Writing in the Guardian, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, Ben Stephenson, is very excited about his job:
Making drama is the best job in the world – the privilege of working with writers with a unique vision, the spine-tingling spirit of camaraderie between a production team, the privilege of broadcasting into the nation’s front-rooms. What could be better than that? But what I love about it the most is how passionate the people who work in drama are. Working in TV drama isn’t a nine-to-five job; it is a wonderful, all-consuming lifestyle. It gobbles up everything. It is glorious.
Glorious.
And with passion comes debate, discussion, tension, disagreement. If we didn’t all think differently, have different ideas of what works and what doesn’t, wouldn’t our lives, and more importantly our TV screens, be less interesting?
Indeed. Without “debate, tension and disagreement,” drama would scarcely be drama at all. However, the above is immediately followed by this:
We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.
Not left-field thinking, note, but something more specific:
We need to foster… left-of-centre thinking.
A slip of the keys, perhaps? Something missed on proof reading? Or an inadvertent admission of something we already know? Perhaps Mr Stephenson imagines the two things – left-of-centre and left-field – are interchangeable. But what’s “peculiar” or “idiosyncratic” about being “left-of-centre” in a drama department very often regarded as a broadcasting arm of the Guardian?
Ben Stephenson has been described, by the Guardian, as “the most important man in TV drama.”
“A slip of the keys, perhaps? Something missed on proof reading?”
David, have you seen today’s Telegraph?
“[Stephenson] later denied that he had meant the comment to have a political meaning. “Like ‘left-field’, it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective,” he said.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/5873063/BBC-executive-says-corporation-should-foster-left-of-centre-thinking.html
I smell bullshit. Doesn’t it speak volumes that he thinks left-field and left-wing mean the same thing?
“Doesn’t it speak volumes that he thinks left-field and left-wing mean the same thing?”
Using the terms interchangeably does suggest some confusion, or presumption. Maybe the “creative community” he speaks with, and which gets to hear the phrase “with frequency,” also conflates the two.
David,
Iain Dale picked this up too:
“He’s now saying he actually meant “leftfield” rather than leftwing. It’s possible he really did mean that, but the fact that this was said in a written article rather than an off the cuff speech tends to give weight to a more cynical reading of his words. When BBC executives write articles they are usually circulated to several others for approval. The fact that this got through that system without being changed says a lot.”
It says whoever else read it thinks being leftwing is cool and edgy too. It’s what the BBC’s about, dude.
“Laughably, they are now saying that because Boris is appearing in an episode of East Enders it proves there is no bias at the BBC.”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/07/trouble-at-leftfield-bbc.html
Boris on Enders! So there- balance at last! 🙂
“The fact that this got through that system without being changed says a lot.”
It’s a Freudian slip. And everyone who approved it slipped at just the same time.
“It’s a Freudian slip.”
Quite possibly. I should point out I don’t view the BBC’s leanings as particularly sinister or driven by some conspiratorial intent. It’s more that what’s often assumed as the middle ground – the comfort zone – is some way to the left of most of the people who have to pay for the BBC. Insofar as there’s a leftish bias in many areas, it all seems taken for granted, as if it were normative – as if almost everyone involved shared broadly similar views. It’s not so much a plot as a bien-pensant consensus.
That said, it’s almost funny watching BBC employees denying the bias of the institution they work for, especially in its non-news programming. I mean, don’t they listen to Radio 4’s drama output? Don’t they tire of dramas like “Freefall” or “Development” with cartoon capitalist villains entirely devoid of redeeming or realistic features? Don’t they ever feel frustrated hearing the same lazy, self-satisfied assumptions? Offhand, I can think of half a dozen recent plays with an anti-capitalist message or that in some way reinforce the conceits of Guardian readers. I can’t offhand recall a single Radio 4 drama, or BBC drama of any kind, in which the villains of the piece were signalled as left-of-centre in a comparable way. The idea that socialism might have serious moral shortcomings is not, so far as I can tell, a common dramatic theme.
You should dig out Robin Aitken’s book ‘Can We Trust the BBC?’
“Little details betray underlying attitudes. I once spotted a poster of President Bush as Hitler in the large, shared radio current affairs newsroom; no one else seemed to mind this sophomoric but revealing prank.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010282
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Trust-BBC-Robin-Aitken/dp/0826494277
“Quite possibly. I should point out I don’t view the BBC’s leanings as particularly sinister or driven by some conspiratorial intent. It’s more that what’s often assumed as the middle ground – the comfort zone – is some way to the left of most of the people who have to pay for the BBC.”
Being in the media means being part of a very insular world. Evreyone went to the same schools and is surrounded by people who think like they do. The status quo in the press? Chewy soft-hearted liberalism.
“Boris on Enders! So there- balance at last! :)”
Oh, I think they fact that they proffer this as evidence of balance just sums up the disconnect between ‘media and creative types’ and everyone else perfectly…
What’s interesting to me here is the acceptance of the “left-field” metaphor; it’s from American baseball, after all. (AFAIK there is no common British sport where anyone speaks of “left field”.)
