Mainstream TV not appreciated by the non-Mainstream

I'm a little surprised at the reaction to Ofcom's report about Ethnic Minorities , which stated that they were not watching that much that much mainstream TV. What did they expect?

Ofcom: teaching the industry to suck eggs.

British shows both on terrestrial TV and on all the major digital services are very much aimed at attracting a mass audience and therefore pandering to that mass audience. Drama especially is full of middle-class, middle England English people with suburban preoccupations and limited outlooks. Anyone spot a character who didn't look like they lived in a nice house in Esher on ITV's Primeval ? In fact their idea of ethnic was a having one Scottish actor to break up the casting (OK, I actually liked that show).

I remember the days when we use to bitch about American TV being flat and insipid, but now I'm the one that doesn't really watch ITV1 and its wealth of home-produced look-a-like, cast-a-like, bland-a-like shows.

Ultimately, why should we expect people to feel involved in a show that has no relevance to them... and I'm not just talking Afro-Caribbeans or South Asians. The same lack of emotional involvement historically affect lost of those outside the mainstream, be they gay, disabled, in non-traditional relationships, living in closed cultural communities, geeks and even Social Network obsessed youth and urbanites etc. You always feel more involved in stories where you're own realities, aspirations and fears are reflected back at you. Who would think otherwise?

I wanted to make 2 points to finish. Firstly, this will always be an issue (especially at PSBs) as long as so many people in TV come from such a narrow strata of society: Those who can afford to do what it takes to get a break in TV; those who talk with the right kind of talk (BBC and Oxbridge domination anyone?); those who are willing to deal the inherent instability of an industry that has become so casualised in terms of staffing.

Secondly, just as some people like Horror, some romance, some sexy shows and some gardening programmes - is there an issue with a vibrant market in niche channels? Of course social cohesion in society is of the utmost importance, and Public Service Broadcasters should absolutely make sure their content reflects society. This is especially true of reflecting life in the major urban areas where minorities congregate and troubles flair. That said, audiences with non-mainstream tastes will always demand more content relevant to them, and more content that really pushes their buttons not just acknowledge their existence.

So, bring on BET, Logo, the Cyclist channel, Wedding TV, Sony Entertainment et al. Let that niche and ethnic content flourish and feed back into the mainstream.

PS - I should add that I do fall slightly out of the mainstream, what with my choice of partners and whilst I'm a Londoner born and bred - that also means English was the second language and second culture I had to learn, Polish being the first.

Related to this thread, in my next post I'll be looking at shake out in UK channels and take a look at where content and brands, especially niche ones might be going.

TV's Little White Lies

There's been a lot of chat about 'honesty' in UK TV recently after the scandal involving certain Participation TV players, some of whom to be frank were conning people out of money in a manner reminiscent of street con-men doing the three card trick. I definitely got some dirty looks when I was involved with gambling on TV, but at least with that every pound you gave us, was a pound that was genuinely placed as a bet, with the chance of a return advertised (the odds).

But today I want to talk about a slightly different kind of honesty, the little white lies that Producers tell via voice overs and edits in Factual TV. The little white lies used to tell a story clearly, to add drama, to make a show exciting to watch. Its the kind of fuzzy little lies that any Producer or researcher involved in factual or reality will have done a thousand times.

Last night I watched the finals of the UK's latest series of The Apprentice. What struck me throughout the show we had a constant voice over mentions along the lines of 'it's the 12th week', 'at the end of this week Sir Alan makes his choice', 'the final week', tonight they present', 'tomorrow Sir Alan chooses'.

That's perfectly normal on TV, I get that if you start quoting time-lines via the shooting schedule you'll just confuse the viewer. But in this case it came across as ridiculous, an untruthful, I was being lied to.

Unlike may other shows, this one was different - it's been on the front pages of The Sun and The Mirror, it's been discussed in The Independent and The Guardian. If you're in the UK and have any kind of awareness of the media not only do you know about Katie, the married man and naked countryside romps, you also know the well discussed fact that Sir Alan in fact had the 2 finalists on his employ for 6 months before he made his choice.

It makes The Apprentice look ridiculous, and eats away at the trust an audience has for what TV tells us is 'real'. Manipulate away on Big Brother, we all know that happens and there is no real pretence. But don't tell me on TV that I'm looking at the colour blue when I know from my morning paper, my web news feeds that what I'm seeing is the colour red.

Just as the internet is helping hold politicians to account, making Corporate giants acts a little more truthfully, isn't it time the 'Reality' Production industry took a look at how it edits, plans it's narratives and writes its voice overs.

This isn't the easy option, it might mean a lot more work. It might even mean that its much, much harder to make that impact that a hot show needs.

However, if the downside is loosing your audience, or more accurately never gaining that younger audience that is used to truth and challenging corporate facts and fingers, well doesn't that make it worth at least stopping and thinking about those little white lies we tell without thinking.