘You must watch!’, ‘Have you seen?’, ‘Don’t miss!’.

His first statement gives clues to the way that Mark uses television and the way that it has to fit into his lifestyle. He will not be committed to stay in to watch a programme but once it has caught his attention, he will video it. At times when there is some national decision to be made, he will watch serious news and current affairs programmes but otherwise he does not watch these genres, other than the news. Why interested and politically

Channel 4 and Its Audience

151

aware members of the audience only turn to news and current affairs when there is some national problem, is a question which the producers of programmes within those genres should be addressing. The question of political bias which is introduced here in relation to ITV news is not specifically one of content but one of style but one which Mark perceives as a leaning towards the government of the day. Mark’s own politics were SDP Liberal Alliance, and he clearly saw the presentation of ITN in its quick tabloid style of presentation as being too popularist. The period of the early years of Channel 4 coincided with the growth of the popularist style of the Conservative government. Mark saw BBC1 news and Channel 4 News was seen as appealing to a much wider audience. Another woman whom I interviewed said that she thought that ITN and BBC were biased towards the government because they had a tone which suggested that they agreed with everything that they said about the government. Channel 4 News had a tone which was more detached and did not appear to condone or oppose what they were reporting. Also of interest in Mark’s comment is the way that he is influenced to watch programmes recommended from friends and colleagues. It is a confirmation of my thesis that word of mouth spreads the news of programmes far more effectively than other means. Once a group of any kind start watching a programme it becomes necessary viewing for others in that group in order to maintain the social discourse which takes place during everyday life. While claiming not be to an avid television viewer Mark did express a distinct preference for Channel 4 and he had perceptive comments to make the reasons for its appeal. I asked, ‘If you had to choose only one channel which would it be?’ Now it would be Channel 4 because it has the best films and it is the most interesting channel. Of all the channels it is the most liberal and the channel that appeals to the younger elements in society. It doesn’t have boring sitcoms and it has less stupid game shows. They are quite prepared to show programmes which appeal to minorities and they don’t appear to censor. They provide a wider choice. They are showing popularist programmes; films, news and current affairs and their balance seems better than other channels. They seem to have a lot more variety to chose from.

Here the philosophy of the channel is almost reproduced by one of its viewers and the approval of the wider range of programming which doesn’t necessarily appeal to him is praised. As part of the target group

152

CHANNEL 4

for Channel 4’s programmes Mark’s comments about those which were specifically aimed at him were of particular interest: I used to watch Network 7. I used to get up to watch it. I liked it, although, I thought there were a lot of things wrong with it. But it did have interesting and topical features. A lot of my friends watched it. It seemed to be on at a funny time, although it was on at a time when you were never really doing anything else, so it was a good time really. My criticism is that it tried too hard to be different. The camera work was too erratic and all the flashing words were annoying. The sets were like the criminal dens in a Batman serial.

This attitude to Network 7 which was much praised by the television industry, was one which I encountered time and time again when talking to the young audience for whom it was intended. They thought the content of the programme was very interesting and they welcomed it as the first attempt to provide a programme which concentrated on issues which were of interest to them. However, they were generally against the use of the surrounding paraphernalia of video technology. They excused it as something which the producers thought was necessary to make it appealing to their audience. Interestingly, some young people in the Midlands thought that if the ideas in the programme were the way that people in London thought young people perceived the world, then they must be way behind the times. The power of The Tube to speak to audiences across the country could suggest that their perceptions of the out-of-date attitude of the London media set was correct and that the most successful programmes were made outside London. The programme was seen as one which was potentially very good but it spoiled itself by its own self-indulgence. Channel 4 had begun transmissions when Mark was at university and his comments about the attitude of students to the channel was a revealing indication of the way that the channel was received and perceived during its early days: I remember when Channel 4 started, we were all waiting for it and we waited for the first programme. And Countdown came on and it was such a let down. I always feel so sorry for the little man who presents it, he looks as if he’s not quite in control. He seems hesitant as to whether he should stop things. He’s so different from the almost arrogance of when you watched quiz programmes years ago. He’s much better.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

153

There had clearly been anticipation about Channel 4 among students and their initial surprise at Countdown was not unusual. However, a more interesting aspect of the early perceptions of the channel was discussed when Mark went on to talk about the way that other students had responded to students who became was known as ‘Channel 4 people’. I remember going to a conference when I was at university and there were a number of people at the film show at the conference and some of them were feminists, or left-wing or whatever you might call them and they were talking about Channel 4 in a certain way. They were using Channel 4 to promote their own identity and talking about it as if they wanted to put other people off watching. And again at university people who watched Channel 4 began to see themselves as an elitist group. That definitely had a detrimental effect and it almost gave the channel a bit of a stigma. If you said you watched Channel 4 there were a few chuckles in the commonroom. People who watched tried to use it as a clever wa y of saying something about themselves – they were intellectuals and middle-class and different from other students.

This story of the way that the channel was taken up by a group and how that subsequently affected the way that all the other people in a much wider constituency responded to their action is a fascinating revelation of how one group had a detrimental effect on the perception of the channel by a wider group. Even in the world of students where intellectualism should not be a dirty work, there was a way in which those who took Channel 4 and made it an extension of their own identity affected the appeal of the channel in a negative way for other potential audiences. Others responded by rejecting the channel because they did not want to be seen as part of the group who had identified themselves as being an elite through their idea of their own superior intellect. This effect of the audience on other members of the audience was replicated amongst other groups and indeed amongst the television audience in general. It was a major component in the theory of the way that the television audience responded to the channel. An Interested Viewer One member of the audience who was both involved in production but also had a professional and personal interest in the channel and its

154

CHANNEL 4

programmes was Darcus Howe. I have included him in this section because he is a representative of independent producers, and the black producers and viewers who had sought an outlet for their ideas. Darcus Howe was born in Moruga, Trinidad, in 1943 and came to England in 1962. For 20 years he was a political activist and journalist. Although he had written and broadcast widely he had neither the chance nor the wish to become part of the institutions of British broadcasting. Channel 4 changed his feelings about what could be achieved on British television. With Tariq Ali he became co-producer and editor of The Bandung File commissioned by Farrukh Dhondy, but his feelings for the achievements of the channel extended back to the initial work which was done by Sue Woodford. I went to talk to Darcus Howe at the offices of Race Today in Railton Road in Brixton. ‘Jeremy has the blacks’, Darcus had told me when we had spoken on the telephone the previous evening and I had told him of the comments which some young men and women in Birmingham, had made to me about Channel 4. I wanted to talk to Darcus both as the editor of The Bandung File but also because of his reputation as a writer and his position within the black community. Channel 4 had set out to provide what they termed multi-cultural programmes and the first programmes had included Black on Black and Eastern Eye as well as the documentary series such as Reggae Sunsplash and Conversations with C.L.R. James. Darcus Howe had not been involved in the early programmes and I asked him what he had thought about the first attempts by the channel to address the area of programming. He spoke about his thoughts on the early output. There was a series of consultations to which I was invited and to which I had gone. I think there was a general suspicion by those of us who had campaigned over the years for a larger, more original input into British television about blacks and about the countries we’ve come from and suddenly this thing appeared, well not quite suddenly, but this thing appeared and we felt, ‘Well are they up to some tricks or something?’ There’s always the feeling of paranoia, suspicion when you are faced with these moments. And so my attitude, and I conveyed it to Sue Woodford, is that I would wait a year and see whether the channel meant what it said.

Five years later when I sat talking to him he had given the channel time to settle and had not only become a part of its programme makers but had a feeling towards the channel which he had found surprising.

Channel 4 and Its Audience

155

The channel has made me a channel person… I am a channel person and Jeremy Isaacs somehow managed to do that. To take the most sceptical, the most cynical about British broadcasting, and he has made me a channel person. So that I always every day look down the channel’s programmes, not for things to look at, because if I come in very late after the television, then I pick up the daily papers and I look at the output. Because I feel I have a responsibility to it and it ought to have a responsibility to me. So that I feel part of an institution at the very early stages of its building. And I feel that the programme I make and my approaches to it, I do that with the thinking of the whole channel in my head and not my little slot. And I talk to commissioning editors in that vein and I have a little sentiment as well and Jeremy Isaacs really has very strangely managed to integrate me into believing in this channel. And this foundation has been laid so Michael Grade has that available to him. [Michael Grade had been confirmed as the new Chief Executive of Channel 4 when I conducted this interview].

Darcus Howe was always going to be one of the most discerning people for the channel to satisfy and his approval of the way that it began was an indication that the channel had begun to satisfy some of its constituencies. What Did They Think Of It So Far? Channel 4 treats you like adults. It doesn’t try to censor for you like the other channels. It puts out the programmes and leaves you to make your own opinions. John – Fire Chief

After 5 years of transmission Channel 4 had established itself, both within the television industry and with its audience. Without claiming vast truths or making wide generalisations it was possible to make certain statements about the channel and its audience. The initial response to the channel was one of surprise, shock, indifference and a little pleasure. For some it was a refreshing breath of fresh air, but for others it became something to avoid, as much for the connotations surrounding the image of the channel and more particularly, other members of the audience who were watching it. Some potential viewers felt that they did not want to be seen as being different by association. Many viewers did not wish to see themselves as

156

CHANNEL 4

part of a minority even if they were one, because they felt they had more which united them with other people, than divided them. The initial claim to be different and to cater for minorities whilst appealing to some viewers definitely had the effect of alienating others and many abandoned the channel very quickly or never even tried to watch it. What Channel 4 revealed was that there are a number of disparate audiences with different ways of responding to the new service. However, the most important factor to understand was that the majority of viewers did not approach the channel in a different manner from that with which they approached the other three channels. They looked for more of the same of those programmes and genres which they watched on the other channels. However, they expected more from Channel 4; they expected their programmes to be as good as, if not better than those programmes which they could see on other channels. They judged programmes by the same criteria but somehow because Channel 4 set themselves up as being different, the general audience expected it also to be better. Whilst some viewers actively rejected the idea of difference, others looked for different programmes on Channel 4. It rapidly became the channel where people looked for prog rammes which they would not expect to find anywhere else on British television. This aspect of programming was, of course, that which became most associated with Channel 4. Viewers saw it as a place where they could find both genres which were not previously seen on television, such as the new ethnic programmes, Irish programmes and the celebrated intellectual orgy of Voices, but also a great number of films which viewers felt would never have been seen on British television. Viewers had the overwhelming feeling that Channel 4 was more open and honest than other channels and there was no accusation of the channel being biased. Indeed it was the other channels which had identities which were perceived as being more biased not in a political but in a class or cultural sense. While the audience was initially ambiv alent about the channel – interested but ready to retreat from difference, it seemed from their discussions that they tried it out, went away, and returned prepared to face the channel. While some viewers welcomed the difference, others had to get used to it. Or at least get used to the thought of it. Some were offended if not affronted by some of the programmes. It was not only the reported shock of so-called bad language but also the shock of the new. While innovation was oxygen to some, to others it threatened to starve them of the oxygen of normality to which they had grown

Channel 4 and Its Audience

157

accustomed on the other channels. The television audience quickly understood the concept of Channel 4 and agreed with the philosophy of the channel. The most important fact which emerged from this study of Channel 4 and its audience was that the television audience in the 1980s was conservative in their choice of television programmes but liberal in their views about telev i s i o n . Th ey expected that there would be programmes which they may not have wished to view but they were perfectly happy for those programmes to be shown. They did not want to be censored nor did they wish to censor or dictate the programmes which were available for other viewers. According to viewers the channel had certainly been successful in bringing new programmes and often better ve rsions of existing programmes to the screen. Innovation is an extremely amorphous concept whose effectiveness is determined by its perception. What is innovative to one viewer is ‘old hat’ to another. It cannot really be measured and audiences rarely watch a programme and say, ‘Now, this is innovative in content and form!’ Nor apparently do writers. Howard Schumann, writer of Rock Follies, one of the most innovative dramas produced on television in the 1970s, said during a discussion about Channel 4 and its remit, ‘No one wakes up feeling innovative, what the best television should do is raise the temperature’. During its first five years, Channel 4 certainly raised the temperature of British television and also raised the expectations of the audience. By the end of that period it had become accepted by viewers and was considered to be ‘a good thing’, by everyone to whom I spoke. Early criticism and reticence on the part of the audience appeared to have disappeared and in the last few weeks of researching, I met viewers who said that they would choose Channel 4 if they could only have one channel to watch. This was a considerable c hange in attitude and perception of the channel since the early months of the channel when it was difficult to find people who had seen any programmes at all. Viewers grew to have positive attitudes and feelings towards the channel and they said they would be loathe to lose either the channel or its particular philosophy of programming and scheduling. The reception of the channel by its audiences threw into high relief one of the major axioms of theories of television audiences. The channel and its programmes only became popular and accepted by the television audience when some of its programmes became a talking point for viewers. Until that point emerged it could not break through to become a

158

CHANNEL 4

part of the culture of the audience and it is only at this point that any programme or in this case channel, could become widely accepted by the audience. This is not a process which applies solely to Channel 4; it is part of the way that all television programmes become part of the accepted broadcasting landscape. To become popular they need to appeal to groups within the audience sufficiently for them to want to talk about the programme to their friends and for those friends, acquaintances and particularly work colleagues who want to watch the prog rammes, to become part of the post-viewing discussions, chat, dissection and general conversational exchange which continues about television programmes far beyond their viewing time. The twin myths of passive viewing and the demonic influence of television on its audience hold no validity. The process of communication by television is not completed at the moment of viewing but continues and is validated when it moves into general discussions in the everyday life and discourse of the audience. The one phrase which encapsulates the theory of television viewing is the title of the BBC programme Did You See?, for when viewers ask this question of each other, the programme in question moves to the position of one which needs to watched. This theory is easily seen with the most popular programmes on television. In the mid 1980s a programme like Dallas had cultural validity all over the world because it was watched and talked about. This also applied to those pr ogrammes with minority appeal. Each targeted programme needed to reach enough of its target audience to enable this process to begin. It obviously took much longer for this to happen with Channel 4, but it did happen and became most obvious in those programmes which reached high visibility because of their higher viewing figures. It also happened with programmes which attracted small audiences because even those programmes became a talking point amongst their own relatively small audience. Voices may not have moved into the discussions of the general audience but it was certainly a topic of conversation amongst academics and cultural theorists for many of whom it was a reflection of their working trade. Television is sometimes described as wallpaper for the eyes, inferring that it is so bland and unobtrusive that it has no effect on the beholder. Those who coined this analogy obviously have little experience of the reality of other people’s choice of decoration, for there are few types of wallpaper which though they may delight one do not cause nausea to another. If Channel 4 were to be viewed in terms of the wallpaper analogy it could never been seen as the white emulsioned wood chip or Laura

Channel 4 and Its Audience

159

Ashley prints popular at the time, but rather it would have been a handprinted design by William Morris, a Jackson Pollock mural or even a wall decorated by a Graffiti street artist, it is never an unobtrusive background visual. Audiences never saw Channel 4 programmes as background – they either watched them or zapped off to another channel. Fortunately, for Channel 4, its staff and programme suppliers the channel reached a sufficiently large number of viewers and informed, educated, delighted and stimulated them to the point where the channel was held in high esteem by its audience and considered to be a national asset, something to be cherished and nurtured. The audience had grown with the channel and felt much more comfortable with its programmes than in the early days when the ‘shock of the new’ did alienate even those who wanted to be part of the new television service. Sonia, a 26 year old black local government officer described accurately the way that some of the audience related to the channel: As they have got older they have got better. They were dreadful at first – trying to be too different too quickly, too radical, too, far too extreme. Black on Black was too realistic, a lot of people would think it was too much, too soon. Too much swearing. But as they have gone on they have got better… Their programmes are interesting, they cater for all people. It shows things that you would never see on mainstream television. The other channels think of their ratings, where Channel 4 don’t really make that a priority because they put the interests of the people first, not the ratings.

