Channel 4 was originally renowned for being a unique broadcaster that commissioned groundbreaking documentaries and risqué entertainment. However, alongside rapid developments in television, both Channel 4 and the content it produces have dramatically changed over the last 30 years. Examine how this new content differs from the original programmes and explain the reasons behind the transformation.
Established in late 1982 as an ‘alternative’ fourth television channel for British viewers, public-service broadcasting giant Channel 4 has commissioned a huge range of programming to a broad audience for over 30 years. However, the largely commercialised, universally-recognisable brand of today could not differ more from the anti-commercial and fiercely groundbreaking broadcaster it was - and intended to be- during its formative years. Virtually every element of the institution has been warped since the late 1980s, from the messages communicated by the senior directors to the programmes that are commissioned. The most evident part of this transformation has been the change in content; Channel 4 documentaries, a media product in which the corporation is notorious for commissioning and producing en-masse, have deteriorated in quality over the last 10 years of the broadcaster’s career. This is demonstrated most prominently by the documentary series Benefits Street (2014), which succeeded in causing a public outcry concerning the gross misrepresentation of lower-class citizens. Arguably, this deterioration and ‘dumbing down’ of content has been propelled by the rapid growth of television culture and the subsequent process of channel proliferation, among other factors. As I have opted to create a sombre documentary for my practical project, conducting primary research into series such as Benefits Street has allowed me to critique various codes and conventions of the genre, such as selective editing or mise en scene. As a result, I have been able to improve the topical sincerity of my own production by working against such techniques and shunning the harmful examples of representation that I have observed.
As one of the early channels to be aired on analogue television, Channel 4 was seen by many as a noble platform for rich content, setting it apart from the other 3 channels available to the British viewer. The original intent of the Broadcaster’s directors, such as the “intellectual father” (Brown, 2007, pg.13) of the channel, Anthony Smith, was to provide “a centre for every type of experimental programming”(Greene, 1972, cited in Brown, 2007, pg. 14) that appealed to a society which was “no longer homogenous” (2007, cited in Brown, pg 16)- to put it another way, Channel 4 was to be a haven of internal pluralism and a provider of ‘something for everyone’. Smith, originally a BBC trainee, held independent institutions to be of great importance to individual members of the public, and claimed to “hate state control” (Smith, 2006, cited in Brown, 2007, pg. 13). Views such as these, which centred around the idea of independent television, led to an inevitable debate for a fourth television channel throughout the 1970s, based entirely on the idea of commissioning programmes from external producers. This was a “new method of making programmes”. (Brown, 2007, pg. 14) As this notion originated from the early founding members of the Channel 4 and the Independent Broadcasting Company, it is hence clearly reflected that the humble institution never intended to be geared towards mass viewership and commercial gain, as it is today, but instead to produce valuable television to stimulate the thoughts and emotions of the viewer. In addition, the prominent idea of independence here suggests that Smith aimed to work against the state-run banality and somewhat censored content of the BBC. Early programmes commissioned by the channel, such as the soap opera Brookside (1982) - showcased on the very first evening of the channel - proved, throughout the years that followed, to completely fulfil the original intent of the founding directors of the company. This programme in particular is notorious for breaking broadcasting taboos and causing outright controversy; through this, it demonstrated a perceptive and positive representation of cultural issues of the day, whilst offering emotional support to select individuals within the audience, thus clearly reinforcing the existence of media pluralism within the channel and reinforcing the ‘something for everything’ company ethic.
