In 1968, Tony Benn launched an attack on the BBC and gave us a memorable quote. "Broadcasting is really too important to be left to the broadcaster." Benn went on to call for the establishment of "representative broadcasting" instead of that controlled by the "constitutional monarchs" at the BBC.
What Benn was referring to has long been and in truth always has been behind the media's conduct, namely the wielding of influence over the output. Arguably, there is no such thing as true freedom of the press (or wider media) and never can be. To offer another quote, that by A.J.Liebling, an American journalist who died 50 years ago: "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one". Even then, the freedom is subject to influence.
Interference, ideology, bias all collide in massaging the message, with influence bordering on being synonymous with interference and determining the ideology or bias. Yet, is this influence as strong as it once was? When Tony Benn was making his speech, communications media were limited. The internet has changed the rules of the game and has made the more overt use of influence in manipulating the messages of the conventional media subject to far greater scrutiny and potential ridicule.
Theoretically, the democratisation of information that has been enabled by the internet exposes the ways in which influence is brought to bear. This hasn't stopped the peddling of influence or the degree of interference, but because of the existence of a present-day media-savvy, cyber-connected public and bloggerati, this influence is shown up for what it is, to the extent that one wonders whether some of those who seek to wield influence really understand what world they are living in.
In Spain, there are some troubling examples of seeking to influence and of outright interference. They are so obvious that one is left to conclude that certain politicians are either ignorant of the changed rules or are perfectly well aware of them but choose to thumb their noses at them in acts of craven disregard.
The interference at the national broadcaster, RTVE, has already been chronicled. It has manifested itself in the sidelining of certain journalists and in the downgrading of importance attached to specific news items; these journalists and news items not being to the liking of the government. Last weekend, the Partido Popular government attempted to interfere with what was entitled "The Great Debate" on Telecinco. The debate was to be about the scandal that has erupted regarding the party's former treasurer. During the programme's broadcast, a text message was sent by the PP which made it clear that it was threatening to sue.
In effect, the party was looking to stifle the great debate, yet seemingly nothing that Telecinco raised wasn't already in the public domain. Crucially though, the scandal is massively important; it required debating, not neutering.
Once upon a time and under a former regime, such a debate couldn't have occurred and the public wouldn't have been aware of any alleged or actual corruption. The PP seems to be living in the past not just because it lumbered in with its heavy, censorious boots but also because it neglected the scrutinising other world of the media on the internet. It might want to take on the conventional media, but it only succeeds in web-viralising its actions.
If the PP nationally is engaged in overt attempts to influence or interfere, its regional wing in the Balearics is acting in an even more overt fashion. President Bauzá, likened by opposition parties to Berlusconi because of his rewriting of the law on political transparency, is taking the comparison further by acting like Berlusconi in controlling a television station. Or so it is being alleged. The charge has been made that the public IB3 channel is being manipulated by the director of Bauzá's cabinet, Javier Fons.
It has been suggested that certain organisations are in effect banned from IB3, and Fons has been vetoing the appearance of some individuals. He had previously prohibited one particular journalist from being involved in an interview. He is also said to have interfered with an interview with the president of the Fundación Kovacs, a research organisation that has clinics for the treatment of neck and back complaints. A grant of a million euros was one topic for the interview. President Bauzá is on the foundation's board.
Broadcasting may indeed be too important to be left to broadcasters. Faults they may have, influence they may be unable or unwilling to reject, but broadcasting is too important to be left to politicians in whose hands it becomes undemocratic. The PP would do well to understand this.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Showing posts with label Telecinco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telecinco. Show all posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Truth About Telly Rubbish
There is a term in Spanish which sums up television programmes that concentrate on the sensationalist and the scandalous. The term is "telebasura", literally telly rubbish. There are various shows on Spanish TV which have been accused of pumping out telly rubbish and there is one channel that is criticised more than any for this type of programming. It is Telecinco.
British television has telly rubbish. Under the Spanish definition, "The Truth About Magalluf" was one such example. In Spain, unlike Britain, telebasura is relatively recent, and Telecinco has been singled out for its development.
This has led to a debate as to what such television represents. In Spanish terms, this has been styled as distortion and even the undermining of democratic and civic values. It is against this background, one that is rather more high-minded (ironic, given the generally poor standards of Spanish broadcasting) than in Britain, that one has to consider the impact of "The Truth About Magalluf" in Mallorca and Spain. And it is having an impact.
The programme will now have been forgotten in Britain. In Spain, however, the programme hasn't been forgotten. Telecinco's Ana Rosa Quintana is just one member of the media who has picked up on it, a condensed version of some of the seamier aspects being packaged together as the basis for an investigation of reactions to the programme.
As part of this, Ana has unearthed her own little truth about Magalluf. Its nickname. Seemingly, she was unaware of Shagalluf and what it meant. This in itself is telling, as it suggests an ignorance about Magalluf. But there shouldn't be such ignorance. Another channel, Cuatro, ran a report on Magalluf last summer. This contained some similar scenes to the BBC documentary. The print media locally in Mallorca often reports on Magalluf's drunkenness, prostitution, balconing and violence.
Two reasons why "The Truth About Magalluf" have been given the prominence locally that it has are that it is indicative of a clash of broadcasting cultures and that there has been a lack of understanding regarding its actual broadcast in Britain. Much was made of its prime-time slot, but it was on BBC3. The programme attracted an audience of less than 3%, while it has to be seen in the context of what else was on that particular Monday evening. There were two, more sophisticated travel shows, but immediately after the BBC3 programme had finished, on Channel 4 there was "What Happens in Kavos". It had a far higher viewing audience, over 10%, while its content - urine-drinking contests, for example - was arguably more unpleasant than Stacey Dooley's.