The views of the audience as opposed to the critics of the channel remain a part of the legacy of Channel 4 which is discussed in the final chapter of this book.

1987 – A Year of Change On the afternoon of Thursday 29th January I had been invited by LBC to talk about Channel 4’s new French soap opera Chateauvallon. I had spent the morning at the channel. I called in to have a brief chat with Jeremy Isaacs before I left for LBC and we talked about the new programme Chateauvallon, the channel and its programmes. It was not a scheduled interview but rather an informal chat. The channel was doing well and Jeremy commented that if within the next few weeks they had good Tuesday movies, Brookside continued to do well and Chateauvallon took off then they might regularly get more than 10% of the viewing audience. ‘What can I do then?’ he asked in a jocular mood. ‘You can always put something really awful on to bring it back below 10%!’ It was a joke we had shared before and behind it lay the acknowledgement of the carefully planned philosophy which had produced Channel 4 with its mix of the popular, the special and the specific. It had become relatively easy to achieve the magical figure of 10% as long as there was a selection of two or three popular programmes during the week because then the rest of the schedule could contain programmes of m o re selective appeal. Chateauvallon was not to prove a problem in attracting too high audiences as it never gained popularity and by the end of the afternoon of 29th January a chain of events had been set in motion which was to change the face of British Broadcasting in the next twelve months. Early that afternoon there was an announcement that Alasdair Milne had been invited to resign from his job as Director General of the BBC. (Milne 1988:200-2) Immediately after I left Jeremy, he went into a scheduled meeting with Justin Dukes and Edmund Dell and it was during that meeting that someone came in and reported that Alasdair Milne had resigned from the BBC. It began what for Jeremy Isaacs became in his words, ‘a very odd February’. A few days earlier he had been told that the Board of the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden wanted him to be their new Director General. They had persuaded him, and he did not need much persuading, and the job was not to come up until the summer of 1989, and he knew that he was to leave Channel 4 at the end of 1988. At the time there seemed to be no reason to believe that beleaguered as was the BBC, Alasdair Milne had any intention of retiring, and the prospect of a job running the leading Opera House gave him an opportunity to work

162

CHANNEL 4

on something entirely new. It was not broadcasting, but as he said, ‘I love the product, I adore opera’. It was an opportunity to do something new and to take charge of an institution and try to give it a new charge of energy. He had applied, been interviewed and the Opera House wanted him to take the job, except for the new chairman, Sir John Sainsbury, who was not yet certain if he would be able to work with Jeremy and they were to meet for an informal drink at 6’clock that evening. Jeremy went to the meeting, Sir John Sainsbury and he agreed that they thought they could work together and Jeremy was left to decide whether he wanted to go to the Royal Opera House or whether he should apply for the job at the BBC. In his words: For the next 36 hours or so, I tried to make up my mind that I was not interested in the BBC job. But, the BBC said that they were going to make their minds up in a month, they were going to do it very fast, and all sorts of people from inside and outside the BBC were getting hold of me and saying, “You absolutely must apply, we want you to apply”.

Jeremy applied for the job. February was spent in media speculation about who would replace Alasdair Milne and how his successor would cope with the job of handling both the Board of Governors and the expected political pressure of an impending General Election. Jeremy Isaacs had been rumoured as being a suitable replacement during the p revious year when the demise of Milne had been mooted. The speculation about a list of possible contenders included Brian Wenham, John Tusa, Bill Cotton, Michael Grade and Michael Checkland as internal candidates and Jeremy Isaacs and eventually David Dimbleby as external candidates. After Milne’s resignation the press ran assessments of his career together with lists of the qualities of those who were seen as the front runners. What was interesting in the assessments of Jeremy Isaacs was the almost universal praise which was heaped on his head by those newspapers who in 1982 had been attacking him and in one case calling for his resignation. Perhaps the most clairvoyant comment came from Harvey Lee in the Daily Telegraph who ended a piece on an assessment of the candidates for the ‘hottest seat in broadcasting’ with the following comment, ‘Jeremy Isaacs, 55, appears to have all the qualities necessary and more and may thus go down in history as the best D.G that never was’. Michael Checkland was appointed Director General of the BBC and

1987 – A Year of Change

163

the press were suitably surprised and set about describing him in less than inspirational terms. The Daily Mail in a piece of crass journalism called him Mr. Nobody and went on the next day to reveal, ‘The secret life of Mr. Nobody’, while at the same time the editorial wrote favourably of him and ended, ‘Mr. Checkland’s post will put great demands on him: we wish him well’. For the moment the attention of the press had moved on to a new target. Jeremy Isaacs had been one of the clear favourites and certainly was reported as being so among programme makers. He was also encouraged to apply by members of the government but his experience of applying for the job had been rather unpleasant. He had sent in a brief letter stating that he wished to apply for the post of Director General and attached his CV. This was thought to be arrogant and he was required to send in a letter stating an argument for what he would do and what he thought were the issues. He was invited for an interview which the outside short-listed candidates had with the Chairman, Mr. Duke Hussey and Deputy Chairman Mr Joel Barnett. His second interview with the Board of Governors did not go well. According to Isaacs, they gave him no credit whatever for any achievement in broadcasting at all. None of his achievements seemed to relate to the problems which faced the BBC. Jeremy told me: I tried to explain to them what it was the BBC needed in programming terms but they saw the entire problems as organisational. What they wanted to know was, ‘How do we stop ‘cock-ups’ occurring?’ Now my view is that ‘cock-ups’ are going to happen, it doesn’t matter very much. The thing is to broadcast, to utter, not to find reasons for not broadcasting.

The whole experience was profoundly disturbing, and indeed patronising to a man of Isaacs’ reputation and undoubted and well-known abilities. One board member said to him: Mr. Isaacs, you don’t seem to me like a man that would take kindly to discipline. Now I see by the smile on your face that you take that as a compliment but I can assure that that others of us here would see it rather as a criticism.

Isaacs was obviously furious at the insulting comment. He continued, ‘I mean for a clown to ask one of the country’s principal broadcasters…’

164

CHANNEL 4

Anyone who knew Jeremy could imagine the smile coming across his face when asked the question. That he had the capacity not to take kindly to criticism if he thought that it was not in the interests of broadcasting and the audience, was wh at made him one of the country’s principal broadcasters and why his leaving broadcasting was such a tremendous loss. But he was not destined for the BBC and as soon as he heard at 10 past 11 that night, he telephoned Claus Moser at the Royal Opera House, who was in Zurich at the time, and said, ‘I’m coming’. He then had to fight to stay on at Channel 4, because Edmund Dell wanted him straight out of the channel and Jeremy wanted to stay on. He had no job to go to at the Opera House immediately, and he still had duties and responsibilities at Channel 4 and he was determined that Edmund Dell was not going to chose his successor. Dell was due to retire in June and Jeremy wanted to stay so that Dickie Attenborough would choose his successor. But as Jeremy said in retrospect, ‘A fat lot of good that did me’. Jeremy returned to his post at the channel and it was not until the beginning of March that the news of the job at the Royal Opera House was announced. If he had left immediately for a job at the BBC it would have been disastrous for Channel 4. The day before Milne resigned from the BBC, Paul Bonner had announced that he was leaving in April to go to the ITCA. The departure of Jeremy Isaacs and Paul Bonner at the same time would have left the channel very weak. As it was, there was sufficient time for Isaacs to put in place a new structure which was to take the channel on to its next period. Liz Forgan was made Deputy Director of Programmes as well as Head of News and Current Affairs. New programme groups were set up with Mike Bolland as Head of Entertainment and Arts and Assistant Director of Programmes, Naomi Sargant as Head of the Education Group and Adrian Metcalfe as Head of Features and Sports Group. Jeremy may have been leaving, but he still made plans so that the channel would continue as far as possible as he wished. Edinburgh International Television Festival 1987 ‘I don’t know who’s to be my new leader’ Badge worn by Channel 4 Commissioning Editor at EITVF

At the Edinburgh International Television Festival at the end of August the theme of the conference was ‘Television Fights Back’. In fact, the

1987 – A Year of Change

165

conference and the industry attending it did little fighting and were almost supine when attacked by Conservative MPs who told them what they planned and threatened not to allow them into the House of Commons until they had got their act together and removed the bias from their programmes. A threat in the tradition of a nanny withholding any treats until all behaviour was as she required it to be, and on the terms which she set. Collectively the broadcasters said little and seemed to forget that they were to provide programmes for their audiences not for the members of parliament. It was a sad conference for at the end Jeremy Isaacs was to give his farewell speech to the industry and it was hard to see any successor of his stature present at the proceedings of the four day confe re n c e. Neve rtheless, at the social eve n t s, both organised and informal, there was a sub-theme to the festival, which was the anticipation of the announcement expected from Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, at the Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention in September, about the future restructuring of the ITV system and the anticipated privatisation of Channel 4 and importantly for Channel 4, the effect which this would have both on the company and its programme policies. It was also seen as crucial in the choice of the new chief executive of Channel 4. The expectation was that a different successor would be needed if privatisation was part of the expected announcement. During the Edinburgh TV Festival in the bar of the George Hotel, the conversation buzzed loud as a helicopter engine and settled in many groups who talked about the likely successor to Jeremy Isaacs. It was significant that it was always referred to as Jeremy’s replacement rather than the new chief executive of Channel 4; for it indicated that he had already endowed the job with his own character. The press had speculated about who would apply. The numbers were few. Melvyn Bragg, Gus McDonald, Anthony Smith, Brian Wenham, Alasdair Milne, Liz Forgan, Charles Denton and the current managing director Justin Dukes. In Edinburgh the rumours abounded as to who was reputedly not now applying, although, in fact, the job was yet to be advertised. The received wisdom of the assembly was that neither Melvyn Brag g nor Gus McDonald intended applying. Speculation was rife and opinions on the speculation were remarkably similar. A was too bland, B too arty, C not enough experience with scheduling, X too intelligent; Y too limited, Z was too etc. Many would discuss the limitations of various candidates but most were reluctant to commit themselves to any opinion as to who would be the most suitable successor. Two candidates emerged as being both

166

CHANNEL 4

capable and acceptable to many. These were Justin Dukes, the current managing director, and Charles Denton the chief executive of Zenith Productions and formerly programme controller at Central Television. In the early hours of Saturday morning a new candidate entered the field when William G. Stewart, the extrovert producer of ITV’s hit programme The Price Is Right and Channel 4’s afternoon general knowledge quiz show 15:1, who had earlier in the day flushed with the delicate rose pink glow of being accused of being a Lefty by Mr. Gerald Howarth MP during one of the conference sessions, announced that he had been appointed the new chief executive of Channel 4. He ordered 35 bottles of champagne and invited all the late drinkers at the George Hotel to join his party. For four hours he enjoyed the status of his new job and lifted the mood of the conference delegates, who were not proud of the way that they had failed to respond to the attack made upon them by the MPs during the earlier debate. The future of the channel and indeed the future of the whole broadcasting industry were discussed throughout the festival. The abstract threats from extra-terrestrial satellites had now been augmented by the terrestrial powers of the new media moguls, Murdoch, Maxwell and Berlusconi. Now the industry was under attack from government in the form of threatened legislation to bring television into the scope of the Obscene Publications Act and through the anticipated Broadcasting Act which would alter the constitution of ITV and could suggest the privatisation of Channel 4. The industry was united in support of Channel 4 and its future survival became almost a symbol for the maintenance of the provision of good television on British television screens. The channel became a sub-theme within most sessions at the festival and the extent to which it was seen as representing the best aspects of television and those which could be lost in the oncoming era was particularly noticeable. In the opening MacTaggart lecture, Phillip Whitehead praised Channel 4 for the birth and growth of the new flourishing independent sector pointing out that it was the security of funding that had enabled this sector to flourish. He questioned the sense in privatising the channel, predicting: ‘One thing is for sure: ITV would hammer it into the ground by competitive scheduling and discounting…’ The question of whether the Board of Channel 4 could resist the temptation to become commercial if they were responsible to shareholders, rather than the existing arrangement whereby they were required to stand by their remit, was debateable but a fully fledged commercially floated channel did not seem to be the answer.

1987 – A Year of Change

167

On the Friday evening an extra-impromptu session was called by a group calling themselves T he Channel 4 Campaign Group who had produced a pamphlet ‘Channel 4: Not for Sale’. Organised by independent producers from the cultural left of the independent sector, its aim was to see how much support could be found among the industry for a campaign to influence the government thinking on privatisation. The meeting was surprisingly well attended. Executives from throughout the broadcasting industry were there: Jeremy Isaacs, Paul Bonner, Colin Levanthal, Naomi Sargant, Liz Forgan, Alan Fountain, Richard Dunn, MD of Thames Television, Steve Morrison, c o n t roller of p rogrammes at Gra n a d a Television – potential candidates Brian Wenham, Melvyn Bragg and many others. The organisers set out what they thought was the scenario for the future of the channel, which was deemed not to be very good if they were privatised. The meeting did not expect to achieve very much but what was evidenced by the support for the channel was that there was a collective will across all broadcasters to ‘save’ the channel from the possibility of privatisation. Should the channel be freed from ITV and allowed to sell its own airtime? Why should it not stay the same? How would it survive in the next 10 years when the broadcasting environment would be changing so much? W hat became clear was that the channel which had been deliberated over for 20 years could be destroyed in an instant. This was, indeed, a pivotal moment for broadcasting, and the question which was asked was, would the political party which had brought the channel into being consider its well-being when planning their own future changes to the industry? The festival was to end with Jeremy Isaacs’ farewell speech to the industry. Entitled, ‘Cheerio Chaps, I’m off…’ it gave an account of his life as a broadcaster, many jokes, anecdotes and philosophical statements. The lecture was given in the form of the lessons which he had learned in his time as a broadcaster. Listening to the speech was an emotional experience for everyone who was there. Jeremy was regarded as a giant amongst broadcasters and many felt disbelief that he was actually leaving the industry. Some suggested that it was just a whim that he was leaving and that he would be back in a few years to take over some major senior role when the changed industry had taken shape. His leaving was regretted and his return was sincerely desired. *****

