This is not a Newham I recognise

Seriously it's not. That image is of Whitechapel Road in Tower Hamlets - the old Royal London Hospital building is prominent on the left. If this Daily Mail article can't even get the right borough (and it's far from alone in using this image), what hope accurate reporting?

Tonight BBC1 is broadcasting Last Whites of the East End about the white residents of my home borough Newham. This is the borough with the lowest proportion of "White British" residents (although they're still the largest single demographic) and has experienced a lot of population movement in the last fifteen years, with many moving out settling in boroughs further east. This is a subject that should be handled sensitively but I fear will instead spawn many kneejerk ignorant articles and posts.

So I'll just say one thing up front. I live just off Green Street (where Upton Park tube station is) and I have never thought I am in Baghdad or any other hypersensational comparison. The only time I have ever been scared around Green Street has been when West Ham were playing Millwall.

In a way the old Newham lives on in another form. It contains Stratford, which gave the last half of its name to "Walford". You can even find a real life street called Albert Square here (sadly no Queen Vic pub). And the E20 post code is now a reality, covering the Olympic Park in Stratford. But EastEnders doesn't remotely reflect modern life. It's an extension of a glamorised past projected forward, not some hidden corner.

I will be watching the documentary with interest to see how accurate a portrayal it gives or whether it sensationally plays with fire. I know I am far from the only person in Newham who wants to make sure the wider world sees an accurate portrayal.

Flashback: Ghostwatch

Next month sees the twentieth anniversary of one of the most controversial and scary television broadcasts in the history of the BBC - Ghostwatch.

For those who never saw it or have forgotten, Ghostwatch appeared to be a real life investigation of supernatural reports at a London house, hosted by Michael Parkinson and Mike Smith, with on the scene investigations presented by Sarah Greene and Craig Charles. A phoneline was set up on the standard BBC number of the day (081 811 8181) for viewers to call on with their own tales of ghostly experiences. One of the calls played into the studio told of the horrific tale of a past resident of the house. Then at the end of the broadcast chaos erupted as it seemed a poltergeist had taken over the studio, ending with Parkinson possessed.

Written like that one could wonder how anyone could be taken in. But many thought what they saw was real. The resulting furore saw the BBC tape of the show confined to a forbidden vault for ten years and it has never been repeated.

Now yes the show opened with a Screen One logo - but who pays attention to such logos and remembers which denote fiction only? And of course many tuned in after the opening moments so would have missed both that and the "Written by" credit. There may have been a cast list in the Radio Times but not everyone had a copy or paid attention if they did. Yes anyone who called the number and got through heard a message stating it was fiction, but most didn't phone and for others the lines jammed. And finally there may have been a warning on Ceefax (I don't know if there was or not) but how many would have switched over to check that? Plus many television sets in children's bedrooms didn't have text.

But more fundamentally the whole concept of the "mockumentary", made as though it's a real live as it happens occurrence with the realism of video cameras instead of the film used for most dramas, was a very novel concept back then. Through in some real life big name presenters, who in those days just did not do that sort of thing, and an interactive set-up and it's easy to see why it convinced so many.

I don't think the same trick could be pulled today. The internet would make it much harder to pull off. Users of Twitter itself during the transmission may be only a minority of the audience but word would spread both before and during, undermining any planned shock. Forums and text messages would also play their part in spreading the truth of what would happen. And there'd be a greater likelihood of a row before transmission that could be picked up on by the media. So less of the audience would be likely to assume the events were real.

But at the time many assumed Ghostwatch was real. Perhaps we at first thought the family occupying the house were faking and the BBC had been taken in, but that view was dispersed by the turn of events. Watching it at the time it was easy to be taken in and many were. I doubt such a phenomenon will ever happen again.

30.15 million did *not* watch EastEnders on Christmas Day 1986

Last night ITV ran TV's Biggest Blockbusters, looking at the most watched shows on British television in several categories. It was an interesting programme, particularly when it highlighted shows that are now completely forgotten (e.g. Oh No it's Selwyn Froggitt, Market in Honey Lane or Mrs Thursday) or showing which comedians were more popular - it's a shock to discover that Mike Yarwood got slightly more viewers than Morecambe and Wise at their height when you consider the coverage each has got since.

However they repeated at least one big error in compiling their list - the claim that on Christmas Day 1986 30.15 million watched EastEnders (and thus Den giving Angie divorce papers was the most watched drama of all time). This is repeating a common misunderstanding of how the viewing figures worked, and reflects the BBC boasting at the time.