Yet, a dramatic content shift and eventual move away from internal pluralism was indicated from the early years, as the company was involved in numerous media scandals throughout the 1980s, 90s and well into the early 2000s. Initial clashes between Channel 4 and the British press were mostly focused on the outrageous subject matter of programming; the most prominent example of this of this is arguably the Red Triangle experiment of 1986, in which the channel attempted to screen a series of explicit art-house films, and claimed in a press release that they were “reluctant to cut the work of outstanding film directors” after the subsequent public outcry. Here, it is obvious that the channel sought solely to put out a range of films with artistic merit for the enjoyment of select audience members, rather than the majority. This is prevalent as the company did in fact lose a significant percentage of viewership, alongside the support of several major commercial sponsors - such as Kellogg’s - as a result of their “reluctance” to comply with the traditional conventions of a television channel. The appeal to a niche demographic and deliberate neglect of utilitarian motives conveyed the channel’s prominent desire to hold the needs of each individual audience member as the priority, rendering commercial gain less important. However, where the introduction of reality show Big Brother in 2000 signalled a pivotal ‘dumbing down’ of content, it also acted as a catalyst for countless subsequent media scandals that were purposefully amplified to increase viewership. Aimed at a mostly youthful audience, the show proved to be very provocative; notably, the Jade Goody racism incident within Celebrity Big Brother (2007) propelled the channel into a hugely public scandal, confirming the dangers of intentionally placing several volatile celebrity figures together for the sake of both media and public interest. Dubbed by Owen Gibson of the Guardian as a “Race Row” (Gibson, 2007), this scandal earned all parties involved a highly negative image, even triggering public displays of outrage across the world including the burning of channel 4 executive effigies in India. In comparison to the noble purpose of the Red Triangle Experiment, this offensive commotion signifies that modern Channel 4 no longer ignores commercial motives, or considers minority groups within the audience. Rather, it projects harmful ideas through programming that is constructed to provoke large-scale shock reactions within the audience. This also attracts huge numbers of predominantly young, media-savvy viewers and gains the institution a multitude of sponsors as a direct result of the publicity.
In addition, it is also important to consider the significance of the increased popularity of television culture in modern society. The rapid increase in the number of channels is known as ‘channel proliferation’, and has a distinct impact on the content of Channel 4 for a number of reasons. Alongside advertising figures from OFCOM, this idea indicates that as modern television consists of hundreds of commercial channels- many funded solely by advertising- a cut-throat competitive market is produced, in which the channels with the highest ratings, such as ITV and Channel 4, receive the most advertising revenue. In the case of popular channels such as these, it is clear that compromises must be made in order to produce the content that has both the most positive reaction from audiences, and the highest viewership numbers. Therefore, rather than commissioning an abundance of alternative programming that differs with each season, the emergence of competition means that Channel 4 must now utilise rating statistics in order to decide what shall be commissioned in the future. Producing programmes in this way degrades the channel’s initial goal of internal pluralism, as the target demographic does not necessarily represent each member of the audience equally.
An obvious example of content produced in a competitive television market is the My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding (2010-2012) series, which had a number of spin-off episodes. The decision to expand this franchise was made following the staggering viewership ratings of the first series during its initial airing, as shown in the statistics below.
It may be argued that the existence of this particular documentary series is not only a sign of changing television culture and channel proliferation, but an outright demonstration of the stagnation of Channel 4 values. Firstly, the production was hailed by many in the media for being ‘exploitative’ of a minority group; writing for the Guardian in 2012, Christine Cawley claimed that channel continued to “promote damaging stereotypes” (Cawley, 2012) of the travelling community through their consistently negative representation of individuals in the programme. This can be quite clearly observed through a number of techniques and key phrases used within the programme itself. For instance, spin-off episodes My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding - Life on The Run and My Big Fat Gypsy Christening utilise high camera angles for members of the Gypsy community and low, powerful camera angles for authority figures or members of the public. These selective camera techniques signify that channel 4 are portraying the travelling community as literally and figuratively ‘beneath’ the target demographic, instantly degrading an entire minority group. Important phrases used in the opening sequences of these episodes also help to build a selective image of travellers: lines such as “defiance of the law” and “very rarely welcome” use violently negative language such as “defiance”, “rarely welcome” and “law” to depict the individuals shown as little more than criminals that are despised by the masses. The blatant oppression of this one specific minority group can hence fuel the argument that the channel has ‘cheapened’ the content of their factual material in order to please the ‘majority’ of their viewers.