168

CHANNEL 4

The Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention 17-20 September If Edinburgh is the eclectic, Cambridge is the exclusive face of television conferences, attended by what could fairly be called the ‘top brass’ of the industry. Traditionally a society for the engineering side of television, as the Cambridge Convention became more inclusive of the editorial and executives of the industry, it became the venue for the speech given by the Home Secretary when the government were announcing planned changes in broadcasting policy. Once this became established it was de rigeur to attend the Convention to discuss the future after the announcement from government. This year the expected announcement from Douglas Hurd had been overtaken by events since the Prime Minister had invited broadcasters and other interested parties to a seminar in Downing Street to discuss the future of broadcasting which was to be held on the Monday following the convention, consequently, there was very little which the Home Secretary could say. Channel 4 was referred to in his comments about the restructuring of the television industry and the need to protect its special remit was in the mind of the government. What decisions were to be taken had to wait for what he called ‘the tortoise of government’ rather than the solutions speculated on by ‘the commentators leaping merrily ahead like hares in this race’. But the spirit of Channel 4 was omnipresent throughout the home secretary’s speech and also the speech of Michael Checkland the new director general of the BBC when he spoke at the opening dinner of the convention. It was present in the talk of the choice for viewers, catering for different audiences and in the new overwhelming welcome which was extended to independent producers. However, the announcements about changes in broadcasting had to wait until a future date. In a private conversation with Justin Dukes he told me that he thought that ultimately it would be best for the channel if they were privatised and cut their umbilical chord to ITV since the ITV companies were becoming the dinosaurs of the industry and the channel would fare better on their own. What was significant about this period was that it showed the way that Channel 4 had become an integral part of the ecology of broadcasting and how the fears of the industry were centred on protecting and retaining the new channel and its remit only five years after it had been created. In retrospect it was a vital time for the broadcasting industry because the changes which were to come in the next couple of years, culminating in the 1990 Broadcasting Act were to change

1987 – A Year of Change

169

the face of British broadcasting for ever. The advertisement for the chief executive was placed in the national press in October and there were approximately 100 applicants for the position. A group of five people from the Board were appointed to sit on the selection committee and these were Sir Richard Attenborough, the new chairman, Paul Fox, chairman of Yorkshire Television, Sir George Russell, IBA, John Gau, Chairman of IPPA, representing independent producers and the publisher Carmen Callil, from Chatto and Windus, an independent member of the Board. No short list was ever announced since there were people who because of their current position would not want to publicly appear to be applying for the job at Channel 4 and there was a great deal of secrecy and subterfuge as the interviews took place anonymously in London hotels. On one occasion the team were horrified to encounter a film crew as they left one of the hotels, fearing that their location had been discovered, but their fears were unfounded, as the crew was shooting a fictional drama, not a scene from the dramatic reality in the life of a television channel. The main drama, however, began when the announcement was made as to who was to be the new chief executive. In a surprise appointment, since he had not been thought of as being available for the job, and indeed, had not applied for the position, the news that Michael Grade, director of programmes at the BBC, was to be the new chief executive of Channel 4 heralded a period of high drama in the story of the channel. It is a story of disappointment and passion and ultimately of the beginning of another vital time in the evolving of the new service. But before that could happen there were a couple of months of activity of operatic proportions. The decision to appoint Michael Grade to the post of chief executive raised two causes for concern amongst those who had been in the running for the job and among commentators who said that the appointment was less than ethical because Michael had not officially applied for the job. Of concern to some, and particularly to Justin Dukes was the question of whether the selection committee had known that there was another candidate available when they were trying to reach a decision on the final three short listed candidates. His feeling was that if any member of the committee, including Sir Richard Attenborough, knew that Michael were available, they could not have been free to make a decision. It was this matter which some felt had jeopardised the integrity of the appointment. The story of the appointment was not without its dramatic moments but

170

CHANNEL 4

it did not appear to have any of the sinister dealings which some thought might have been involved. I interviewed Sir Richard Attenborough about the process and he was open and confident about their decision. The selection committee had been through the process of interviewing 13 people on their first shortlist, a number which was reduced to 12 when Alan Yentob withdrew when he was appointed to be controller of BBC2. The applicants, some of whom were publicly applying included Brian Wenham, Naomi Sergeant, Liz Forgan, Anthony Smith, Roger Graef and Justin Dukes. By the evening of Friday 13th November on completion of the interviews, a first short-list of five and a final short list of three were agreed upon. However, it was impossible to reach a consensus on any one of the three. None of the three achieved a consensus from the five. In fact, in every case there was one person so opposed to each individual that they said that if any one were appointed they would have to go back to the full Board. The selection committee had reached an impasse. Until this time Sir Richard Attenborough had been meticulous in not mentioning the fact that he knew that Michael Grade was available. Sir Richard had known for some time that Michael was willing to be considered for the job and he had told Michael that since he had not applied formally for the position then he would only mention his name to the committee if no consensus were reached on any other candidate. To do otherwise would have been improper. Michael had agreed to this and had behaved throughout ‘very properly’. He had told Attenborough, ‘I absolutely accept that if you do find somebody who carries the unanimity of approbation then obviously I don’t want to be considered, but if you don’t…’ When the committee could not agree and there was no way they were going to agree, then Richard Attenborough told them that Michael Grade was available and would be interested in the job. Indeed, if he were offered it on terms which would have to be agreed, he would accept. The selection committee, not surprisingly, found this to be a highly interesting possibility and it was agreed that they should meet Michael Grade on the following morning at Richard Attenborough’s home in Richmond. The meeting lasted for two hours and Michael was questioned most particularly with reg ard to his attitude and commitment to the ch a n n e l ’s remit together with the publicised views regarding the privatisation of the channel. Michael Grade was not only asked about the two specific areas of particular interest but the same questions as all the other candidates. Why did he want to come to Channel 4 and what did he

1987 – A Year of Change

171

think was precious? Richard Attenborough commented to me that the wonderful thing was that long before he had thought of working at Channel 4 he had publicly said that it was the most exciting innovation in television anywhere in the world and certainly in the UK. So his admiration for the channel had preceded any thoughts of working there. He had always put Channel 4 News ahead of Film on Four as the ‘great piece of daring’, as a cornerstone on which the whole channel was conceived and to allocate at peak time that amount of time to news. After their discussion and interview Michael Grade left and the committee apparently expressed their unanimous wish that he be offered the post of Chief Executive. In Richard Attenborough’s words, ‘the decision to recommend M i chael Grade to the Board was unanimous and litera l ly without reservation’. The timetable for the next two days is important. Jeremy Isaacs was upset that Michael Grade had been chosen, and that he was not consulted about the appointment. Sir Richard Attenborough was quite clear in his account of what happened and the way that circumstances had prevented his speaking to Jeremy until Monday mid-morning. Once the selection committee had made their decision Richard Attenborough undertook to obtain in principle the ap p roval of the IBA, wh i ch was needed befo re the appointment could be made. There was no point going to the Channel 4 Board unless the IBA were in agreement. Attenborough rang Lord Thomson, John Whitney and others. Lord Thomson thought it was a tremendous idea and offered to get the approval of the executive of the Authority, which he did. Attenborough then tried, unsuccessfully to reach Jeremy at home. The f ollowing morning, Monday 16th November Attenborough again tried to reach Jeremy at home, at Channel 4 and finally at the Royal Opera House. Jeremy was at the Opera House but was ‘unavailable’. They did not speak until 11.30 and the first time when they could meet was at 2.30. They met at the National Film Theatre and Richard Attenborough told Jeremy of the committee’s decision. Jeremy expressed ‘his total amazement and absolute opposition to such an appointment’. So much so he said that he minded to offer his resignation immediately. Jeremy also felt that he should have been consulted before any decision was reached and he felt that the manner in which the conclusion had been re a ched was inappropriat e. A t t e n b o rough explained that the circumstances had changed from those which they had anticipated when

172

CHANNEL 4

the agreement to consult had been decided upon. In his words: Jeremy knew everybody who had applied and when we got down to a final decision as to one, two or three or whatever, I had undertaken to go to Jeremy and say, ‘Jeremy we’re not absolutely sure, or we are absolutely sure, this is whom we wish to appoint’. But, of course, that had failed because we had not reached a consensus. Jeremy said that he understood how matters had developed but despite that, the present circumstances were somewhat unfortunate.

Neve rtheless, Attenborough said that he would be meeting the chairman and director general of the IBA and some of their colleagues at 5 o’clock on that afternoon and after that meeting would be introducing Michael Grade to the IBA. This was done and then Attenborough went to the Monday evening Board dinner to inform the whole Board of the Selection Committee’s decision to appoint Michael Grade. Earlier in the evening Attenborough had spoken to Justin Dukes and told him of the decision to appoint Grade. Justin expressed his surprise but said that he had heard of such a possibility. The decision to make an editorial appointment was explained to him and he was told that the committee greatly hoped that he would remain as managing director and deputy chief executive. Justin said that he would need time but he thought that there were circumstances in which he would remain. At the Board meeting the Board were told of the unanimous decision of the selection committee to appoint Grade and then the selection committee expressed individually their unanimous views in favour of the appointment. The full Board were told why in varying ways it had been impossible to find an exact copy of Jeremy and of how Michael had persuaded the committee of his skills. Apparently, there had been an overwhelming opinion among the other applicants for the job that the marketing and programme scheduling of the channel was not as good as it should have been, and these were one of Michael’s greatest strengths. In his interview he had agreed and believed it right that no change in the schedule should be made to achieve anything more than Jeremy’s target of 10%. If by better cross-complementary programming, promoting, etc., a higher figure were to be reached then that was, of course, acceptable but nothing should be given up to achieve the magical figure. Michael had persuaded the selection committee of his ability to create the right atmosphere for the generation of new talent and to foster it and had said

1987 – A Year of Change

173

that he believed passionately in working with his executives and that he very much wished that Justin would remain. The committee in its turn had felt that Michael Grade was a true leader, a major figure with a profound and in some ways unique knowledge of and experience in television – elements of which had been pre-requisite for each member of the committee. After the selection committee had confirmed their endorsement of the appointment, other members of the Board expressed their views on the appointment. Again the opinion was unanimously in favour. Members of the Board repeated that they not only had faith in the committee’s recommendation but also said that they felt the appointment to be both exciting and one capable of taking the channel successfully through the coming years. Only Jeremy Isaacs was in dissent and his views were recorded in the minutes of the Board on the morning of the 17th November. However, the meeting concluded entirely in favour of the new appointment. Richard Attenborough had been responsible for putting forward Michael Grade’s name but at his interview and in the discussions which followed Grade was clearly a choice which delighted all the other people who were involved in the selection and endorsement of his appointment. Once the story was leaked to the press the criticism began and honed in on three separate but connected issues. Whether he was capable, whether he should have left the BBC and whether the appointment was made in an ethical manner. One of the serious objections seemed to be the fact that Grade had left the BBC – a scenario which was to repeated 24 years later, when Grade left his job as Chairman of the BBC to take up the post as chief executive at ITV. (What these two instances revealed was that Grade was one of the most talented media executives whose skills were appropriate across the whole of the television industry. Each time he left an organisation they were the poorer for losing his abilities and the new organisation benefited from his expertise.) The problems which Grade left at the BBC were seen as twofold. The most important being the simple fact that the BBC would be losing Michael Grade and his skills and personality. His fame as a scheduler was well earned. Since returning to the BBC he had raised the audience share of the BBC from 40% to 48% and the profile of the BBC was raised in the perception of viewers. Grade had given the BBC a new image. Popular and in many instances innovative, the output of the BBC had taken on a new lease of life under Grade as he worked closely with Bill Cotton during the difficult years of 1985-87 and he was due to take over as managing director when Bill Cotton retired in

174

CHANNEL 4

the spring of 1988, also retaining his position as director of programmes. While the criticism centred round internal politics at the BBC and power struggles between Michael Grade and John Birt the new deputy director general the most important question was the suitability of Michael Grade for the job at Channel 4. At the time what was also worth considering was whether Michael Grade would be more drawn to the job of running Channel 4 or to move to his new job in a managerial capacity. The BBC faced five years hard financial and administrative decisions and Grade would have been at the forefront of that tough managerial work very much divorced from the work of programme making, scheduling and creativity. It is a dilemma which was faced by programme executives whose final steps on the promotion ladder takes them to the managing director status in broadcasting institutions. They are primarily programme makers, enablers and yet they move to a position where company finances, policy decisions, union and staff matters become their main area of concern. Grade has discussed the reasons why he left the BBC with great truth and candour in his biography. Even at the time it was clear that the attractions of the job as chief executive at Channel 4 far outweighed being number four at the BBC and the challenge of being managing director, hardly called for the flair that was required to be number one at Channel 4. The attractions of the job are legion and any one knowing Michael Grade would have understood that his character and personality would know that the challenge of the top job at Channel 4 had to be as he stated at the press conference, ‘The job I always wanted’. (Grade M 1999:259292) Isaacs remained saddened and angered by the choice of Grade and the next month was a difficult one for those at the channel. Grade had been asked to leave the BBC and Jeremy said that he would leave Channel 4 at the end of the year rather than at the end of March 1988 as had been previously arranged. In any event, he had to spend time at the Royal Opera House in order to have an influence on the future plans of that organisation. There was evidently not going to be any amicable handover but there was to be a Board Weekend on the 3rd and 4th December when the Board and the Management of the channel and its commissioning staff would meet Michael Grade. The arrangements for the weekend became rather fraught and as one member of the channel told me, ‘there were a lot of very bruised male egos around’. First one was not going and then another. In the event, all behaved impeccably. Jeremy spoke on the Friday evening and welcomed Michael to the channel. Justin announced

1987 – A Year of Change

175

that he would remain as managing director and Richard Attenborough carried the good tidings between the main players and the supporting cast. Everything was going to be alright although there was a sense in which the next month would still be very difficult because the channel still had to go through the process of saying goodbye to Jeremy and they could not be openly too enthusiastic about his successor in case it was seen as being disloyal. It was a month of subdued and heightened emotions. The king was going but he was not really happy about the succession of the crown prince. Farewell! December was a time for saying goodbye, although the goodbyes were actually to continue until March of 1988 when Jeremy finally left the Board of Channel 4. Michael Grade was formally to take over as chief executive on the lst January 1988. The farewell meetings and the gifts and tributes which were given to Jeremy were all tokens of the genuine affection and respect which was felt for him. On the 17th December the last Programme Review Meeting was held. Before the meeting I spoke to Jeremy and Justin in an informal way. Justin was still very angry about the way that the appointment had been made because he felt that it had damaged the integrity of the channel. Jeremy was still extremely upset, so much so that he said that he could not speak about it. But that day he was to have lunch with the commissioning editors and presentation editors as they prepared to say goodbye to him. There would be other goodbyes but commissioning editors were the cornerstone of Jeremy’s concept for Channel 4 and it was through these colleagues that his ideas had come to fruition. The editors had bought him a leaving present, chosen by Michael Kustow and Adrian Metcalfe, who had scoured their brains and the streets of London to find something which would be suitable for the person and the occasion. Working on Jeremy’s love of Greek and Latin they considered translations of Homer and Horace but in the end they settled on a copy of a limited edition of a book called Seven Sages of Greece which consisted in sayings in Latin and Greek which they felt would stand him in good stead for any occasion when he might be at a loss for words. The lunch was not the emotional time which some had expected because the restaurant was filled with people celebrating pre-Christmas festivities. We sat upstairs but the celebrations below rose to fill the restaurant with a crescendo of sound. The noise and the crowded table prevented it from