The given figure actually combines the viewers on Christmas Day itself with those for the omnibus repeat the following Sunday. About 19.5 million actually watched on Christmas Day - still a very impressive figure but not as good for boasting and often the media (and TV's Biggest Blockbusters researchers) overlooked the distinction. This was despite the point being made at the time - Granada complained more than once when Coronation Street, which then didn't have a repeat, get more viewers than the first screening of EastEnders but the latter got written up as the "winner" of the ratings battle. It's a pity that these myths get trotted out all these years later.

What was the most watched drama of the 1980s? It was in fact a movie - the January 20th 1980 screening of Live and Let Die with 23.50 million viewers.

So how many of the other figures and chart places can be taken as accurate? It's hard to say because there are several problems with viewing figures, not least the lack of a single industry wide system before 1981 and ITV counting households rather than heads until 1977. There's a further problem that the recording systems haven't always been very good at catching crowd viewers in pubs, schools, workplaces, open air screens and the like and so the precise figures for some shows may be undercounted. This most obviously hits live events like sport and Royal Weddings, but further down the charts could also hit current affairs shows and documentaries that might attract group watching with special parties at people's homes or discussion groups. Discussing Question Time live with other viewers didn't begin with Twitter!

One of the best written intros to how figures have been calculated historically that I've seen is Corriepedia: Viewing Figures (and no, I've never been a Coronation Street fan). It also highlights that back in the 1960s and 1970s Christmas Day was often one of the worst days for soap viewing figures, and there was a period in the 1970s when Coronation Street would actually skip Christmas Day altogether! How times have changed.

And other than live events we'll probably never see such high viewing figures again. Not only are there far more channels now, but with many shows having multiple screenings in a week plus the growth of one hour later channels and programmes on demand, audiences are becoming ever more fagmented. Timeshifting through digital and video recorders is generally incorporated into the final viewing figures for a show but with so many other opportunities to watch a programme there isn't a huge audience all at once.

But there are still exceptions when an event is live. Invariably they're Royal events.

The Digital Switchover screw-up

London is currently undergoing the Digital Switchover. For several months now we have been bombarded with leaflets and posters telling us that analogue signals will be switched off and that we need to get digital decoders in order to continue watching television. So you'd think we've been overloaded with information and can easily find out everything we need to know.

Unfortunately in the midst of all this there has been a major information failure that has completely neglected two sections of the audience - those who've had digital television the longest and those who purchase second hand decoders, many of whom still use the earliest decoders. Many have reported that since the switchover began last Wednesday they have been unable to get the following channels:

• BBC One (although it's still available on analogue for another ten days)
• BBC Two
• BBC Three
• CBBC
• BBC News

(The other BBC channels are unaffected.)

There has been no end of stress and frustration as people keep trying to add to and reset their list of channels in the hope of recovering the channels to no avail. The Digital UK website is useless on this - if you follow through the FAQ the section on Missing channels or wrong news service? pretends that all will be well by retuning. The telephone helpline is even worse, with operators trying the classic stalling tactic of stalling callers in the hope they will go away.

Only when rooting around submitting a question on the website did I find Why am I missing certain channels following a retune of my digital recorder? and that doesn't really explain the situation or cover all equipment effected.

Basically the problem is that the digital signal is being upgraded in strength (from 2K to 8K), but some older equipment is unable to handle the stronger signal and needs either a software update or to be replaced altogether.

It sounds simple, but I was only able to find out the full cause of the problem thanks to Svelte Kroton on the Gallifrey Base forum who wrote the following post in reply to my enquiry on the matter:
(Warning: You'll need to be registered and logged in to read it)

The reason they're missing those channels is because they've changed from a 2k signal to an 8k signal.
Currently BBC4, BBC Parliament, CBeebies, and the BBC Radio channels are still on a 2k signal on MUX B.
But from the 18th the rest of the channels will also change to 8k.
If your decoder box is too old to understand 8k signals, which is what it sounds like, you'll lose all tv channels at that point.
Some transmitters will continue to broadcast some less important channels in 2k for up to 24 months after switchover, but this probably won't be any of the channels you actually want to watch.

All the money the BBC spent on telling people to get ready for digital switchover, and they completely neglected to get the message across that people who have been ready for switchover for years, are about to find themselves without telly.
Bit of a shambles, really.

Indeed - a right screw-up. Given the nature of the advertising, people who've had digital the longest naturally have every reason to assume they have been fully prepared for years, and had no reason to expect this debacle.

And since the BBC is at fault, would it be at all unreasonable for people to get some of the licence fee back for services unavailable when the BBC gave them every reason to think they wouldn't have a problem?