Unsurprisingly, there are multiple instances of damaging, yet popular, documentaries such as this. A further example comes in the form of the series Benefits Street (2014), a factual production aimed at mostly middle-class viewers, that claimed to investigate the lives of those living on benefits and low-income wages. Just as My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding made a profound impression in the media for being exploitative, Benefits Street triggered huge controversy centred around its apparent demonisation of the poor. This, too, was reflected by a range of deliberate editing techniques: early scenes within the first episode portray two completely different depictions of the setting. One, a sweeping establishing shot, details a quiet, well-kept suburban street, similar to that of any other suburb all over the country.
However, the following shot of the same street shows filthy debris littering the road, whilst two inhabitants point fearlessly at each house, repeating the word “unemployed”.
The contradiction of this second portrayal is obvious- it is clear that the director of the documentary has selected a tiny section of the setting that features negative mise-en-scene, and placed it in juxtaposition with the trigger word ‘unemployed’ to produce a viciously cynical stereotype of the poor, rather than investigating the whole area as advertised. Although a seemingly minor detail, heavily doctored sequences such as these have a huge impact on the narrative of the documentary, as it is transformed from an investigation into the lives of a small community to a cold exposure that shames those living in poverty. This misleads members of the audience and causes them to believe that everyone receiving benefits are lazy, dirty and a major drain on the welfare state; therefore, it can be argued that through this single documentary, Channel 4 have contributed to the negative way in which some members of the middle classes view the whole of the working and underclass population, all in the name of fast publicity and superior rating figures.
In many cases, channel 4 strives to provide interesting factual material and entertainment for the masses, and continues to comply somewhat with their original goal to provide ‘something for everyone’. However, the combination of prevalent media scandals, harmful stereotypes within programming and the modern channel proliferation process have all contributed to the apparent deterioration of the institution’s content, and transformation from the original values: rather than providing someone for everyone, the channel now provides ‘something for the vast majority’, often neglecting to include some minority groups in their key demographic. Additionally, this proves the argument that pluralism, which was originally of paramount importance to the broadcaster, no longer exists within the internal context of channel 4. Each of these factors have all, therefore, resulted in a sharp movement from purposeful, cutting-edge content to ‘safer’ programmes that are commissioned based on viewership trends, allowing the institution to stay afloat as television culture becomes increasingly competitive for advertising privileges.
Wordcount: 1,977(excluding quotes, footnotes & bibliography)
Bibliography
Secondary Research
Brown, Maggie. A Licence to Be Different: The Story of Channel 4. London: BFI, 2007. Print.
"20 Years Ago Today - That Brookside Kiss Made History." The Huffington Post UK. The Huffington Post UK, 3 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2014.
"The Red Triangle · British Universities Film & Video Council." British Universities Film Video Council RSS. BUFVC, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2014. <http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/c4pp/press-pack-case-studies/the-red-triangle>.
"Anger Over Big Brother 'Racism'" BBC News. BBC, 16 Jan. 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2014. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6265127.stm>
Gibson, Owen. "C4 to Air Big Brother Racism Apologies." The Guardian. The Guardian, 25 May 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/25/ofcom.broadcasting>
"The Communications Market 2010: UK." Ofcom. OFCOM, Aug. 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2014.
"Proliferation of TV Channels." Proliferation of TV Channels. Debategraph, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=2565&vt=bubble&dc=focus>.
Rehak, Robert. "Media Proliferation & Selective Reception." Media Impacts. Wordpress, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://robertrehak.com/wordpress/observations/proliferation-fosters-selective-reception/>.
Cawley, C. "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding Exploits Our Community for Cheap Laughs." The Guardian, Comment Is Free. The Guardian, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.
Aitkenhead, Decca. "Deirdre Kelly, AKA White Dee: 'I Would Never Watch a Show Called Benefits Street'" The Guardian. The Guardian, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
"The Concept of Pluralism: Media Diversity." Mediamonitor. Mediamonitor, n.d. Web. 02 Jan. 2015.<http://www.mediamonitor.nl/english/the-concept-of-pluralism-media-diversity/>.
Primary Research
Popplewell, Jenny, prod. "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding: Life On The Run." My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. Channel 4. 10 June 2013. Television.
Love Productions, prod. "Episode 1." Benefits Street. Channel 4. Birmingham, 6 Jan. 2014. Television.