176

CHANNEL 4

being an emotional lunch and when Liz Forgan came to make the presentation, she dispensed with her speech and instead simply thanked Jeremy for all his work at the channel and particularly for giving them all ‘the best job of our lives’. The present came with all their love; and the love was genuine. Isaacs was moved and spoke to his colleagues with genuine affection and respect, ‘I suddenly realise surrounded by you all, how much I will miss all my friends’. He spoke of how much he had enjoyed working with everyone at the channel. At the end of his short speech he told them of an entry in the Duty Log, of which I had reminded him earlier in the day when he spoke about how much he respected all those who had worked in the role of commissioning editor. The message read, ‘Man came into Reception claiming to be Jesus Christ, asking to see a commissioning editor’. Everyone laughed with him but he ended by saying, ‘Think about that and always remember it!’ It was his piece of advice to them to always remember their perceived and actual power and to think of those who depended upon them. ‘I’ll talk to you before I leave for the Opera House’, Jeremy said when I saw him before the commissioning editor’s farewell lunch. We arranged a time which was during the week between Christmas and New Year, when he would be finally finishing off his paperwork and moving out of his office. The appointment was made for Wednesday 30th December at lunchtime. The streets of London around Euston were as quiet as I had ever seen them and Charlotte Street was almost deserted. Charles the security guard was on the door to give the channel a feeling of normality. But it was not a normal day. On the way in I met Liz Forgan who was going out for a belated Christmas lunch with her staff. The channel was quiet and I went up to the second floor for my last interview with Jeremy. His two secretaries, Athena and Diana, were packing files and books. David from the post room was packing those pictures which Jeremy was taking home; a photograph of Bobby Thompson the Newc a s t l e comedian, a dove of peace and a large cartoon, one of the many which had been given to him to commemorate various events in the life of the channel. The filing cupboards and drawers were empty and on the wall hung his gown from the University of Strathclyde when he received his Honorary Doctorat e. Jeremy emerged from his room dressed uncharacteristically in a tartan shirt, open at the neck looking relaxed, surrounded by the last few papers, journals and books. I began to talk to him about his feelings as he left the channel which he had founded. Jeremy always hated the first question which I asked him – he just pulled a face

1987 – A Year of Change

177

when I asked it and said, ‘Why have all questions got to be phrased in that superlative way? Right. Question Two’. The questions were wide ranging but were mainly how he felt about his time at the channel. The first question, which he initially rejected but then answered and came back to at the end of our talk was, ‘What has made you most happy about Channel 4?’ His answer contains within it his philosophy for the channel and the way that he had set it up. It reveals how he had never moved from his original vision and how he had found most satisfaction in the realisation of that vision within the programmes on Channel 4: The thing that pleases me most about Channel 4 is the jaggedness of it. That if we’re doing a daft comedy show it could be dafter than anybody else would allow on the screen. If we’re doing a rude film it would be ruder than anybody else would put on the screen. If we’re doing an intellectual discussion it would be more difficult to understand than anybody else would ever dare to put on the screen.

The notion of speaking to and capturing the essence of the interests of the audience for whom the programme was being made had also been of great importance to Isaacs. He believed in the individuality of the viewer. The famous ‘one ecstatic viewer’ was never far from Isaacs’ idea of what he was trying to do with the channel. With 30 years in broadcasting, he had spent much of his time working at what could be termed ‘the serious end’ of television both at the BBC and ITV. In his previous work he had adhered to the premise that ‘every programme should be as good as it possibly could be of its kind and the object of broadcasting, which was a mass medium, was to reach out to bring programmes to as many people as we could possibly persuade to watch it’. He had been ‘absolutely thrilled’ when between 1963 and 1965, This Week had achieved huge audiences, far more than any other current affairs programme, because it was made as ‘accessible as it possibly could be made to every single potential viewer’. Similarly, he saw his mission in making The World at War to: ‘make the Second World War meaningful and, at least in part, comprehensible to the widest possible audience by making sure that not one syllable of the commentary ever was not instantly intelligible. Showing what

178

CHANNEL 4

it was like to be in a bombing raid, ‘whether in the bomber or on the ground’.

Whilst Isaacs had felt pleasure in communicating to large audiences, his ambition had moved on towards a new philosophy of broadcasting for he felt that the logic of speaking to large numbers of viewers, if it were the philosophy of all broadcasters, was to: … produce a sameness in broadcasting which is undesirable and I actually positively believe that it is the duty of broadcasting to offer people surprises and challenges and that some of it at least, ought to stimulate by being difficult, stimulate by stretching. To say “it’s going to be quite a hard act for you to follow this programme, but have a go”. And Channel 4 has been very much more as far as the latter predilection.

To stretch and stimulate the audience had been the basis for Isaacs’ new philosophy of broadcasting, both in programmes and in the way they were to watch television. He had expected them to find the programmes which they wished to see as well as be surprised by what they found on screen by chance. For a long time he had resisted the pressures to go for scheduling in blocks to attract consecutive audiences. ‘I did not want to do it. You heard all those arguments when I resisted the ideas’. Although the channel had moved to a policy where blocks of the schedule were constructed in such a way that it was hoped the audience would stay on. But this was not what Isaacs had wanted to do. He had sufficient broadcasting experience to know that building an audience by conventional means was not difficult but to get them to find specific programmes or be ‘surprised’ by what they discovered by chance was much harder to achieve. Years of experience in any industry usually leads people to believe that what they learned is their most important asset. Some people hold their experience in abeyance and are always open to new ideas and looking for a freshness to add to their experience. This had been Isaacs’ approach to television when he formulated his ideas for Channel 4. He had wanted a new way of speaking to audiences and to seek a way of providing programmes for relatively small numbers. This had only been possible because on aggregate the share and reach of the channel in audience terms enabled him to be able to say to the companies and the advertisers, ‘Stop moaning and groaning, you’ve got all the audience you need’. From Isaacs’ point of view it was not what he had

1987 – A Year of Change

179

learned about broadcasting by his experience at Channel 4 but a process of unlearning. He explained: In a funny kind of way, you see, you’ve asked me if I’ve learned anything about broadcasting, but I’ve been trying to unlearn things about broadcasting in Channel 4. That was the point of hiring people that have no experience of broadcasting. That’s the point of these arguments I have with colleagues about quality control. I don’t want the same thing… I’ve always believed that there was nothing television couldn’t do but I very rarely had the opportunity to try to demonstrate it or prove it. I wish I’d pushed the boat out more now. I think it’s quite interesting that every single time we’ve thrown the schedule out and said, “Let’s have 5 hours of something, it becomes an event which works whether its Shoah or Trial of Richard the Third or whatever”.

The boat had been pushed out many times in terms of the programmes which had been shown on the channel and one of the most important achievements had been to move from the belief that only balanced or impartial programmes could be broadcast. Before Channel 4 it had been held as an axiom of broadcasting that only impartial or unbiased programmes could be transmitted. Although, there was little recognition of anything problematic about how any programme could be completely unbiased. The acceptance that programmes could be transmitted which expressed opinions unbridled by the harness of counter arguments was something that was of gre at importance to the development of broadcasting in Britain and something which bought much pleasure to Jeremy Isaacs: I end up saying, if I am asked what I’m pleased with about the channel, I really am pleased about having won the right to prove the point that programmes can express opinions.

When the channel had begun broadcasting, a leading broadcasting executive, Aubrey Singer, thought that it was absolutely unthinkable that the same broadcasting service could aspire to objectivity and impartiality and allow programme makers to express a point of view. As we talked about the freedom which Channel 4 had allowed its programme makers, Jeremy said that he had at last understood why Aubrey had felt so differently than he did about this matter:

180

CHANNEL 4

Actually, as I say this to you, I can at last understand what it is that Aubrey couldn’t understand. Of course, it’s a function of seeing everybody in the building as part of yourself. If people are inside the building, if they’ve been bought up in your training school, you’ve promoted them…’

Here Jeremy was hitting upon one of the emerging philosophies of broadcasting that had grown out of the publishing concept of Channel 4. The chief executive did not have to feel personally responsible for, nor indeed affronted by any programme which held different opinions than his or her own. What Jeremy possessed was the ability to stand away from the product and be interested by it, even if he disagreed with its content and method of production. What the new form of editorial control showed was that if new voices were to be given an opportunity to be heard then the broadcaster/publisher had to be detached enough to let them speak in a manner which they chose. Arguments about opinions and ‘facts’ so often came down to discussions about ‘quality’ and professionalism, whereas if plurality were to be nurtured and encouraged then a certain detachment was essential. Jeremy Isaacs had that intellectual detachment as did the majority of his team of commissioning editors. It was the function of ‘unlearning’ which Jeremy had experienced and the open-mindedness which those who were new to television and others brought to the channel which enabled this experiment in broadcasting to progress. Jeremy Isaacs’ departure from Channel 4 had been tinged with a sadness at his leaving both the channel which he had founded but also he was leaving broadcasting where he had spent all of his working life. He had spoken about his feelings at leaving the industry at the Edinburgh Television Festival but the last question which I asked him was to talk about his feelings during the last year. I stated the obvious, that it had been a year of change and reminded him of the afternoon of the 30th January when we had spoken about Chateauvallon and by the time I reached LBC, Alasdair Milne had resigned from his job as director general of the BBC. I asked him about the decision to apply for the job of director general of the BBC and his treatment by the Board of Governors: In the beginning I asked you why you wanted this job at Channel 4 and you said, ‘Because it is singularly the most important job in British television. Much more important than the Director General of the BBC’.

1987 – A Year of Change

181

Jeremy replied: I always knew that running Channel 4 would be an important, useful and maybe even a good thing to do. I always knew that I wanted to do one more thing after that, I thought it might perhaps be the director general of the BBC. I’m absolutely certain that starting Channel 4 was the most enjoyable and in its time the most important job in British broadcasting. I’m also sure that the job in British Public Service Broadcasting is running the BBC at some point, so I would have liked to have thought, to have been somebody who could have been thought to have done it. I know that it would have been difficult, I know that in some ways I might have found it impossible and not been any good at it. I know that there were good arguments in some people’s minds against my doing it, but I wanted to have a go at it.

Jeremy’s reasons for wanting to run the BBC were related to a personal goal, an ambition to achieve, what for anyone working in British broadcasting, had to be seen as the prize job. But the job and the qualifications and qualities required to run it had shifted and for whatever their reasons, the Board of Governors had not appointed Isaacs, nor indeed any of the other candidates who were primarily executives whose overall concern was the making of programmes. It was thought that a stringent and tough management should take control of that section of British broadcasting. The move from Channel 4 had been inextricably linked with the rejection of Isaacs from the BBC job but he had always planned to leave Channel 4 at the end of 1988. In 1984 when he was offered a second five year contract to run from the end of 1985 to 1990, he had accepted only a three year contract to take him up to the end of 1988. At that point he had known that he wanted to be moving on. He described his reason for wanting to leave Channel 4 as ‘the selfish personal reason of wanting one more challenge’. Jeremy Isaacs’ reaction to the appointment of Michael Grade had a very public face but apart from any personal feelings which he had about Michael, his disappointment was linked with what he felt it said about the perception of the channel as he had created it: I don’t believe this appointment could have been made if we’d been the BBC Third Programme. I know we should not have been the BBC Third Programme but I fear I may have gone too far in the direction of being popular and accessible and I also fear that the committee that chose him

182

CHANNEL 4

absolutely categorically demonstrated that they could not understand what I had done. Either they did not understand what I had done or I myself betrayed what I had done. And I don’t know which is the more depressing conclusion.

Clearly Jeremy was interpreting the appointment of someone from what could be seen as conventional television, as meaning that he had not created a channel which was distinctive and different as he had hoped. His judgement on his own performance became even more severe when he continued: If I were writing history in 20 years time, I think I would be saying that the channel was never as extraordinary as it was cracked up to be and it very quickly became indistinguishable from… blah, blah. That is what worries me, that is what worries me.

I protested that this was cert a i n ly not the case at this point in time and Je re my’s real sorrow at wh at he obv i o u s ly perceived as a fa i l u re on his own p a rt was apparent: ‘I think people must be able to say that now, or they could not have thought he was the right man to run it. Th at’s wh at wo rries me.’

Je re my would have pre fe rred the new chief executive to have been someone who would have carried on his work in the same mould. If Justin Dukes had been appointed, then the structure wh i ch he had set in place before he left, with Liz Forgan and Mike Bolland in the main editorial positions, would have prevailed. Altern at ively, the appointment of Roge r Graef or Anthony Smith would have been seen by Jeremy as carrying on the spirit of the channel as he would have wished. However, it is deb at able if the channel would have survived its next phase without the diplomatic and business skills which we re obvious in the choice of the next chief executive. Moving on in a more positive mood, he talked of the future of the channel and his hopes for it when he was gone: I hope that it keeps surprising viewers and it keeps surprising me. I really do hope for things that I cannot now predict. I think that’s one of the things one always hopes for.

1987 – A Year of Change

183

His final statements on the channel were linked with his feelings about had made him most happy about the channel. It was these aspects of the output which he hoped would continue: I would go back to this ‘jaggedness’. I would hope that it keeps doing all the sorts of programmes that are extreme of their sort. Not excellent of their sort, but extreme of their sort. I hope that some of its programmes are very good but I hope that its intellectual programmes are the most difficult and interesting and challenging of any. I hope its comic programmes are funnier than anybody’s and from varied origins and more dazzlingly visual and more rude than anybody’s. And I hope that there is always on it something several times a week and ideally at least once a night that wakes you up and makes you think, ‘Gosh, I must see that’. And it will you know, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t.

Jeremy’s idea for programmes being the most extreme of their kind could obviously lead some viewers to see the mix as being rather esoteric, or even weird, as indeed, some viewers do perceive the channel. Yet there is an overall feeling on the part of the television audience that Channel 4 is a good thing. I commented on these perceptions by the audience: They may think it’s weird but at the same time they are glad it’s there. You see, I think that is the single most important thing about the channel – people are glad it’s there. They may never want to watch it but they want it to be there.

Jeremy seized on this: Of course, you are absolutely right. That is the important thing. That is the single most important thing. That is the most important political fact which politicians do have to think about.

In the last instance, that was the fact which Jeremy Isaacs should have accepted as being a tribute to the channel. It had been accepted and expected as a valuable and interesting part of the broadcasting industry and the world of the television audience. Viewers saw it as something which was sometimes worth watching; always worth having. It had become part of the national culture, through its reputation, its faults, its failures, its successes, its innovation and most of all its programmes.