I’m sort of curious: what other baseball metaphors appear in British discourse? “Screwball”, “small ball”, “swinging for the fences”? (The last could be a cricket usage, too; there is a definite parallel between a home run and hitting for six – in both cases the ball is hit over the boundary on the fly.)
“Triple play” appears in the U.S. less as a metaphor than as a “cute” way to reference a three-part action. For instance a local cable TV provider calls its phone/TV/Internet package the “Triple Play”. Does “triple play” ever appear in Britain?
Rich,
I’m probably not the best person to ask about baseball metaphors, but here the term “left field” means unusual, unexpected or unorthodox. Hence the amusement.
The only baseball metaphor I’m used to seeing regularly is ‘struck out’. Never seen any of those others.
On the night New Labour was elected in 1997 Broadcasting House was littered with empty champagne bottles…
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/09/goodbye-jane-says-john-zilka-editor-of.html
That must be the left-of-centre thinking he’s on about.
“Little details betray underlying attitudes. I once spotted a poster of President Bush as Hitler in the large, shared radio current affairs newsroom; no one else seemed to mind this sophomoric but revealing prank.”
“On the night New Labour was elected in 1997 Broadcasting House was littered with empty champagne bottles…”
Many large institutions develop groupthink and bias of one kind or another, but the BBC is our state broadcaster, funded by the public to the tune of over £3 billion a year, and in a uniquely privileged position. According to its royal charter the BBC is obliged to be independent and politically impartial. I’m not sure the election night champagne bottles (or “Bush=Hitler” posters) sit comfortably with claims of impartiality.
I should probably be ashamed to recall this, but in the interest of clearing things up, I have heard “left of center” used to mean “in the outskirts,” or “in the fringes.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZNCnfS5SeY
Franklin – “This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.”
Franklin,
As above, I can’t view the clip. Maybe you could summarise. Or act it out. With props and costumes, obviously.
I’ve never heard “left-of-centre” used as a synonym for “left field,” though I’d guess, given the context, that’s what was meant. What’s funny is that Stephenson (and whoever else proof read the article) didn’t register the obvious connotations or bear in mind how the Beeb’s political centre of gravity makes it an unfortunate phrase. Maybe this episode will lend it popular traction. And it’s rarely a bad thing to mull the leanings of the Beeb. For instance, I’d forgotten Robin Aitken’s experiences at the BBC:
“At one meeting, director-general John Birt seemed nonplussed when I raised the issue of Left-wing bias. He asked Jenny Abramsky, a senior news executive, to answer. Her reply was short and dismissive; my fears, she said, were unfounded. I was wrong to raise them… At a Forum meeting in December 2000, I suggested to Greg Dyke, the new director-general, that there should be an internal inquiry into bias. Dyke, a Labour Party donor and member along with BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, mumbled a muddled reply. As he left the meeting, I overheard him demand angrily of his PA: ‘Who was that f****r?’”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385944-details/What+is+the+loneliest+job+in+Britain+Being+a+Tory+at+the+BBC/article.do
As I said, biases and groupthink can be difficult to avoid. But the BBC is in a uniquely privileged and somewhat antiquated position. It’s quite difficult to explain to people overseas just how subtle and pervasive the assumptions in play can be. They become normative. And when those tendencies are flatly denied, things can get a tad Kafkaesque. It’s difficult to challenge an orthodoxy that denies its own existence.
NPR in the US follows the BBC model, and when you think about it, it is brilliant. They are both government funded, and therefore arguably govt workers, who support the control of as large a part of society by other government workers, as possible. (Full disclosure – I am a retired govt worker, which gives me some insight here) These jobs are “glorious”, to quote the speaker, and they think that everyone else would also be highly satisfied by working for the govt. They have the opportunity to spread this message very widely to a captive audience (BBC, not quite NPR, yet), and because they are true believers, they see nothing wrong with sermonizing. It is an implementation of the Gramscian strategy with regard to communications.
The current difficulty here is the internet, which is quite out of control, but once some well thought-out “anti-social behavior” and “hate-crime-speech” laws can be developed, they will eventually control the internet, as well. Do not think of this as a conspiracy – instead, it is a shared vision. The Greens and the left have both figured this out, and are working hard to make it happen.
rxc,
“Do not think of this as a conspiracy – instead, it is a shared vision.”
Which may explain why those within the institution don’t seem to register the distortion. But it isn’t difficult to find overt examples of bias. For instance, I remember Barbara Plett, the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, openly weeping over Yassir Arafat being airlifted to Paris, while gushing revoltingly over the man’s default victim status and his “ambivalence towards violence.” Or Justin Webb, the BBC’s Washington correspondent during the 2004 elections, saying, “[John] Kerry’s campaign was designed for a European, rational electorate – not Americans.” Or James Naughtie, a presenter of the hugely influential Today programme, blurting out, “If we win the election…” (“We” meaning Labour.)
But it isn’t any one example, however bizarre, that’s the problem. The slips betray attitudes. It’s the broader institutional culture that makes such episodes acceptable and their underlying assumptions normative. To hear the Today programme report positively on events in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the military, or almost anything regarding America or Israel, would be very nearly shocking. And one can easily become used to this. With prolonged exposure it becomes the “middle ground.”