BNP vs protesters

I'm currently watching BBC News 24 showing the images outside BBC Television Centre as Nick Griffin arrives for tonight's Question Time complete with huge protests against this. And how does this look on television?

Well to be blunt Nick Griffin comes out better. He looks calm and reasonable, seeking to state his opinions and has accused the protesters of being organised by the Labour Party. The protesters look like a mob, with reports of a few arrests already.

Inviting Nick Griffin to be Question Time was always going to be a tricky matter. But the outrage, the protests and the huge publicity are just playing into the British National Party's hands. A large part of their message is that they are a party with "the truth" and "the answers" that "the mainstream political classes" don't want the people to hear. The reaction from both the protesters and some leading politicians only reinforces this.

But will we actually get a decent debate that exposes the BNP's woeful lack of policies? For instance will we hear their proposals on schools and hospitals? And will the other panelists be pulling them apart? Or will we get bogged down with just immigration and multi-culturalism whilst part of the audience tries to howl down Griffin, allowing him to evade being exposed whilst continuing to pose as a persecuted speaker of "the truth"?

University Challengegate Revisited

It seems either my memory was at fault or the information we were given was faulty, hence my previous post University Challengegate was wrong in my prediction. (BBC News: University quiz team disqualified) In fairness I wasn't the one who filled in the forms.

However I would note that I am not the only former entrant who was under this impression (see the comments on BBC News: BBC in University Challenge probe) and there is a general confusion on this matter. It doesn't help that for most universities (bar those with January/February entries) the period for University Challenge runs across two academic years, throwing up the problem of both prospective continuing students not coming back as planned but also other contestants failing their year in the summer exams, after the team has been entered. There was clearly no intention to break the rules here and it's unfortunate that the outcome has been as it is.

University Challengegate

Twice in the past I was part of teams entered for University Challenge; however we never got past the earliest stages. So I take the news that one of this year's winning team may not have been eligible (BBC News: BBC in University Challenge probe) with interest.

My memory from both entries is that the forms were filled in around about March/April time, then we went to the off-screen auditions in about May. The possibility that by the time the final was reached some of us may no longer have been students (whether due to graduation or failing the year) was there, especially as our enrolment was always for one year at a time (which in other spheres has resulted in the annoyance of having to renew some archive access cards every year). However we were always told that one had to be a student at the point of entry. As far as I am aware the rules have not changed since. There is probably nothing in this story beyond ill-informed journalists digging for scandals.

The real point of outrage about this year's University Challenge winning team is not the fact that one of the members has graduated since entering or Gail Trimble's knowledge but that Oxford and Cambridge are allowed to send multiple teams from the individual colleges, whereas other universities can only enter on a university wide basis. Ironically it was this year's runners' up, the University of Manchester, who famously protested this rule in 1975 when their team answered every question with either "Trotsky", "Lenin", "Karl Marx" or "Che Guevara". Here's to putting the universities on an equal footing.

So how old did Titian live to be?

After Gordon Brown's recent comments and the exchange at Prime Minister's Questions it seems the big political question is "How old was Titian when he died?"

At the end of PMQs Andrew Neil announced that his Art Editor has emailed to say Brown is right - because said editor had checked Wikipedia! And this is not the first time I've noticed the BBC relying on Wikipedia for research! Naturally an edit war is now beginning there - see this edit, this one and this one. And no doubt by the time you read this there will be more changes at the revision history.

Indeed as I type this I heard that Conservative Central Office and the Art Editor (again) have both contacted Andrew Neil to add to the debate. So will Titiangate run and run?!

Prince Harry - who cares?!

The Ten O'Clock News is "specially extended" tonight, because of the story about Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan. And my response is... why?

It's not as if this is that major a story. Harry isn't going to be King, that he's serving in the armed forces has been known about and he's not the first younger son to do so (Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands after all). That foreign media have broken the agreement on this is perhaps a news story, but we don't need endless reports about what Harry has been doing in Afghanistan. We know what our troops are doing there.

The media needs to get some perspective, especially when it comes to celebrities. Mind you the Harry coverage isn't as annoying as the endless stories about some person called Amy Winehouse who I'd never heard of before.

Kilfoyle vs Robinson

The war of words about the Speaker has taken a new twist with an interesting spat between Peter Kilfoyle MP and BBC political editor Nick Robinson. Yesterday Nick Robinson posted Theories on the Speaker which provoked Kilfoyle to table Early Day Motion 1037 which reads:

That this House deplores the innuendo of the blog of Nick Robinson, the BBC's lobby correspondent; calls upon him to substantiate the imputations he makes in his blog concerning the Speaker and hon. Members; and also calls upon the BBC to publish a full, itemised account of the expenses of Mr Robinson, in the name of transparency and accountability of public funds.