184

CHANNEL 4

Viewers now felt that it was their own, not something which was not for them, but rather something which was a valuable asset to the overall output of British broadcasting. We talked about the channel for three and a half hours and at the end he said goodbye, quickly turned away and busied himself at his desk. I felt very privileged to have spent time watching the progress of the channel and talking to Jeremy and other people who appear in this book. I left his office and went down to the first floor. Presentation and Transmission Control were working as usual. On he way out I met Tim Simmons who had compiled a programme tape to show at the Christmas Party which was Jeremy’s farewell to all the channel staff. Entitled The Isaacs Years, it was witty, funny, affectionate, a parody of the style of the channel, its programmes and its chief executive; hosted by Keith Allen it included tributes from some of those involved in programmes which had been on the channel since it began. A comment from Peter Sissons from ITN spoke for many programme makers when he said, ‘From Channel 4 News to the man who believed in it, supported it, inspired it – All the Best’. The location of the film moved to a vox pop of men and women in the street, all of whom were executives from the television industry. All spoke of Jeremy and the channel, some joked, some were serious. Perhaps the comment which best expressed what the industry felt about Jeremy came from Charles Denton who said: I’d simply say that Jeremy has invented Channel 4 from a standing start into what it is now, the envy of the broadcasting world.

The tape ended with scenes from many of the programmes which had been seen on the channel A Woman of Substance, The Price, Nicholas Nickleby, St Elsewhere, The Wine Programme, Treasure Hunt and many, many more. A caption rolled with words which encapsulated the feelings of the staff who had worked with Jeremy at Channel 4, while Dire Straits’ Brothers in Arms played over the words: On Tuesday November 2nd 1982 Channel 4 first went on the air. After five years and nearly 23,000 programmes, it has received more than 150 awards and become recognised as an outstanding success, acclaimed throughout the world. None of this would have been possible without the courage vision and leadership of one man…

1987 – A Year of Change

185

The view of his inspirational leadership was that of his staff and there followed captions from the press who had come to recognise the value and achievements of the channel: The only decent place to view – The Guardian Channel 4 stands apart – Wolverhampton Express and Star Continues to show imagination – Marketing Week An essential part of British viewing – Western Mail The best movie policy of all four channels – The Times On the cutting edge of broadcasting – Houston Chronicle How can you not admire its chutzpah and integrity – Sunday People Isaacs commands unique affection – Today God bless Channel Four’s Jeremy Isaacs Screen International

At the end of the tape the familiar cascading 4 filled the screen, did a reverse twirl and then a tiny tear appeared and ran slowly down its face. The tear turned into ‘Goodbye Jeremy’. The symbol expressed the sadness felt by everyone who had been involved in the Isaacs Years at Channel 4 as its founder moved on. But his creation and all those who worked with him to make it, remained poised to face the next phase. During the first five years of its life Channel 4 had become established as a major force within British broadcasting. It had changed the way that programmes are made and had been the impetus behind the growth of the independent sector into a force which had taken its place within the broadcasting industry. It had contributed to the expansion of the British film industry, brought voices and pictures to the television screen which would never have been seen before its inception. It had achieved a worldwide reputation and had become the source of interest for a model for the development of other television stations where there is a need or a wish to target programmes to specific audiences. In short, the channel had been a success, not perfect, but innovation was always going to have casualties. Its aim was never to please all of the people all of the time, nor indeed all of the people most of the time. It was to please each of the people some of the time, and in this aim it had been a definite success. A conclusion on Jeremy Isaacs’ leadership of the channel is expressed by Utah, a 25 year old black fireman whom I interviewed on the night shift at his station during the audience research about the channel. When they started off they were like The Young Ones, but the actual television

186

CHANNEL 4

station itself was like The Young One of the four channels – really disgusting and weird, but they are becoming more normal now… Whoever is behind Channel 4, I don’t know. But I would say he was about 40 or 50 who is showing programmes that he thinks should have been shown in the 60s, when youth and everything was at its peak. But no programme would have dared show it. That is what I think about the guy at Channel 4, which is not a bad thing. But it does seem to be a geezer behind the scenes who is saying, ‘This is what I’ve done, or I would have liked to have done’. Whereas the other stations appear to have a Board of Directors, Channel 4 appears to be one bloke in moss green corduroys, hush puppy shoes, cravat, lumberjack shirt and very ‘with it’. Do you know this guy? Have I described him right? Nearly right? He doesn’t strike me as being a suit and tie person. The channel doesn’t appear to have a suit and tie behind it, only when they are being told off or only when they have got to go out and say, ‘Look, we are not weirdos’. But I reckon that the geezer behind this is somebody who is doing something that he has never been allowed to do before. Which is not bad. In fact, I would say it was a good thing!

Apart from the lurid fantasy of his clothes, Utah made a very astute assessment of the philosophy of the channel and the aim of its chief executive. The commitment to showing programmes which he thought should have already been shown and the ability to appear to be able to defend those programmes was fundamental to Isaacs’ philosophy. Utah’s approbation for the channel was a fitting end to his comments. Channel 4 was the channel which brought ‘youth’ to television both in terms of a new audience and a new way of thinking. Youth did not have to be young it was rather a metaphor for freshness, vitality, innovation and bringing to the screen areas of life which had not been a part of television until the advent of Channel 4. Utah correctly perceived that Jeremy Isaacs believed that the programmes which were shown on Channel 4 should have had an outlet long before they found a home on Channel 4. The management team provided the benefits of a bureaucracy and structure characterised by ‘suits and ties’ without imposing any sense of a channel being run by a faceless Board of Management. They were the invisible strength and they could provide the correct public face when needed. But their most important achievement was to have been able to give the impression of the passion of there being ‘one geezer behind the channel’. The channel’s programmes emanated from passionate beliefs held by their producers, directors, writers and technicians whose efforts were brought to fruition

1987 – A Year of Change

187

through the passions of those in control at Channel 4. Channel 4 was not one man, it was many men and women but each of them would agree that the first part of the Channel 4 story was brought to fruition through the inspirational leadership of its chief executive, Jeremy Isaacs.

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today If I were writing history in 20 years time, I think I would be saying that the channel was never as extraordinary as it was cracked up to be and it very quickly became indistinguishable from blah, blah. That is what worries me. Jeremy Isaacs 30.12.87

The story of Channel 4 Television is of a cultural production on a massive scale which, both at the time when it began and from the hinterland of twenty five years’ viewing and at least one hundred miles distance from its nucleus, is one which has been controversial, exciting, innovative, and sometimes none of those things. The channel cannot be separated from the time of its birth in the 1980s nor from the time of its conception in the 1960s. It thrives as part of the 21st century multi-media, global world. While the 1960s was a time of liberal ideas and free thinking and the belief that anything was possible, by the 1980s it became clear that anything was possible - with the pursuit and possession of money, affluence, and a culture which was influenced by a prime minister who told her electorate that there was no such thing as society. This was the time into which the channel was thrust and its achievements were both a reflection of, and in opposition to, the prevailing culture. The channel may have been at odds with the culture of some of its audience and one of its hardest tasks was to communicate with audiences and entice them to sample the new programmes, ideas and concepts which they were offered. However, over the years it has established its own cultural identity and has acquired audiences which are both loyal and which identify with the channel and its output. How has this been achieved and what are the changes which have been part of the broadcasting landscape to which Channel 4 has contributed? Is the legacy of its founder still discernible in the ethos of the channel and in its programmes? Jeremy Isaacs’ fears that the channel was never as extraordinary as he had hoped were ill founded. 25 years ago, the channel was sometimes different, always challenging. So much of what was achieved which seemed revolutionary at the time

190

CHANNEL 4

is now a mere memory, while other innovations are now so integrated into broadcasting that their revolutionary impact is forgotten. Throughout the formation and beginning of Channel 4 there was constant tension between two different aims and functions – the need to be innovative and different and yet to attract audiences and be commercially successful, even if in moderate terms. The debate has continued although it must now be argued that the commercial imperative has become more important since the channel has had to sell its own advertising time. Equally, the nature of innovation, 25 years on, is very different and the channel now has an audience with established expectations, who does not necessarily crave innovation and difference in the way that the founders of the channel planned. It could be said that the channel has taught its audience to appreciate the different and it is now au fait with their offerings and does not see them as avant garde or excluding. In fact, the television audience accepts and expects Channel 4 to be similar to, but still in many cases, better and more adventurous than programmes on the other channels. While there is not and never was a Channel 4 audience per se, only a television audience who chose which channels and programmes they wished to view; there are now viewers who will chose Channel 4 as their favourite channel and articulate the reasons for their choice being that the channel and its programmes reflect their lifestyle or versions of a lifestyle which they would like to achieve. The Route and the Legacy The route to the development of Channel 4 was determined by its remit which charged it to provide a distinctive service, and to cater for interests not catered for by ITV. The financial stability assured to the channel by the funding mechanism meant that it had no immediate need to worry about whether it was attracting or pleasing its audiences. Unlike the BBC, it had no financial benefit from the Licence Fee, so had no need to satisfy its public paymaster; nor any need to attract audiences to deliver to its advertising paymaster as did ITV. It had the unique luxury of ten years to establish itself with any programmes which it wished to provide because it did not initially have to earn any money. It was the ultimate programme makers’ channel. Power was in the hands of the chief executive and the commissioning editors and they took programme ideas which were offered to them by producers. In one sense the audience was not part of the equation yet in another it was crucial for the perception of the channel

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

191

that it reached audiences. One channel controller described it as ‘a triumph of amateurs who never had to think about their audience’. Another senior executive said that they had a ‘contempt for their audience and had no notion of public service in the way that the BBC saw public service’. Another ITV current affairs editor was even more critical, saying, ‘They have contempt for their audience. They do not give them what they think they should have, but what the programme makers want to make’. However, the audience were important to the channel and they became even more so when they had to sell their own advertising space, so it was inevitable that some of their programmes would change and that they would need programmes which brought in large audiences in order to be able to continue to make the programmes which would appeal to smaller groups. What Did the Audience Want? When Channel 4 began transmitting its programmes the majority of viewers were reasonably happy with the prog rammes which they were getting and if they were not happy the alternatives which they would have chosen would have been ‘more of the best’ of what they already had, rather than something entirely different. They were quite ignorant of the long standing debate which had surrounded the formation of the new channel and they knew little or nothing of its proposed existence and what it was to offer them. They needed to be enticed to watch the channel. Initially by marketing and publicity by press comment, but crucially by the word of mouth of other viewers. Audiences judge television companies by their programmes. They watch them, assess them, think about them, read about them and talk about them. This was the highest hurdle for the channel to jump, for not enough people were watching the channel to enable its reputation to be spread by word of mouth. The audience which Channel 4 expected to attract were elusive television viewers. They liked to think that sophisticated, intellectual, ‘artsy’, exclusive not to say excluding, television would be available. Not that they were always or even occasionally available to watch the programmes when they were offered. They had lifestyles which did not include watching television as a leisure priority and yet this powerful lobby were instrumental in the philosophy behind the choice of programmes. They wanted programmes available which they might like to watch or to make if they were prog ramme makers.

192

CHANNEL 4

There were other difficulties in that the method of scheduling was completely new for the audience. Audiences had the schedules of three channels to consider when they planned their evening’s viewing. And they did plan viewing because the way that existing channels scheduled their programmes aimed to catch the audience early in the evening and then to keep them for the whole evening’s viewing. Channel 4 had a very different philosophy. Jeremy Isaacs’ idea was that the audience would find the programmes which they wanted to watch and then go off to some other channel or other activity and perhaps return later when another programme was to their choice. A ‘watch and go’ form of viewing. The problem was that it was difficult to attract the audience in the first place, and then to send them off when you had them watching was not a policy which was conducive to building an audience. A further complication was the novelty of the programmes. They were unknown and so to ask viewers to seek out and watch programmes about which they knew little was more than could be expected of them. Not only were the prog rammes unknown, they were also told by the channel that these were programmes which were ‘different’. A perfectly laudable philosophy and one which Jeremy Isaacs adopted as one way of addressing the remit which was to provide a distinctive service and one wh i ch was innovat ive and experimental in content and form. However, it was one which was to prove a major obstacle in the early development of the relationship between the channel and its audience. A Theoretical Perspective on Difference The main theoretical analysis which explains both the difficulties and triumphs of Channel 4 is the concept of difference. Jeremy Isaacs set out to make the channel different from all other channels and made the concept of television with a difference a feature of the philosophy of the channel. This was to become crucial in the perception of the channel and in its relationship with the audience. The channel had to be different and to cater for audiences who were not catered for by ITV. It is important to remember that it was not to provide different programmes for viewers of BBC 1 and BBC2, although the channel was always held responsible for innovation across all four channels. So to be different was the aim and the implications of this aim were important in the early years of the channel. It remains important, for current critics are still seeking for the channel to provide television which is different from the other channels.

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

193

‘ Why does ‘ d i fference’ matter?’ asks Stuart Hall (1997:234) identifying t h at diffe rence and the fascination with ‘otherness’ is in need of a theoretical argument to unpack its significance. The academic theories of diffe re n c e can perhaps explain some of the difficulties wh i ch Channel 4 experienced in its early programme philosophy. Hall discusses the nature of difference in cultural perception: ‘Stable cultures require things to stay in their appointed place. Symbolic boundaries keep the categories ‘pure’, giving cultures their unique meaning and identity. What unsettles culture is ‘matter out of place’ – the breaking of our unwritten rules and codes.’(ibid).

The reaction to the coming of Channel 4 can be seen as an intrusion into the already established programmes which were offered to the British viewer. They had the three channels and it is perhaps difficult to recover the time when this was the only television which was available. Channel 4 from its inception as a television channel was seen as in opposition to what already existed on the other three channels. It was not surprising that when it first began showing programmes, commentators found it shocking and were horrified at some of the programmes. The channel was seen as an intruder, an irritant, a force to upset not to reassure. In cultural terms it could be seen that the audience chose to pretend that the channel did not exist. Another cultural theorist who can be used to explain the initial reaction to Channel 4 was Julia Kristeva: ‘What we do with ‘matter out of place’ is to sweep it up, throw it out, restore the place to order, bring back the normal state of affairs.’ (Kristeva 1982 in Hall 1997:236). According to this argument then, symbolic boundaries are central to all culture. Marking ‘difference’ leads us, symbolically, to close ranks, shore up culture and to stigmatize and expel anything which is defined as impure, abnormal. However, paradoxically, it also makes ‘difference’ powerful, strangely attractive precisely because it is forbidden, taboo, threatening to cultural order’ (Hall 1997:237). Unwittingly, the channel had come into the existing television structure and was seen as an intruder who was different from the other channels and which flaunted its difference. It did not come quietly to the party, but shouted its presence and challenged its peers. It took a considerable time for some of the programmes to be accepted and some of the changes which the channel hoped to bring about were outside the remit of any television p rogramme. However, eventually the channel was accepted and

