Ghostwatch - 25 years on

Tonight is the twenty-fifth anniversary of one of the most notorious of all BBC broadcasts - Ghostwatch. To a casual viewer it looked like a live investigation of alleged paranormal activities, completely with a Crimewatch style studio of presenters and a live phone in. It was fronted by known presenters Michael Parkinson, Mike Smith, Sarah Greene and Craig Charles, along with an academic expert. It even questioned whether the events were a hoax. But over the course of the night things got odder and odder, culminating in the realisation a mass seance had unleashed a poltergeist across the whole country. It ended with the outside broadcast going chaotic, Sarah Greene seemingly dying, the studio collapsing into darkness and Michael Parkinson possessed.

Ghostwatch was in fact a fiction. But it presented itself in the style of reality television, complete with faces known mostly for presenting rather than acting (with the possible exception of Craig Charles), and seemed real. And the giveaways that it wasn't were easy to miss. The BBC subsequently protested that there was a cast list in the Radio Times but this was a year after the deregulation of TV listings that made the magazine less widespread (and in any case it had never had a 100% circulation). There was a caption at the start of the show but many missed this or tuned in after the start. The slot it was broadcast in normally contained drama - but few viewers either followed the schedule in such detail or would have made the connection given the special nature of the night. Not everybody called the telephone number given (which was the standard BBC number - 081 811 8181 - used on real shows like Going Live and Crimewatch). And there were no EPGs then to automatically display information when turning on or over, whilst many television sets, especially bedroom ones, did not have Ceefax.

Did I think it was real? To be honest - sort of yes. At first it seemed as though the family at the house were fooling the BBC and the nation and this double-bluff did convince many. But towards the end things went off the rails and I think it was my sister who realised this was all a fantasy. It's easy to see why so many believed this was a genuine thing and caused such an upcry.

So a lot of people were taken in and there was uproar on a scale not seen perhaps since Orson Welles's adaptation of The War of the Worlds (which was also broadcast at Halloween). For many years the tape of Ghostwatch was confined to a restricted part of the BBC archive, to never be seen again, though they've since relaxed and it's now available on DVD. But it remains unrepeated on British television.

For a whole generation it remains one of the strangest things they've ever seen broadcast. And some rewatch it on cue - tonight look out for #Ghostwatch on Twitter as many replay it at the exact anniversary.

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.

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?

Never again!

For those who aren't watching the BBC News coverage of the election results you have been lucky to escape one of the most hideous pieces of television I've ever seen, making even the numerous entries by Richard Madeley seem bearable.

Jeremy Vine dressed as a cowboy with a Texan accent telling us how Calamity Clegg is doing compared to his predecessors, by shooting cans of whatever can get 30 in. Even by the standards of funny BBC night election graphics this sinks to new lows.

Ashes to Ashes

I've just seen the first episode of Ashes to Ashes, the much vaunted sequel to Life on Mars. Some thoughts from while watching it:

• The opening sequence with the gunman by the Thames sees yet another appearance on television for my old school, the City of London School. Why did I never see television cameras when I was there?
  
  
• Has Alex been hit or missed?
  
  
• Alex Drake's outfit when she comes to in 1981 has to be seen to be believed. I can't remember 1981 - was it really like this?
  
  
• Gene Hunt's shoes! Did people really wear those?
  
  
• Gene, Ray and Chris are back and just the same, although Gene's got a new coat and car.
  
  
• In the police station there's at least two black policemen - will there be conflict over racial attitudes?
  
  
• Quite an introduction for the men!
  
  
• Ah Zippy and George! Who of my generation doesn't have fond memories of Rainbow?
  
  
• Alex finds herself in a world she thinks she understands but is it what she imagines?
  
  
• Gene seems uneasy with "modern" policing - is he as out of place as others?
  
  
• Alex is quite open about her situation - will this cause her problems in the station?
  
  
• Zippy and George in the police station - quite a surreal sequence!
  
  
• And is it me or has Roy Skelton provided their voices?
  
  
• The clown is quite scarey!
  
  
• Shadwell is quite close to QMUL but I don't immediately recognise the railway arches seen.
  
  
• Sam Tyler lived in the past for seven years before drowning - or is he still alive somewhere?
  
  
• When Alex walks into the restaurant why do I immediately think of Bergerac?
  
  
• Gene knows that the knives are out for his type of his policing - will he act on borrowed time?
  
  
• We're getting scenes that Alex isn't actually present for, something not done on Life on Mars - is this a sign that this really is 1981? Come to think of it, when in the present day Layton remembered Alex's mother, was he actually remembering Alex herself?
  
  
• "I'm The A-Team." It hadn't started in 1981, had it?
  
  
• What would happen if Layton died? A wake-up, a paradox or what?
  
  
• Alex thinks she's done what it takes to get home, but is it that simple?
  
  
• Even Alex found Gene's cavalry boat ride to be over the top!
  
  
• Have Alex's parents already died yet? Or will we meet them soon?

The trailer for next week - and Alex's mother is alive...

All in all a good start to the series, showing it's very much a different beast and not just a rehashing of its predecessor. I'll keep on watching...

Strange coincidence

I've just turned on the TV to find a rerun of Little Britain with a scene where the Prime Minister is under pressure over a scandal involving huge donations to his party. Coincidence or what?!

Mind you Sebastian Love was meant to be a parody of Peter Mandelson. I can't think of an obvious present day equivalent, even if Harriet Harman seems to be routinely appointed to office despite being in an equally untenable position.

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?