Now I agree that BBC journalists should be willing to publish their expenses, as ultimately the licence fee payer has a right to know how their money is spent, but it's interesting that MPs - so far 51 Labour and 1 Liberal Democrat have signed - are fast to react in an attack on the media and rather slower to take action about the Speaker. It is rapidly becoming the case that even the rats in Parliament know that Michael Martin is a dead man walking, yet no-one wants to do anything about it.

Nick Robinson's counter to the salvo is at I've caused a stir. Personally I think Nick Robinson will come out for the best in this. For the Early Day Motion has received the support of none other than The Backing Of Death himself, Lembit Öpik.

Is the BBC value for money?

Here are two classic clips courtesy of YouTube on this much discussed issue:

And here's a response from Spitting Image:

Now these were made twenty years ago - is the BBC still good quality today? And is the licence fee worth it?

What is "good" weather?

After heavy rain, London is currently experiencing what feels like one of the hottest Julys in my lifetime. Even at night it seems impossible to escape the heat, whilst in the daytime the sun beats down relentlessly.

And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of the way everyone is automatically assuming that this is somehow "good weather". TV weather forecasters are the worst - and the BBC should remember they are supposed to be unbiased.

For me sunshine doesn't bring a tan or joy. Instead it burns my skin - my hands are starting to look like a speckled lobster and if gets much worse they'll be physically painful on touch. The heat is also unbearable at times as anyone who's been on the tube this month can attest.

Why is this so universally considered "good" weather?

So when will Five be a channel for all?

The news came today that Five has secured the rights to Neighbours after the BBC pulled out of the negotiations. (BBC News: Five wins Neighbours soap fight) As I haven't watched Neighbours for years, I don't feel particularly strongly about this. But one concern I do have is that Five is still very difficult if not impossible to receive in many parts of the country.

Sticking to analogue for the moment (but yes I will come to digital further down), Five has always been very much the runt of the litter of the channels. A decade ago I found myself retuning numerous VCRs for relatives so that the new channel wouldn't interfere. Then came the launch and the picture quality we got in Epsom was atrocious. And we are very close to the Croydon transmitter. Often I could only get a viewable picture by boosting the signal through my VCR. Then in subsequent years the transmission got much worse and was often completely unviewable.

Even this was better than the situation in Canterbury, where I spent four years. Five isn't broadcast there at all, for various transmission reasons. This is true in many parts of the country, with the result that for a lot of viewers a programme or sport event moving from one of the other four channels to Five is as good as going off the air. (Remember the row over Robot Wars?)

Now one could no doubt argue that this is an inevitable part of the free market (although show me the person who has chosen to live where they do on the basis of Five being available, or for that matter who can foresee what will move onto it!) but let's be honest - in some areas (although imported soaps isn't one of them) there isn't a free market in broadcasting rights. The various preservation orders (especially on key sporting events) and broadcasting mandates are put in place because of the belief that certain things should be accessible to all (and also because of the idea that people have already paid once through the licence fee). Channels that are not accessible to all being able to obtain these rights sits oddly with this.

(Before anyone raises a point about S4C in Wales, I'll be honest in that I'm not very familiar with it - when I've seen television in Wales it's been coming off the West Midlands transmitters - but I would totally apply this to Channel 4 as well if it was broadcasting "national treasures" that weren't available in Wales.)

One could of course sweep aside the whole set-up of preservation orders, privatise the BBC (can I claim a guaranteed standing ovation at the next Conservative Party Conference? ;-) ) and move towards total free reign in broadcasting. That is a perfectly consistent position. But the current set-up strikes me as either inconsistent or else a hangover from the days before Five began.

Now as I mentioned earlier, digital arguably sweeps aside some of these concerns. Possibly. Most of the reasoning for keeping particular broadcasting rights for the analogue channels only transfers to the difference between Freeview and pay per view channels.

But there's another potential problem. I don't know if it's just me, but Five, and the related Five US and Five Life, are the channels I have by far the most problems getting anything remotely resembling a watchable picture and audio. And this has been a consistent problem despite numerous retunes and channel updates. So once again Five is inaccessible. Why is this company so bad at broadcasting, whatever the mechanism? Do they make no effort to actually get viewers?

Isn't Freema Agyeman fantastic?

I've just seen seen Smith and Jones, the first episode of the new season of Doctor Who. And already I think Freema Agyeman is fantastically cast as Martha Jones.