194

CHANNEL 4

the notion of diffe rence faded from the way the audience perceived its output. Its at t raction, strange and fo r b i dden and thre atening, became with the passing of time, acceptable and accepted. Changes in the Ecology of Broadcasting Channel 4’s early plans and achievements took place in, what was for them and indeed all broadcasters, the halcyon days of the 1980s. No one could have envisaged the changes in the broadcasting landscape both from the expansion and the blatant commercialism of the new channels which was brought about by the most significant changes in British Broadcasting which followed the 1990 Broadcasting Act. While being designated as the legislation which brought in deregulation, and offered extended choice to viewers, in fact, its affect was crucial in stifling the expansion of the existing channels. The overall effect on creativity of the 1990 Broadcasting Act was that the expansion of choice split the audience and ensured that the race towards commercially driven ratings seeking programmes became the dominant trend of television. The move towards the popular became the ideology of the commercially driven terrestrial channels. In order to compete with the unfettered popular programming available across the range of satellite channels, it was necessary for channels to adapt their programming strategies to try to keep their audiences. Whatever they might have aspired to achieve, the commercial imperatives took a major part in their future plans. At the end of the 1980s under the leadership of Jeremy Isaacs the channel had established itself with its own brand. When Michael Grade took over he needed to ensure the business viability of the channel and save it from the privatisation ambitions of the government. Grade was also successful in protecting the channel and enabling it to continue with its chosen route. Its next chief executive, Michael Jackson moved the channel into the new era of multi-channel provision and set out to make it a viable competitor in the digital age. When Mark Thompson took over in December 2001, he began to make changes which could have resulted in a much stronger Channel 4. His reputation as a committed and serious programme maker in his career at the BBC meant that when he became chief executive of Channel 4 there were expectations that the channel would begin to re-assert its position. Again, events overtook the tenure of M a rk Thompson, when the deb a cle between the BBC and the government over the Hutton Report resulted in the resignation of Greg

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

195

Dyke and the appointment of Mark Thompson as director general of the BBC in June 2004. The current chief executive, Andy Duncan came to the channel from a background which was not a prog ramme maker but a marketing strategist. Joining Channel 4 in the summer of 2004 from his post as the BBC’s director of Marketing & Communications where he had been responsible for marketing, communications and audiences. Under his auspices, the channel has been successful in increasing its market share and in the summer of 2006, largely as a result of the success of Big Brother, the channel overtook ITV as the channel of choice of young viewers in the age group 16–35. The channel continues to attract audiences and to show programmes which are appreciated by its audiences. Channel 4 Now – Attacked Again In the autumn of 2006 there were attacks on Channel 4 from Charles Allen, the outgoing chief of ITV who spoke about the channel in his MacTaggart speech at the International Edinburgh Festival. Citing it as one of the three major funders of original production in the UK he criticised the publicly owned Channel Four for having ‘a free ride in terms of spectrum, no responsibility to the Treasury or to shareholders’ and described their commitment to Public Service remit as being, ‘High on warm words and low on specifics – effectively it makes it up as it goes along’. He criticised them for providing less than its competitors in key areas as: original production, production outside London, news around peak time and effectively no children’s programmes. At the same time it scored better with ‘more repeats, more acquired programmes and more US imports’, and while it spent £90 million on education, its idea of education included Scrap Heap Challenge and Dr. Titania’s Sex Advice. He looked forward to the justification of Wank Week as education on four. Charles Allen did identify some of the perceptions of the channel as he perceived them. There was another major attack to follow. In the November issue of Prospect m aga z i n e, the original chief executive, Jeremy Isaacs wrote his views on what programmes Channel 4 should show. Picking up on speeches by Andy Duncan and Charles Allen, Isaacs offered reasoning of what should be the strategy of Channel 4 to enable it to continue its public service remit and retain its commercial performance. He identified the success of the channel as it approached its 25th birthday. ‘..riding the crest of a wave. Its audiences are growing; its programmes win awards; it invests in new media; it plans expansion into

196

CHANNEL 4

radio’. He questioned the commercial success which he commented, ‘sits oddly with the channel’s public service remit’; and whether the channel deserves the subsidy it is requesting to underpin its public purpose. Selecting the programmes which he perceived as public service he was, of course, impressed by programmes like Dispatches, Unreported World, and even stretching to include Big Brother because of its inclusion of diverse contestants. (No one should include Big Brother in their definitions of public service, however varied the contestants.) He questions the lack of ‘quiet seriousness’ which he feels now is what is missing from the channel. Jeremy Isaacs correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the channel but does not consider whether the programmes which are transmitted are what suit the current audience. Commerce or Culture – Channel 4 at 25 As the two media heavyweights attacked the channel, it approached the 25th anniversary of its first transmission. It seems appropriate to consider how it has fared over this period. Even more appropriate is to consider how it is currently faring. But in the case of a discussion about Channel 4 there is a specific behind the project. For Channel 4 is judged not solely on its performance in an objective way but from the perspective of the critic. More than any other broadcaster the channel is assessed from subjective positions. In the same manner as when it began and was expected to compensate for all the omissions and failings of the other channels. The debate over commerce or culture which dominated the early years of the channel is still part of the argument about the channel. Supported in the early days by the levy paid by the independent television contractors, it is now supported by successfully selling its own advertising space. However, the philosophy of programming is not that different. The channel is criticised for its popular programming policy and for what some perceive as its lack of serious, innovative programming. It is still expected to compensate for the inadequacies of the other channels and to be different and embrace the avant garde. However, two and a half decades later, the cultural norms have changed and the expectations which have to be met are themselves different. Audience tastes have changed and in many cases Channel 4 is satisfying the wants of its audience, yet the critics of the channel are in some senses viewing the channel from the perspective of its early remit. They are still expecting the avant garde of the 1980s and the whole television audience has moved on to their own

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

197

cultural norm. While this book assesses the first seven years of the channel it cannot consider all the prog rammes which have developed during the intervening years. It does, however, look at some of the current output of the channel in order to assess how it has fared over the quarter of a century since it began. The wild child of the 1980s has grown up and is now an accepted member of the television family, yet nevertheless, the expectations which are heaped on it mean that it is always under scrutiny. Even though there has been the provision of hundreds of satellite channels and the latest terrestrial channel Five, still it is Channel 4 which is held up to scrutiny and criticism. Retaining and Revitalising the Remit In this book I have tried to assess the way that the channel may have embraced and retained some of its early remit, and it is clear that it has over the last few years had a number of major achievements which have successfully pursued the long standing ideals of the channel. Some of the original programmes remain as steadfast and innovative as they were when they began. To assess the programmes which are now most identified with Channel 4 is not difficult. The programme which most defines the 21st century as Channel 4 flagship programme is the Endemol production Big Brother which was first shown in July 2000 and has become one of the major successes of the channel every summer since that date. The programme defines itself as a game show and the basic idea is that the contestants are locked up together in a constructed home for up to 13 weeks. The programme now achieves high audiences for Channel 4 and during August 2006 its figures contributed to Channel 4 beating ITV as the channel of choice for 16– 35 year olds. The programme is the most popular which the channel transmits and yet still it attracts criticism for being the leading programme in its genre of Reality TV and for the fact that it is deemed to be not a suitable programme for the channel. Big Brother has become so much a part of the culture of its audience that every year those who apply to take part become more and more outrageous and the behaviour of the producers in the guise of Big Brother becomes beyond outrageous. While critics despair at the contestants, the wiser option would be to despair at the psychology of those choosing and planning the games. While Jeremy Isaacs may be unhappy with some of the output of the channel, the strength and longevity of Channel 4 News warranted a

198

CHANNEL 4

sentence of praise in his Prospect article: ‘The most important programme we broadcast, though it took a year to get right, was Channel 4 News. Today, presented by Jon Snow and backed by a team of fine journalists, it excels itself ’. Channel 4 News deserves Isaacs’ praise and it can be seen as at the forefront of television news. While there has been a massive expansion in news output across digital channels, the 24 hour news prog rammes available from BBC News 24, Sky News and other news channels do not specialise in in-depth coverage but rather a rolling news which repeats the same news many times and in the case of Sky News the reliance on breaking news defines their coverage. Channel 4 News remains the only news which includes analysis and in depth coverage of issues. The reputation for drama which the channel has always enjoyed is still a major element in its output. In recent years it has had a number of innovatory and award winning drama series. Series which have addressed issues and subjects which had not been major areas to be tackled by dramas. Perhaps the most groundbreaking programme which Channel 4 commissioned in its recent history was the drama series Queer as Folk written by Russell T. Davies. The series explored the lives of gay men and their families living in Manchester. It showed in graphic detail the physical aspects of gay sex and the excitement of that physicality and the emotional repercussions of wh at occurred between the ch a ra c t e rs. Brilliantly written, with charismatic acting and exciting direction and production design, this series tackled new ground and brought the glamour and excitement as well as the massive problems associated with the urban gay lifestyle. Controversial and uncompromising, the series stands out as one of the landmarks of the recent dramas from the channel. A further huge success has been the series Shameless, again set in the Manchester area and featuring the lives of a family and friends on a council estate. Uncompromising with a brutal representation of working class life, it was multi-award winning and was seen by many, but not the author, as one of the channel’s outstanding programmes. As the channel began its life with sport as one of its programme areas and one which brought new sports to television and changed the coverage of sport on television, it has continued with sport as part of its innovation, certainly in the style of coverage it has afforded to its chosen sports. Initially, it took over horse racing from ITV who wanted to provide more popular programmes during their afternoon schedule, but Channel 4 invented a wholly original coverage and made the brand Channel 4 Racing one of the best known and respected amongst horse racing aficionados.

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

199

Similarly the coverage of the Tour de France created event television for the three weeks every July when the channel followed the race and instilled in the audience an understanding of a new sport. Now this coverage has transferred to one of the ITV digital channels. After Channel 4 gave up their coverage, reportedly to enable them to purchase Test cricket matches, they again established a completely unique style of coverage and created the brand of Channel 4 Cricket. Disastrously for the audience at the end of the most successful Test series in summer 2005 when England won the Ashes from Australia, Sky Television outbid Channel 4 for the rights to cover the cricket. Only by paying a subscription to Sky channels could viewers still see anything other than 45 minutes of edited highlights of all the day’s play. Yet another sport which has been taken from viewers save those who can afford to pay for the package of satellite television. While the coverage of cricket can be seen as one of Channel 4’s greatest achievements, it cannot be blamed for losing the rights for which it was outbid by the pockets of Mammon. Their distinctive and inclusive coverage did transform the sport and added a new audience to cricket. The channel continues to show an impressive range of high quality American drama series including the award winning series The Sopranos and the critically and popularly acclaimed series Desperate Housewives and until recently, Sex and the City. The provision of both home produced drama and the best which has been available from the US has always been a feature of the channel and continues to be a part of its output. One producer at a media workshop identified imported drama as the main strength of the channel but questioned the amount of home produced drama which it commissioned: The main strengths of the channel are in its American drama imports. It retains the best purchasing of these but has not developed enough of its own programmes.

Afternoon Delights Daytime programming has been one of the areas of television which has suffered from criticism from many who never watch it. Viewed by executives and critics when they are forced to watch daytime television during enfo rced periods at home, t h ey are less than fair in their judgements. However, for the broadcasters daytime has become an area of fierce competition and has been described as the last battleground for

200

CHANNEL 4

ratings. Channel 4 has always had a loyal audience for Countdown and 15:1 and for a number of years its schedule in the afternoons has drawn an audience which ranged from the retired to young students. In the early 2000s it extended its afternoon schedule and introduced programmes in the Lifestyle genre such as A Place in the Sun. In 2001 Richard Madeley and Judy Finnegan moved from This Morning on ITV to host a new show The Richard & Judy Show on Channel 4. The audience moved with the performers and the show became very popular and when it followed The Ophrah Winfrey Show in America and began its own Book Club, it changed the British publishing business and books discussed on the programme formed the major part of the top ten books sold. The afternoon schedule, ignored by most critics as beneath their consideration, has recently proved popular for the channel and has also attracted criticism. Countdown, the channel’s first prog ramme, still runs and the channel has built its afternoon schedule around the programme. In December 2005 it began transmission of a new programme from Endemol which features Noel Edmonds, who had enjoyed great fame as a presenter in the 1980s on the BBC. The programme Deal or No Deal can be seen as a game show, which is a game of chance, with no skill but strong nerves required on the part of the contestants who gamble their choice of numbers and refuse or take the offer to deal for a sum offered by the unseen banker. The skill of the show is that it manages to create tension, empathy with the contestants, involvement of those who are waiting to be contestants, and creates the illusion of a programme which has a skill when no skill is required. The only skill is to guess when to deal; the only mistake – to deal too soon. The programme has proved popular and successfully attracted audiences which have spanned young and old – students and their grandmothers all declare their interest in the programme. In a final example of the power of the celebrity and the ability of the audience to select the programmes it wants to watch wherever they are shown, was the move to Channel 4 of Paul O’Grady. Paul O’Grady, a comedian and chat show host who previously had his own tea-time show on ITV, left the main commercial channel and transferred his programme to Channel 4. Renaming it The New Paul O’Grady Show it was a programme most unlikely to appear to fit into the channel’s output; in fact the audience immediately embraced the programme and, without any perceivable changes, it continued with exactly the same format and the star performer. Alternating with The Richard & Judy Show, the programme is again evidence that viewers will follow the talent and their programmes

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

201

wherever they are shown. Lifestyle – Citizens and Consumers One of the major areas of growth on television in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has been in the area of Lifestyle television. Channel 4 has been at the forefront of this genre and talking to audiences, it is one of the areas which they most associate with the channel and see as quality programming. Return to River Cottage, Location, Location, Location, Grand Designs, Jamie’s School Dinners all offer a view of a lifestyle which one woman told me: Channel 4 is my favourite channel. I would always look at what is on there first. I like the lifestyle which is portrayed in its programmes. It reflects my lifestyle or how I might like it to be. I like the dramas. Desperate Housewives and Lost. I don’t see it as different from other channels but rather as a better channel.

