Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Does Life Begin at 40?

Tuesday 10 February 2004
Printable version

Speech given to the Royal Television Society at Bafta, Piccadilly, London

Μύ

I want to start off with a bit of an announcement. I am pleased to formally tell you that this will be the first public statement for some time from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ that does not include the word "sorry".

It's good to be here to mark Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO's 40th birthday.

40 is always a good age to take stock.

And I guess, given recent events, I've been feeling especially reflective.

Now some of the dust has started to settle on the Hutton Report, one big thing stands out for me:

Just how much passion the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ inspires.

Love it or hate it, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ really matters.

It's not just another broadcaster.

And that's what makes our lives at the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ so interesting sometimes.

Greg was someone who really understood this, which is part of the reason the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ staff were so passionate about him.

It was an extraordinary moment two weeks ago, seeing people lining the corridors to applaud him.

And Greg with his face all covered with lipstick. Almost enough to make you re-classify Richard Curtis as a realist writer.

It's also great to see to see even LWT millionaires have naff horoscope mugs.

The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ has been through a tough time.

But contrary to what some people would have you believe, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not in meltdown or mourning.

We're stronger than that.

We've lessons to learn and there are changes to make, but we've regained our balance and are moving forward.

The night of Greg's resignation we had a party for prizewinners: writers, directors, actors, presenters. There was a mood of shock, and everyone's first sentence was about Greg.

However, everyone's second sentence to me and the genre commissioners was, "Now, you remember that project of mine you were interested in Β…"

Life does go onΒ…

So I don't intend to go against billing and talk about Hutton.
I want to look forward as well as back.

And, in particular, to tell you about my hopes and ambitions for Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO as part of a strong, creative, independent Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.

Throughout much of its history, there have been those who've argued for a narrow Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ - a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ which is staid, safe and predictable.

Charter review will no doubt see such views surfacing again.

We've never seen ourselves that like.

Right from the beginning, we've always sought to be a broad -caster in every sense of the wordΒ….

Bringing, as Reith put it, "the best of everything to the greatest number of homes."

And Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO is an important part of that vision.

It is a channel that really means something special to people.

It's got a creative community who gives their very, very best.

It's got passionate viewers, who really love and cherish the channel.

Change something which they don't agree with and there's no holding them back.

And I really love them for it.

And that's coming from a woman who inherited the decision to ditch One Man and His Dog a few weeks into the job.

It was an interesting Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ moment to hear rumours of a march of shepherds plus dogs on TV centre.

But although there's been lots of change - and will be more - the thing that stands out is how much of the original DNA still runs through the channel's veins.

There's Horizon, still going strong, 40 years old itself this autumn.

Newsnight, created in 1980, was itself the successor to the Newsroom, the first news programme in colour.

Watch out for Newsnight's 90 minute peak time special with Jeremy Paxman on the origins of the war in Iraq, coming next month.

And, we might be counting chickens, but I think our trilogy next week can hold it's head up alongside really classic pieces of historical drama.

It's this continuity of spirit that has helped keep Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO strong.

But where did that spirit spring from?

Delve back into the pre-natal phase of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO and you find an intense debate about what the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ's second channel could and should be.

This was the early Sixties: a thrilling time socially, creatively and technologically. It was the era of protest movements, great British pop music and space exploration.

And in television there was a huge technological opportunity: the possibility of much higher quality tv sets.

And incredibly exciting, colour was in the wings, too.

But there were worries as well.

The Government was concerned about American technology dominating colour tv - They wanted the British industry to compete.

It was a moment of technological possibility.

Underpinned by a Government which believed it had a lot to gain from the population upgrading their tv sets. Sound familiar?

A second Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ channel was the answer.

So what should this new channel be?

There were two distinct, and vastly conflicting, schools of thought - one argued for a quiet, almost "embalmed" channel and the other for a big, bold investment.

A strong backbench Labour lobby called for essentially a further education channel.

This was popular with ITV operators, who could see it would be less competitive. Some also hoped it might get them out of what one called their "more unwelcome responsibilities".

This was a pivotal moment.

Should the newest addition to television be a driven by a narrow, restrictive view of public service?

Or was now the time to see just what the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ could do?

Hugh Carleton Greene, a visionary Director-General from another era, didn't want a quiet, careful channel of limited budget and ambition.

His vision for Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO was daring.

It included entertainment, drama and regional programmes, as well as educational material "in the widest sense of the word" as he put it.

I, and I suspect every channel controller that has both preceded me - and will follow me - are glad he won the day.

For now, the course was set to do something with vigour, range and energy.

At first critics jeered at its low audience figures - I'm sure Roly and Stuart can empathize.

But under second controller, David Attenborough, the young Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO started to flourish.

New sports programme like Match of the Day - yes it started on TWO - and snooker - helping to show off the joys of colour - built audiences.

Popular comedy, such as The Likely Lads, built affection.

And the big documentaries like The Great War started to win awards.

People began to really love the channel.

We can all thank David for a vision for Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO which is a potent today as it was then.

As David put it, this was a channel for "all levels of brow".

"Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO," he said "is not a minority service but a service which appeals to the majority of viewers, though not all at the same time."

And he was right.

Ever since then Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO has appealed to constellations of different viewers, collected around different passions, from satire to gardening, science to sport.

And it's also always been public service at its very core, popular and bold.

All this seems a far cry from the arguments some people are making about public service television now.