The broadcasting culture of telebasura in Britain along with a high demand for travel programmes of differing types, a need for ratings and a need to fill so many channels all conspire to mean that one moment it's Magalluf, the next it's Kavos. But because there is so much telebasura in Britain and because the messages can be similar, the messages end up getting lost among the sheer weight of broadcasting noise.
Another aspect of this broadcasting culture clash reveals how naïve and disingenuous people in Mallorca can be. Even the sensible "Hosteltur" travel magazine, in reflecting on the BBC programme, misunderstood it, saying that it overlooked the positives of new developments in Magalluf. Well of course it overlooked them. Just what had people expected? They provided support to a programme without the slightest inkling as to how broadcasting culture now is, without appreciating that telebasura is widespread in Britain and even without, as Ana Rosa suggests, understanding that Magalluf is Shagalluf.
We learn that the mayor of Calvià was interviewed for 50 minutes, yet he featured only briefly. And? I'm sorry, but this is what programmes do. They get a lot of interview and then whittle it right down. It may suit their purposes as to how this edited material is used, but this is how it is. Among the reactions that Ana Rosa's show got was one from the president of the Acotur tourist businesses association who said he "could not understand the attack" on Magalluf. Oh come on, Pepe, it wasn't an attack, and how many of the tourist businesses in Magalluf that you represent contribute to the problems of Magalluf?
The naïveté, the disingenuousness and the lack of understanding of broadcasting culture and as to how programmes are made all deflect from what the real issue is. It is not one that the BBC invented. At least Ana Rosa does seem to get this. Perhaps it's because she is from a channel known for its telebasura. In challenging one of those interviewed in Magalluf, she said: "but the images were real; the truth".
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
British television has telly rubbish. Under the Spanish definition, "The Truth About Magalluf" was one such example. In Spain, unlike Britain, telebasura is relatively recent, and Telecinco has been singled out for its development.
This has led to a debate as to what such television represents. In Spanish terms, this has been styled as distortion and even the undermining of democratic and civic values. It is against this background, one that is rather more high-minded (ironic, given the generally poor standards of Spanish broadcasting) than in Britain, that one has to consider the impact of "The Truth About Magalluf" in Mallorca and Spain. And it is having an impact.
The programme will now have been forgotten in Britain. In Spain, however, the programme hasn't been forgotten. Telecinco's Ana Rosa Quintana is just one member of the media who has picked up on it, a condensed version of some of the seamier aspects being packaged together as the basis for an investigation of reactions to the programme.
As part of this, Ana has unearthed her own little truth about Magalluf. Its nickname. Seemingly, she was unaware of Shagalluf and what it meant. This in itself is telling, as it suggests an ignorance about Magalluf. But there shouldn't be such ignorance. Another channel, Cuatro, ran a report on Magalluf last summer. This contained some similar scenes to the BBC documentary. The print media locally in Mallorca often reports on Magalluf's drunkenness, prostitution, balconing and violence.
Two reasons why "The Truth About Magalluf" have been given the prominence locally that it has are that it is indicative of a clash of broadcasting cultures and that there has been a lack of understanding regarding its actual broadcast in Britain. Much was made of its prime-time slot, but it was on BBC3. The programme attracted an audience of less than 3%, while it has to be seen in the context of what else was on that particular Monday evening. There were two, more sophisticated travel shows, but immediately after the BBC3 programme had finished, on Channel 4 there was "What Happens in Kavos". It had a far higher viewing audience, over 10%, while its content - urine-drinking contests, for example - was arguably more unpleasant than Stacey Dooley's.
The broadcasting culture of telebasura in Britain along with a high demand for travel programmes of differing types, a need for ratings and a need to fill so many channels all conspire to mean that one moment it's Magalluf, the next it's Kavos. But because there is so much telebasura in Britain and because the messages can be similar, the messages end up getting lost among the sheer weight of broadcasting noise.
Another aspect of this broadcasting culture clash reveals how naïve and disingenuous people in Mallorca can be. Even the sensible "Hosteltur" travel magazine, in reflecting on the BBC programme, misunderstood it, saying that it overlooked the positives of new developments in Magalluf. Well of course it overlooked them. Just what had people expected? They provided support to a programme without the slightest inkling as to how broadcasting culture now is, without appreciating that telebasura is widespread in Britain and even without, as Ana Rosa suggests, understanding that Magalluf is Shagalluf.
We learn that the mayor of Calvià was interviewed for 50 minutes, yet he featured only briefly. And? I'm sorry, but this is what programmes do. They get a lot of interview and then whittle it right down. It may suit their purposes as to how this edited material is used, but this is how it is. Among the reactions that Ana Rosa's show got was one from the president of the Acotur tourist businesses association who said he "could not understand the attack" on Magalluf. Oh come on, Pepe, it wasn't an attack, and how many of the tourist businesses in Magalluf that you represent contribute to the problems of Magalluf?
The naïveté, the disingenuousness and the lack of understanding of broadcasting culture and as to how programmes are made all deflect from what the real issue is. It is not one that the BBC invented. At least Ana Rosa does seem to get this. Perhaps it's because she is from a channel known for its telebasura. In challenging one of those interviewed in Magalluf, she said: "but the images were real; the truth".
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