David,
“With prolonged exposure it becomes the “middle ground.” ”
This is the Gramscian strategy – get your message out there, as often as possible, in as many places as possible, and make sure that it is picked up by the young, so that it eventually becomes part of the fabric of society. I think it could work for any philosophy, if the philosophy had a hook that appealed to a wide audience. Hell, this is what Christianity has been doing for 2000 years, promising “salvation” in the hearafter to people who have been living miserable existences. Now that we have widespread education you would think that people would see thru the BS, but modern “educators” avoid teaching the young to think critically about what they hear.
You have to be carefully taught, you know…
I’m puzzled why he thinks left-of-centre thinking is ‘idiosyncratic’. Perhaps he meant ‘idiotic’. Groupthink and sloganising are the hallmarks of left-of-centre thinking, not idiosyncracy.
BTW, is this the first recession in living memory where the BBC TV schedules aren’t packed full of dramas about the misery of the unemployed? Surely the BBC aren’t protecting Labour and saving them all up for when the Tories get in?
Wow. The Youtube link is a video for Suzanne Vega’s “Left of Center,” her hit with Joe Jackson from the ’80s. The lyrics, if they are available in your country, are here:
http://www.lyricstime.com/suzanne-vega-left-of-center-lyrics.html
The BBC may very well be a front for clandestine Marxists for all I know, but the phrase is completely unpolitical.
Franklin,
Thanks for that. However, now that you’ve smuggled Suzanne Vega lyrics into the country, I’m obliged to summon a constable.
Rob,
“…saving them all up for when the Tories get in?”
Oddly, despite the examples above, I don’t think of the BBC as being party political so much, even though it is to a significant extent. Publicly-funded organisations are usually influenced by the nature of their funding and will tend to favour whoever is most likely to maintain it. It’s no great surprise, then, to hear endless broad approval of public subsidy and a larger state. But on the whole when bias is apparent it seems to be more of a cultural thing.
To some extent, this is to be expected. A huge patrician, publicly-funded media organisation staffed by metropolitan media-arts graduates will tend to reflect the attitudes of the people it employs and the kinds of education and politics they share. This will tend to alienate those who diverge from the consensus one way or another, and so the cultural homogeneity is consolidated. As Andrew Marr once pointed out, the BBC’s funding sets a tone. Also, the BBC is felt to be a favourable place to work if you belong to a Designated Victim Group and the concerns of those groups (good or bad) will tend to become much more pronounced than in the population as a whole.
David,
“Also, the BBC is felt to be a favourable place to work if you belong to a Designated Victim Group and the concerns of those groups (good or bad) will tend to become much more pronounced than in the population as a whole. ”
This is why I refer to NPR as the “All guilt, all the time” network. They and the BBC are arguably the best constructed sources of information, but all that wailing and knashing-of-teeth gets tiring after a while. The only thing left to do is listen to music…
“All guilt, all the time.”
“This is the Gramscian strategy.”
Heh. Well, yes, the “Western guilt” meme is deployed quite a lot, almost like a reflex, but I don’t think there’s an organised Gramscian intent. Though regardless of intent there may be a Gramscian effect. If someone’s understanding of, say, Israel-Palestine comes from the BBC and the Guardian, there’s a good chance that understanding will be selective and tendentious. A large publicly-funded broadcaster will tend to favour the extension of public subsidy and a larger state. And when Radio 4 covers literary festivals and independent film directors, leftish sentiment is hard to avoid due to the leanings of the people who tend to be interviewed.
“And when Radio 4 covers literary festivals and independent film directors, leftish sentiment is hard to avoid due to the leanings of the people who tend to be interviewed.”
The problem is the leanings don’t get challenged when the people doing the interviewing have the same leanings.
James,
“The problem is the leanings don’t get challenged when the people doing the interviewing have the same leanings.”
Yes, and it’s especially noticeable in arts coverage, where these assumptions are most often just accepted as a given. When Radio 4 covered the Cheltenham Literary Festival and a ham-fisted anti-capitalist screed by DBC Pierre, nobody used the phrases “gravy train” or “sixth-form agitprop.” Apparently aesthetic and critical criteria can be suspended if the subject matter is of a favoured political stripe. Conceivably, it doesn’t occur to the interviewers that public subsidy is anything but an entitlement, even when what’s being subsidised is truly fucking awful.
Aren’t we in danger of overstating the significance of this? I mean, “the most important man in [UK] TV drama” seems to me to fall into the same category of damning-with-faint-praise as “the tallest building in Wichita, Kansas” (can’t remember who coined this analogy although it has a Buckleyesque feel to it).
I wouldn’t make too much of Stephenson’s comment, beyond its unfortunate connotations and the can it worms it opened. I just thought it was amusing given the BBC’s reputation. The leanings of the Beeb itself aren’t quite so funny.
More BBC ‘impartiality’.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100004661/anti-ukip-and-pro-green-the-bbc-at-its-most-blatantly-biased/