The programmes which the channel transmits are ones which speak to target audiences. Ways of living, decorating, eating, looking, are a major part of the current life interests of members of the audience. Lifestyle is a major part of everyday life whether it is experienced in house design, house purchase, personal appearances, eating habits, child care, and this is both a television genre and a cultural and lifestyle choice by members of the audience. Which came first, is irrelevant; what is relevant is that in these programmes the channel is uniting with the interests of their audience and providing specifically targeted programmes. In the case of Jamie’s School Dinners the campaigning work done by the presenter brought to the notice of the public and the government, the unsuitability of the food which was being served to our children and resulted in drastic changes being made to the menus which were served in schools. Many of the programmes which are part of the genre of lifestyle, on the channel, can also be seen as public service television, as they have contributed to exchange of information about choices which are available across a range of areas of everyday life or as it is defined by television genres – lifestyle. *****

202

CHANNEL 4

Celebrity Big Brother – Jade Goody, Channel 4 and Racism In January 2007 Channel 4 launched its latest Celebrity Big Brother and nine celebrity housemates entered the house. During the first couple of days, the housemates moved tentatively towards getting to know each other, nothing spectacular happened and the programme did not do well in the ratings. Three nights into the show, the producers made a surprise entry into the house, and Jade Goody, her mother Jackiey and her boyfriend Jack entered the house as new guests. Jade’s status as a celebrity needs to be explained. Jade had been in Big Brother in 2003 where she appeared to be a loud, uneducated, bright though nevertheless young woman who was more sinned against that a sinner. Ignorant but certainly not stupid, her lack of knowledge was a poor reflection of the British education system which had let her pass through its system and emerge with such a lack of knowledge about so many matters. Although she did not win, on leaving the house the press elevated her to the position of a ‘celebrity’ and her own personality, popular appeal and extremely good management resulted in her making a successful television career and becoming a businesswoman who was reputedly worth several million pounds. She was invited by Endemol along with her family to become part of Celebrity Big Brother, although it is beyond the realms of belief how her mother or her boyfriend Jack could lay claim to the dubious designation of being celebrities. However, they entered the house on Friday 11th. At the same time, the producers began to play the game in earnest and split the house into servants and celebrity guests leaving Shilpa Shetty, Jermaine Jackson and Ken Russell as the ‘adopted’ family of the Goodys. The split was the beginning of a hostile attitude in the house, engineered and fostered by the producers to encourage maximum stress among the groups, although the contestants were selected by fellow housemates to join the specific groups. As soon as he found that he was to ‘serve’ Jade, Donny Tourette, wisely climbed over the wall and left the house. Later after a row with Jade fuelled by his inability to tolerate what he saw as unacceptable behaviour, Ken Russell also asked to leave the house. The first housemate to be evicted was Jackiey. During her time in the house she had caused general conflict and talked about Shilpa as ‘The Indian’ and refused to attempt to pronounce her name correctly. This was not addressed by Channel 4 nor the production company. The first group of housemates who were up for eviction were Carole Malone, Leo Sayer and Dirk Benedict. Leo chose to defect before the vote and after the vote Carole was evicted. It could be

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

203

seen as the moment after which everything went disastrously wrong. In the following days, no one was prepared to challenge the behaviour which broke out during the week beginning 14th January. The conflict broke out between Jade and Shilpa, with the two housemates Jo O’Meara and Danielle Lloyd supporting Jade and bullying the Bollywood actress. At this point there is no question but that the producers should have intervened and told the young women that their behaviour was unacceptable. If they had failed to point out that their behaviour was unacceptable, then the channel should have told Endemol to look to their programme. The role of Ofcom, after the event, shows the ineffectiveness of the regulator to protect participants or speak on behalf of the audience until much too late. They can censure and fine but no role in prevention. General and specific comments were made about the actress by the three women, with comments relating to whether ‘they ate with their fingers’, calling her Mrs. Poppadom and general bullying which was fuelled by racist comments. The audience reacted to tell the channel and Ofcom that they were disgusted and shocked by the behaviour of the contestants. The press caught the mood and made it a major story. The coverage during the next few days was massive. The Media Multiplies On Saturday 20th January, along with almost every other radio station, the Radio 4 Today programme discussed the current stage of the story. Their media correspondent Torin Douglas condensed the media response during the previous week. Day 18 in the Big Brother house and we’re drowning in numbers. A week ago, the record for the number of complaints to Ofcom about a television programme stood at around 8,800. On Tuesday, it became clear it wouldn’t stand for long. Already seven and a half thousand had been received over the allegation of racial bullying on Ce l ebrity Big Bro t h e r. So rap i d ly did they rise, we ’ve had to recalibrate the nation’s scales of o u t rage and offence. By Wednesday morning the number had almost doubled, tofo u rteen and a half thousand. Helpfully, Ofcom’s media office published regular updat e s. 19,000, 27,000, 33,000, 38,000. Now its over 40,000. The ratings followed a similar upward curve. 3.5 million. 4.5 million, 5.2 million, 5.7 million. Reality TV has always generated reams of unrealistic statistics – 37 hours of Celebrity Big Brother coverage today alone on various channels – but this week

204

CHANNEL 4

has taken them into a new realm: 300 newspaper articles in the UK. 1200 articles in English language websites. 3,900 around the world. 22,000 blogs. Hour upon hour of news coverage – including 25 minutes this week on the Today programme, thanks partly to Gordon Brown and the business slots. £3 million pounds of sponsorship at risk. Six cabinet ministers speaking out. One leader of the Opposition. And finally, one housemate evicted, and no apology from Channel 4.

Over the weekend the media continued to discuss Jade and her performance in the house, with the News of the World questioning her and challenging her and making her confront her behaviour towards Shilpa. She apologised and laid herself bare in relation to her temper; her racism which she admitted was unconsciously racist. The incident coincided with a visit to India by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who was met with mass demonstrations and national offence at the treatment of Shilpa Shetty, who was a Bollywood actress and who they saw as having been insulted by the contestants on the programme. Arguments about whether the treatment of the actress was racist or not is futile. The behaviour was unacceptable and that it was allowed to continue was negligent. The Role of the Channel By a fortuitous coincidence, the Channel 4 Board was meeting on Monday 22 January and the matter of alleged racism and bullying was put onto their agenda. Channel 4’s Board put in place an investigation into what had happened in the Big Brother house. Ofcom set in place their own investigation. Meanwhile in turn all three young women were evicted from the house and the press massacre continued. Ignorant of the seriousness of their behaviour, they reacted in shock and then suffered their own harassment as they confronted their behaviour. Discussions raged about whether the behaviour was racist or bu l lying – both completely unacceptable and the sight of journalists and executives discussing the merits of the programme in bringing the subject to light was unworthy of all those involved. The audiences came to the rescue of the television company and voted Shilpa as the winner – thus at least attempting to suggest that they were not racist. In must be hoped that the programme was the nadir of celebrity/reality television programmes. The high profile nature of this

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

205

programme meant that everything was suddenly thrown into high relief. It was not surprising that Endemol did not stop the behaviour at the first possible occurrence. The ethos of the show is premised on the bullying and control of the contestants by the producers. That is the point of the game. This sorry incident was unworthy of the channel and lessons should be learned that there are levels of human behaviour which do exist, but which should not be transmitted for public entertainment on a public service channel. Channel 4 and Its Legacy in the 21st Century The legacy of Jeremy Isaacs’ philosophy is still very much a part of the channel. At every level there is evidence of what was started 25 years ago. Perhaps the greatest achievement of Channel 4 is that it is now accepted as part of the British television scene. It is not seen as different, because it has carried the audience with it and has widened and enhanced their notion of what is acceptable and expected on television. It follows the accepted route of the avant garde in all art forms, in that what was seen as different and initially rejected is ultimately accepted and then the art, or in this case, the cultural form must move on to new creations. When Channel Four began it was famous for the audience perception of its programmes as well as for the programmes themselves. Twenty-four years on its position in the ecology of British broadcasting has changed. No longer the enfant terrible, no longer the radical innovator, not that any other channel has taken its place, no longer a channel which causes outcry from those who want its more outrageous output to be curtailed, but rather pleas from those who would want more outrage. Usually, those who ask for more innovation are those who ar e well beyond producing innovation themselves or indeed, those who would be seen as the potential audience. Cries against the channel are directed at its most popular programmes, and when it shows those programmes it is subjected to the most bizarre attacks. This is not surprising since throughout its history, it has also been the most popular programmes for which it has been attacked. The channel could and does produce programmes of intellectual excellence and cultural significance, and it is in this area that its critics could be justified in asking for more at the extremes of these subject areas. However, there are other significant changes which Channel 4 has brought to British broadcasting. Its innovative and creatively developed

206

CHANNEL 4

management techniques made the channel financially viable, enabled independent companies who had had little or no business experience, to understand that essential part of their company development, and initiated financial and production management techniques which became used all over the television industry. The strength of the developments which were made were that they were developed as an aid to the channel in its creative endeavours, not specifically as a controlling mechanism and this was a legacy which could, if applied in the same spirit, have been beneficial to all television production. Perhaps the most significant influence which Channel 4 has had on the British broadcasting industry is the growth of the independent production sector. While Channel 4 was charged to take a certain proportion of its programmes from the newly emerging independent sector no one could h ave possibly env i s aged the massive expansion in independent production. As significant as the domination of the channel by independent production is the change that has occurred across the whole of the broadcasting industry when the government legislated that 25% of production on both BBC and ITV must be taken from independent producers. This had the effect of changing the whole make up of broadcasting. In order for the major bro a d c a s t e rs to commission programmes from outside their own organisations, they had to downsize or lose members of their own staff. Sometimes these professionally qualified staff, both from production, editorial, technical and support services, set up their own production companies and secured commissions but for many, their careers were ended, and particularly for those who did not live near the major production centre in London, their professional lives were destroyed. And what of the independent sector itself ? While the philosophy might have been to let 1000 flowers bloom, in actuality, some struggled, some died, some became part of the new species and some have flowered and multiplied. While the legacy of the channel has been to establish an independent sector, the way that the sector has developed has not always met the aspirations of all those independent producers who sought to establish their businesses when the channel was created. Some have been extremely successful and enjoyed the financial rewards of their success. The entrepreneurial spirit which has driven the sector has resulted in companies which range from the mighty holding company Endemol, which as a group had a turnover of £173 million in 2006, to the small C h e s h i re-based AMG Television Productions with a turnover of £100,000. (Broadcast 2007:3). While the independent sector has

Jeremy Isaacs’ Legacy and Channel 4 Today

207

flourished, over the years the once dominant ITV has shrunk from the 14 companies which existed when Channel 4 began, to the One ITV which now operates. Channel 4 and Public Service A major part of the channel’s legacy was in its contribution to public service broadcasting in the UK. Not in terms of the conventional ideas of public service broadcasting, which would include the need to educate, inform and entertain. What the channel sought to do was to expand the nature of public service to specifically target groups which had not previously been major viewers in television. In order to fulfil their remit, they made programmes for people who had not previously been catered for by ITV. They chose people who fulfilled the requirements of the remit and they sought young male viewers, black and Asian viewers and from its early days they did try to widen the concept of public service by the intellectual discussions and arts programmes which they presented. Currently, the channel sees its role within the public service system to be ‘innovat ive, experimental, educat ive, d i s t i n c t ive and dive rse and to generate more programmes with new formats’. (Channel 4 Report & Accounts 2004). In fact, very little changed from the original intentions. The difference is in the audience and its perceptions and choices of what they want to see. The Permanent Revolution of Technological Change – Everything is Different In the current climate of permanent tech n o l ogical development everything is constantly ch a n g i n g. To single out difference as a philosophical concept is a little passé. What is new today is superseded tomorrow. Hence, d i ffe re n c e, n ovelty and innovation are now the everyday. In order to keep their position as a channel of choice of viewers, Channel 4 has to be innovative, modern and speak to their audiences in the way that they want to be addressed. The notion of Channel 4 as being ‘different’ is not part of the current perception of the channel. The channel is now seen by viewers as part of the television landscape and not as the channel which is different or one for which the expectation of the audience is that it is unlike other channels and one which defines you as audience. This has both positive and neg ative connotations for the

208

CHANNEL 4

company. Positive, because no longer do viewers shy away from the programmes and, whatever they show, they are given equal consideration by viewers. Negative, in that the channel is open to criticism from those who want it always to be ‘different’ and retain their belief that the channel should always be at the cutting edge of television, even if this is not the television provision that viewers want. The perception of the channel now is that it has settled in to the family of broadcasting. Judged by audiences who were unaware of its early days, or the furore which surrounded those years, it is only by its current on screen presence and programmes which they have liked in recent years that they make their assessments. The l egacy of youth programming is also one of Channel 4’s lasting achievements. However, when thinking of programmes which have a youthful attraction, it is necessary to see that this attraction must be what attracts a contemporary audience not what older devotees might see as appropriate. Viewers in the desirable 16–35 age group have a completely different experience of television and Channel 4 has made itself their own channel. Whether it is the ir reverent Friday night programmes, or the d e d i c ated T4 Sunday morning ex p e r i e n c e, or the dedicated digital channels, they find the channel speaks to them and gives them the type of programmes which they seek. It is in its innovative modes of delivery and interaction with its audience that the channel now fulfils its brief. It is the young and the youthful who chose the channel as their favourite. The channel does now speak across a range of audience tastes, through its variety of programmes. Watching television in Britain in 2007 bears so little resemblance to the experience of watching television in 1982 that comparisons are invidious. While the channel entered a world where there were only three other channels, now together with BBC1 and 2, ITV and Channel 5 they have to compete in a world where hundreds of channels are available and the digital world promises more opportunities for the whole television audience to watch. Competition in the future will be fierce and the channel must continue to be both innovative and inclusive so that whatever its target audience it will have an appeal. Jeremy Isaacs sought ‘one ecstatic viewer’ for his programmes and achieved many more than that. Over 25 years the channel has developed its programmes and its audiences and it continues to attempt to combine both innovation and more universal appeal in its programmes. Commerce and culture are still an over-riding ethos of the channel. Channel 4 continues to evoke both affection and exasperation. It remains a channel which offers the popular, the special and the distinctive to its audience.

Bibliography Bonner, P with Ashton, L. (2003) Independent Television in Britain Vol 6, New Developments in Independent Television 1981-92 London: Palgrave Broadcast (2007) Indies 2007 – The Annual Survey of the UK’s Independent Producers London: Broadcast Broadcasting Act (1980) London: HMSO Broadcasting Act (1981) London: HMSO Broadcasting Act (1990) London: HMSO Channel 4 (1982) Launch Brochure London Channel 4 Annual Report & Accounts 2004 London: Channel 4 Television Cummins, J. (1985) The Official Book of the Tube London: Virgin Books Grade, M. (1999) It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time London: Macmillan Hansard (1982) John Carlisle Motion (3 December 1982)London: HMSO Hunt of Tamworth. (1982) Report of the Inquiry into Cable Expansion and Broadcasting Policy, London: HMSO Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices London: Sage Hobson, D. (1978) Housewives and the Mass Media in Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., Willis, P. (eds), Culture, Media, Language London: Hutchinson Isaacs, J. (1989) Storm Over Four London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Kristeva, J., (1982) Powers of Horror New York: Columbia University Press, quoted in Hall, S. (1997) Representation Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices London: Sage Lambert, S. (1982) Channel 4 Television with a Difference, London, BFI MacDonald, A. M. (ed) (1972) The Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary Edinbugh: Chambers Milne, A. (1988) DG: The Memoirs of a British Broadcaster London: Hodder & Stoughton Taylor Nelson & Associates (1983) Attitudes to Channel 4 Surrey: Taylor Nelson & Associates Whitelaw, W. (1979) Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention

210

CHANNEL 4

Index Acquisitions department 85-6 ACTT (Association of Cinematograph Technicians) 24 Actuality department 59, 60-62 see also news programmes adult education 66-7 advertisements 98-100, 147, 196 After Dark 72 Ali, Tariq 154 Allan, Andy 114 Allan, Elkan 45-6 Allen, Charles 195 Allen, Keith 70, 184 American Football 47, 74, 99, 137-9 AMG Television Productions 206 The Animals Film 30-31, 40 Ann (viewer) 146-8 Annan Committee on Broadcasting 3, 5 Another Time, Another Place 64 Appleyard, Bryan 39 arts programmes 72-3 Ash, Lesley 116 Association of Cinematograph Technicians (ACTT) 24 Athena (Isaacs’ secretary) 176 Attenborough, Sir Richard 10-11, 87, 110, 169, 169-75 Audience research early reaction 26-9, 152-3, 155-6 general views 134-5, 155-9 methods 86-7, 133 taxi drivers 134 unemployed viewers 139-43 women 143-9

young men 136-9, 149-53 Audience share 9, 161, 178, 195 Channel 4 News 107, 111-12 Audiences Brookside 98 general perception of C4 19092 word-of-mouth popularity 151, 157-8, 191 Bad language 127, 128, 135-6, 140 The Bandung File 70, 154 Banks-Smith, Nancy 33, 37 Barnett, Joel 163 BBC director general 161-4 and Hutton Report 194-5 and Jeremy Isaacs 162-4, 180-81 and Michael Grade 173-4 public service philosophy 20 Today programme 185, 203-4 Benedict, Dirk 202 Big Brother 197, 202-5 Birt, John 11 Black on Black 69-70, 154, 159 Black community 69-70, 154 Board of Channel 4 3-4, 11, 87-8, 90-92 weekend retreats 47-51, 174-5 see also Dell, Edmund; Grade, Michael; Isaacs, Jeremy Bolland, Mike 70-72, 120-22, 124, 164 Bonner, Paul 12, 17, 20, 58-9, 164, 167 Book Four 39 Bragg, Melvyn 165, 167 Breakfast television 46 Broadcasting Act (1981) 10, 13-16