Otherwise the episode was a reasonable opener, though I suspect that once again the best of the season is yet to come. And is it me or did anyone else think the monsters were a resign of the Sontarans when they first saw them?

The UK's declaration of surrender in Europe

Caroline has posted a copy of an unofficial video to go with the UK's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest. (Caroline Hunt: Flying the Flag) Clearly the country wants to help the BBC by sparing it the cost of hosting the next Eurovision (remember what happened to RTE when Ireland kept winning?). So we've gone for a dead cert loser:

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation?

Okay I know what some of you are thinking. Members of both main parties (as well as most of the minor ones) criticise the BBC for bias at some point or another. But does that mean we should dismiss all such criticisms or give them consideration?

I remember a while ago when the BBC News website ran an "On This Day" piece about the introduction of the "right to buy" policy. (BBC On This Day: 20 December 1979: Council tenants will have 'right to buy') The "in context" section did not provide a balanced consideration of the impact of the policy but instead was a one sided listing of problems generated, with not a word about the social revolution the policy brought about or its popularity. A complaint elicited the following response:

I have re-read our report on the right-to-buy policy and looked again at the research in the light of your comments. You were quite right to point out that the In Context section of this particular story did not give any details about the take-up of the right-to-buy and therefore appeared rather one-sided.

The In Context section of this report has now been partly re-written and amended to give the story a more balanced perspective.

It seems others have not been so successful in raising concerns about BBC bias in current affairs reporting. Robin Aitken worked for the corporation for twenty-five years and describes some of the attitudes he encountered. (This Is London: What is the loneliest job in Britain? Being a Tory at the BBC) Highlights include:

But by the time I was appointed BBC Scotland's business and economics correspondent in 1981, I had doubts. The BBC in Scotland was deeply antagonistic towards the Conservative Government; our narrative was one of devastating industrial decline and Government heartlessness... But surely if BBC impartiality meant anything, we would have balanced our story by emphasising the growing banking, oil and electronics industries. Instead, we constantly lamented the closure of shipyards and fretted about the ailing Ravenscraig steelworks.
...
By the time I moved to London to work on the Money Programme in 1989, Thatcherite economics could no longer be dismissed: they worked. The Left's bitterness towards Thatcher, however, was undiminished. The real Britain was recovering, but inside the Money Programme offices it was a gloomy economic winter where every privatisation was doomed and government spending was ruthlessly cut to satisfy wicked monetarists.
...
John Major had little opportunity to enjoy his success; within months, Sterling was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism and his Government never recovered. The BBC mounted a barrage of negative coverage on everything from the NHS to sleaze. That was coupled with a devotion to the European ideal. I remember arguing with a senior editor about the Maastricht Treaty and saying it was an issue of democracy, not economics. He told me I was mad. As the 1997 Election approached, the Government was constantly on the defensive and the BBC was often happy to do Labour's Opposition work for it.
...
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?" At the end of the meeting a reporter from the BBC staff magazine Ariel asked for more details but warned me that "controversial" topics were often spiked. Sure enough, not a word appeared.
...
If the Metropolitan Police was "institutionally racist", I wrote, the BBC was "institutionally Leftist"... As one senior news presenter told me: "Anybody who attacks the Labour Government is always coming from the Left, and the Tories are written off as insane or - if there's the slightest chance of them getting anywhere - evil." ... What would the BBC have said if the Metropolitan Police, faced with accusations of racism, had held a brief internal inquiry that concluded that there was no problem?

Bias not only stifles public debate; it is destructive for the corporation, too. Adherence to a left-of-centre agenda brought the BBC to its biggest crisis in decades and one I witnessed at close quarters on Today.
...
In 2007, there is a solid consensus within the BBC on most issues of private morality and, in many cases, public policy. One presenter described the sense of superiority that working at the BBC confers on its staff. "It's the whole thing that 'we know best' and it's our responsibility to educate the poor unfortunates beneath us in how things should be."

Now I'm not going to deny the BBC has produced good quality programmes, because it has. Equally I'm not going to deny its international reputation, especially in countries with less independent media. But it is concerning that accusations of left-wing bias (and I mean "left-wing" not "pro Labour" - it's telling that criticism of Labour is made from the left) routinely surface and are glibly dismissed. These latest accusations are not those of some ranting party member, they are from a former BBC journalist of twenty-five years standing.

The charges of BBC bias aren't going to go away and already some are seeking to use them to reinforce their calls for an end to the licence fee and public service broadcasting. Such a move would be a pity - do we really want another Channel 5, only one was can all receive?