Index Broadcasting Act (1990) 194 Broadcasting industry Channel 4’s legacy 185, 197-9, 205-7 ecology of 2-4, 92, 168, 194, 205 fourth channel discussions 2-10 future of 165-9, 168 Brookside audience numbers 98 bad language 37, 127, 128, 1356 criticism of 38, 39, 41, 45 realism 130-31 storylines 127-8, 129-31 success of 23, 35, 65, 98, 131 Brown, Gordon 204 Brown, William (Bill) 11, 48, 91 Callil, Carmen 169 Cambridge Convention (1987) 168 Carlisle, John 42 Catchpole, Charlie 37 Celebrity Big Brother 202-5 Censorship 123, 157 Channel 4 financial management 81-4 first night’s transmission vii, 1, 23-4, 33-8 funding 5, 16, 78, 91, 196 HQ 16-19, 56-7 logo 1, 185 management structure 78-81, 164 privatisation 165, 166-7 remit 13-15, 190, 192 Channel 4 Campaign Group 167 Channel 4 Cricket 199

211 Channel 4 News 23, 24, 46, 62, 103112, 198 Comment 19, 106 Channel 4 Racing 198-9 Channel Four Television Company Limited 3-4 Charles (security guard) 176 Chateauvallon 161 Checkland, Michael 162-3, 168 Cheers 120 Churchill, Winston 42 cinema 64-5 Coia, Paul 39 comedy 71, 118, 120-23 Comic Strip presents... 24, 35, 70, 121-2 Comment (Channel 4 News) 19, 106 Commercials 5, 25, 27, 98-100, 147, 196 Commissioning editors 12, 19, 537, 75-6 changeover problems 71, 12021 and programme makers 55-6 Controller of Programmes 58-9 Conversations with C.L.R. James 154 Corbin, Jane 111 Coronation Street 45, 46, 129 Cost control 82-4 Cotton, Bill 162 Countdown 23, 34, 119, 152-3, 200 criticism of 37, 39, 152 creativity 77-80 Crossroads ix, 45, 129 Crowson, Susan 17 Current affairs see news programmes Daily Express 37, 39, 41, 42

212

CHANNEL 4

Daily Mail 36, 42, 163 Daily Mirror 36, 37, 39-40, 41 The Daily Telegraph 38, 162 David (post room) 176 Davis, Russell T. 198 Day, Colin 20 Day-Lewis, Sean 38 Daytime television 199-201 Deal or No Deal 200 Dell, Edmund as Chairman 11, 48, 87-92 and Channel 4 News 110 desire for fairness 88-90 and editorial control 49-50, 80 and Jeremy Isaacs 80, 164 prior television experience 88, 91 Denton, Charles 165-6, 184 Desperate Housewives 199 Dhondy, Farrukh 70, 154 Diana (Isaacs’ secretary) 176 difference 192-4 see also innovation Digital television 198, 208 Dimbleby, David 162 Dispatches 196 Diverse (production company) 88 Diverse Reports 62 Documentaries 59-60, 95 Douglas, Torin 203 Dr. Titania’s Sex Advice 195 Drama 62-5, 199 Dukes, Justin Channel 4 privatisation 168 as managing director 11, 12, 30, 77-81, 92 and Michael Grade 169, 172, 175 potential successor to Jeremy

Isaacs 165-6 Duncan, Andy 195 Dunkley, Chris 37-8, 40-41 Dunn, Richard 167 Eastern Eye 70, 154 Edinburgh International Television Festivals 164-7 MacTaggart Lectures 7, 166, 195 Edmonds, Noel 200 Edmondson, Ade (Adrian) 122, 126 Education programmes 9, 65-8 11th Hour 75 Emmerdale Farm 129 Endemol 197, 200, 202-5, 206 Enfield, Harry 126 Entertainment programmes 11824 Equity 25, 27, 99-100 Fiction programmes 62-5 Fiddick, Peter 35, 36 15:1 166 Film on Four 38, 63-4 Walter 24, 34-5, 36, 38, 39, 46 Film industry 63-5 Financial management 81-4 Financial Times 37 Finnegan, Judy 200 First night’s transmission vii, 1, 23-4, 33-8 Five go Mad in Dorset 35 Forgan, Liz Actuality dept 12, 54, 60-62 Channel 4 Campaign Group 164 and Channel 4 News 112

Index and Jeremy Isaacs 175-6 potential successor to Jeremy Isaacs 165 promotion 164 Forman, Sir Denis 4 Fountain, Alan 75, 167 Four American Composers 73 Fox, Paul 169 French, Dawn 122 The Friday Alternative 46, 88-9, 106 Funding 5, 16, 78, 91, 196 Gau, John 11, 169 Genres, programme 59-60 Gerrie, Malcolm 113-17 Going Out 141 Golden Movies 99 Goody, Jade 202-4 Grade, Michael 162, 169-75, 194 Graef, Roger 11, 49, 104 Granada Television 47, 101 Grand Designs 201 Greenaway, Peter 73 Grey, Muriel 116 Griffiths, Ellis 17, 56 The Guardian 35, 36, 37, 38, 185 Hall, Stuart 193 Haslam, Carol 50 Hat Trick 70 Henry, Lenny 125 Hildred, Stafford 33, 40, 44-5 Holland, Jools 116 Homosexuality 42, 43 see also In the Pink; Queer as Folk Houston Chronicle 185 Howarth, Gerald 166 Howe, Darcus 154-5 Hughes, Dr Glyn Tegai 11

213 Hurd, Douglas 165, 168 Hussey, Marmaduke (Duke) 163 Hyter, Cathy 34, 37 IBA Channel 4 responsibilities 3-4, 10, 12, 13-14, 16 new chief executive 171-2 The Animals Film 30-31 IBT (International Broadcasting Trust) 49-50 Image 40-41, 152-3, 155-6 In the Pink 24, 36, 37-8 In-house productions 18, 19, 54 Independent producers 7, 9-10, 21, 101, 185, 206-7 Independent Television Companies Association (ITCA) 124-5 Innovation Channel 4 remit 13-14, 190, 192-4 Channel 4 success 131, 157, 207-8 difference 192-4 Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) 25, 27 International Broadcasting Authority see IBA International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) 49-50 IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) 25, 99-100 The Irish RM 47 Isaacs, Jeremy achievements at Channel 4 1837 and the BBC 162-4, 180-81 on Channel 4 current situation

214

CHANNEL 4

195-6 Channel 4 News 103, 107, 110, 112, 197-8 Channel 4 philosophy 7-10, 2021, 177-80, 186 as chief executive 11-12, 29, 323, 50-51, 183-4 creativity 77-8 early calls for his resignation 41, 43, 44-5 and Edmund Dell 80, 164 farewell speech 167 and IBA 30-31 and Justin Dukes 80-81 and the press 38, 44 resignation and succession 1656, 169-76, 181-2 and Royal Opera House 161-2, 164 and The Tube 113 and women 61 Isherwood, Beverley 34 ITCA (Independent Television Companies Association) 124-5 ITN 91, 104-5, 108-110 ITV Big Five 21, 93-4, 101 Channel 4’s relationship with 13-15, 29-30, 49, 85, 93-4 current position 206-7 programme opportunities 95, 96, 100-101 restructuring 165 Jackiey (Jade Goody’s mother) 202 Jackson, Jermaine 202 Jackson, Michael 194 Jackson, Paul 125 Jamie’s School Dinners 201

Joanne (viewer) 145-6 Jones, Joyce 17 Kingsley, Hilary 37 Knight, C. G. 40 Korer, Cecil 71, 118-20 Kristeva, Julia 193 Kustow, Michael 49, 72-3, 175 The Last Resort 71 Last, Richard 38 Lee, Harvey 162 Levanthal, Colin 85-6, 167 The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby 46, 72 Lifestyle programmes 200, 201 Live programmes 124-6 Lloyd, Danielle 203 Location, Location, Location 201 Logo 1, 185 London Weekend Television (LWT) 124-5 Loose Talk 70 Lynam, Des 23 Lynne (viewer) 148 McCall, David 11, 91 McDonald, Gus 165 McIntosh, Naomi (Sargant) 12, 54-5, 65-8, 164, 167 McKeown, Colin 130, 131 MacTaggart Lectures 7, 166, 195 Madeley, Richard 200 Mail on Sunday 45 Malone, Carole 202 Management structure of Channel 4 78-81, 164 Mark (unemployed viewer) 139-40 Mark (2) (unemployed viewer) 142

Index Mark (Yuppie viewer) 149-53 Marketing 86-7 Marketing Week 185 Masters, Pam 56 Mayall, Rik 122, 126 Mercer, Derrick 105-6, 107, 109 Mersey Television 65, 127, 129 Metcalfe, Adrian 74-5, 164, 175 Milne, Alasdair 161 Miners’ strike 111 Minipops 119-20 Minority groups black community 69-70, 154 provision for 28, 43, 47 in television production 69 Monty Python’s Flying Circus 122 Moonlighting 64 Morrison, Steve 167 Morrison, The Hon Mrs Sara 11 Moser, Claus 164 Multi-cultural programmes 68-70, 154 Mulville, Jimmy 70 Music programmes 73-4, 115 see also The Tube Namy, C. 40 Neil (unemployed viewer) 141-2 Network 7 152 The New Paul O’Grady Show 200 News programmes 14-15, 59, 6062, 150-51, 198 and new technology 108, 109 and women 147-8 see also Channel 4 News News of the World 204 Newspapers see names of individual titles; press comments Nicholas Nickleby 46, 72

215 Norma (housewife) 144-5 Not the 9 o’clock News 122 Nugent of Guildford, Lord 42 Observer 43 Ocampo, Yvonne 35 O’Connor, Des 23 O’Donohue, Denise 70 Ofcom 203, 204 O’Grady, Paul 200 O’Meara, Jo 203 One Summer 141-2 Open University 9 Opinion 28 Paris, Texas 64 Park, Andy 73-4, 113 Password 39 The Paul Hogan Show 35, 120 Philosophy of Channel 4 20-21, 177-80, 186 see also innovation A Place in the Sun 200 Plowden, Lady Bridget 10-11 Pollitt, Nigel 40 Press comments 33-47 Privatisation of Channel 4 165, 166-7 Programme acquisitions 85-6 Programme areas 55 Actuality 59, 60-62 arts 72-3 comedy 71, 118, 120-23 education 9, 65-8 entertainment 118-24 fiction 62-5 lifestyle 200, 201 multi-cultural 68-70, 154 reality television 197, 202-5

216

CHANNEL 4

sex 142 see also music programmes; news programmes; soap operas; sports programmes Programme genres 59-60 Programme makers, and commissioning editors 55-6 Programme schedules see schedules Prospect 195-6, 198 P’Tang Yang Kipperbang 39, 46 Public service BBC 20 Channel 4 191, 195-6, 207 Purvis, Stewart 109-112 Queer as Folk 198 A Question of Leadership 89 Quiz shows 39 Ranelagh, John 17 reality television 197, 202-5 Redmond, Phil Brookside 35, 127, 129, 131 One Summer 141 Reggae Sunsplash 154 Remembrance 64 Research ix-xi see also audience research Return to River Cottage 201 Richard & Judy Show 200 Richardson, Peter 122 Right to Reply 18, 19, 88 Rose, David 12, 54, 62-5 Ross, Jonathan 70 Rowell, Colin 117 Royal Opera House 161-2, 164 Royal Television Society Cambridge Convention 168

Russell, Ken 202 Russell, Sir George 169 Russell, Willy 141 S4C 13 Sainsbury, Sir John 162 Sargant, Naomi (McIntosh) 12, 54-5, 65-8, 164, 167 Saturday Live 71, 124-6 Saunders, Jennifer 122 Sayer, Leo 202 Schedules 25-6, 96-8, 123-4, 178 Channel 4 News 106-7 Schonfield, Victor 30 Schumann, Howard 157 Scott, David 81-4 Scrap Heap Challenge 195 Screen International 185 Sex and the City 199 Sex programmes 142 Shameless 198 Shetty, Shilpa 202-4 Simmons, Tim 184 Singer, Aubrey 179 Sissons, Peter 184 Situation comedy 71 Six Feet in the Country 41 Smith, Anthony 3, 11, 104, 165 The Snowman 46 Soap operas 126-7, 129 see also Brookside Sofer, Ann 11 The Sopranos 199 The Spanish Civil War 47, 95 Spenton-Foster, George 37 Spitting Image 123 Sports programmes 74-5, 198-9 see also American Football The Star 33, 40

Index Steeples, Joe 36 Stewart, William G. 166 Stoessl, Sue ix, 86-7 The Sun 35, 37, 40, 41-2 Sunday Mirror 34-5 Sunday People 185 Swear words 127, 128, 135-6, 140 Tesler, Brian 11, 48-9, 91, 100 This Week 177 Thompson, Mark 194-5 Thomson of Monifieth, Lord 42, 171 The Times 39, 185 TISWAS 122-3 Today programme 185, 203-4 Tour de France 74, 199 Tourette, Danny 202 The Tube 70, 99, 112-18, 136, 152 Tusa, John 162 Tyne Tees Television 112-13 Unemployed viewers 139-43 Union disputes 24, 25, 27, 99-100 Union World 39 Unreported World 196 Upstairs, Downstairs 99 Utah (fireman) 185-6 Viewers see audience Voices 28, 39, 72 Vorderman, Carol 37 Walter 24, 34-5, 36, 38, 39, 46 Wank Week 195 Watershed 123-4 A Week in Politics 39 Welsh language 6-7, 13 Wenham, Brian 162, 165, 167

217 Western Mail 185 Whatever You Want 70 Whitby, Joy 11 Whitehead, Phillip 166 Whitehorn, Katherine 43 Whitehouse, Mary 39, 41, 42, 43, 145, 146 Whitelaw, William 5-7, 42 Whiteley, Richard 23 Who Dares Wins 70 The Winds of War 49 Wolverhampton Express and Star 185 Women and news programmes 147-8 in production 41, 61-2 programmes for 41 television viewing habits 143-9 Wonfor, Andrea 113-14 Wood, Richard 40 Woodford, Sue 68-70, 154 Woods, Jill 40 Word-of-mouth popularity 151, 157-8, 191 Workshops 21, 75 Yates, Paula 116 Yentob, Alan 170 Yorkshire Television 141 Young men 136-43, 149-53 The Young Ones 121-2 Young people 70, 71, 208 see also The Tube