Read between the lines and they want a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ that is -

timid, small and underfunded;

shrunk in ambition and lacking in impact;

appealing to those already in the know.

Funnily enough, not unlike the service those MPs and ITV honchoes argued for back in the Sixties.

That's the one you can find in most of the rest of the world - where it exists at all.

A polite, almost embalmed public service.

Make no mistake - these ideas of PSB leave little room for a channel like Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO...

With boldness and ambition at its very core.

- Series like History of Britain and Seven Wonders of the Industrial World: expensive, risky ideas;

- individual, personal voices like Stephen Poliakoff and Adam Curtis;

- all alongside comedy like The Office.

Yes, I do believe The Office is public service programming.

I'm biased, but I think that Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO has the best record of new comedy of any channel in Britain.

Over and over again in the past 40 years it's captured the zeitgeist.

It did it with Not Only But Also under Attenborough in the Sixties;

Not the Nine O'Clock News in the Seventies under Brian Wenham;

Alan Yentob nurtured Ab Fab in the Eighties;

Michael Jackson gave us Alan Partridge;

And in the Nineties it was The Royle Family for Mark Thompson.

Since then I've been lucky enough to get Marion and Geoff, the Kumars at No 42 and The Office.

Of course, these are the ones that work.

We forget the rest.

All those laugh out loud jokes which somehow get lost on the way to the screen.

Those tumbleweed viewings where no-one cracks a single smile at the rough cut. And then everyone remembers they have to be somewhere else.

Current figures suggest that four out of five new comedies struggle.

As a broadcasting culture we're pretty forgiving of experimentation in documentaries and arts programmes.

But there's few second chances for comedy.

Creating breakthrough new comedy requires real bravery: people with individual voices putting themselves on the line.

Legend has it that Caroline Aherne hated the pilot for the Royle Family so much she buried it in her garden.

Comedy is expensive too.

The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ spent Β£81 million on this riskiest of genres last year.

Hardly surprising, then, that commercial channels aren't exactly queuing up to have a go.

It's a classic example of market failure.

But it falls outside some definitions of public service.

This for me is a real worry.

In attempting to define Public Service Broadcasting, we risk creating a club into which only some programmes are admitted.

We rejected those narrow definitions back in the Sixties, at the beginning of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO, and we should reject them today.

The polite, embalmed vision of public service would have no room for a new kind of current affairs strand we are calling IF, either.

You'll see it next month.

The challenge - straight from Greg himself, I have to say - was to find a way of moving beyond the daily news agenda.

We wanted to look at the complex truths behind things like energy policy, health and the ageing society.

Could we ask the questions that will be front page in ten years time? Discuss things that aren't yet on the audience's - or sometimes even Westminster's - radar?

But how to do it?

The obvious way is a studio debate.

But, we wanted more than that.

We hoped to make a wide cross section of people engage with the issues.

And we were determined that this programme would go out at 9.00pm, right in the heart of the schedule.

IF does have interviews with the world's leading policy makers and academics.

But these sit alongside ambitious dramatisations of future scenarios, agreed as credible by major players in each field.

We're hoping to build on the innovation of drama documentaries like Smallpox, something we were really proud of.

I hope IF works. It's certainly not without risk.

But I'm glad we rejected easier, less ambitious options in favour of something which strives to really engage people.

We can do this on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO thanks to the decision-makers back in the Sixties.

Because of them we ended up with a channel that has real scale and is willing to take the risks others will not.

It can afford to have a big wish list of things it wants to accomplish.

Top of the list right now for Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Television, led by Jana Bennett, is a revolution in cultural journalism.

Jana, Alan Yentob, Roly Keating, Mark Harrison and I have all been talking to cultural communities across the UK.

The message that has been coming back is to carry on doing inventive arts landmarks, like the upcoming series on Mozart or - my personal favourite - the Eroica drama documentary.

And they want more projects like Restoration and Big Read: television which reaches out and aims to make things happen in the world.

But they told us there was also great opportunity to bring journalism to the world of culture.

We listened. And Jana found the Β£6 million worth of new money it needed...

And so, from later this year, on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO you'll see an hour long weekly programme, with the working title The Culture Show.

It'll be on for the majority of the year, covering everything from the Elgin marbles to Hollywood's summer crisis of creativity.

We're still discussing the schedule, but we're thinking early evening during the week with a late night repeat. Newsnight Review stays on Fridays.

The programme will be made throughout the UK. When we say Britain, this time, it really isn't code for Shepherds Bush...

In some ways this is going back to my first love. When we started Wall to Wall, the company I helped to run for 10 years, it was in order to make Channel 4's The Media Show.

This time, however I'll be working with Roly Keating: back then, as editor of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO's The Late Show, he was my biggest competitor.

Now, TWO and FOUR are companion channels, working together.

We'll both benefit from the new arts journalism unit being set up to make a new raft of programmes, The Culture Show amongst them: watch out for an advertisement for an editor in the next few weeks.

Back in the Sixties, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO was born out of editorial ambition married to technological creativity: in today's world it would be mad to just think of television on its own without new media.

So we will have links into a big new online site that Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔi is creating alongside the new unit.

It's a huge investment from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO's programme, never mind the whole unit, is our biggest new cultural programme for 10 years.

I know exactly what I want it to be: something challenging, that will open doors that people didn't know were there.

I also hope it will spark debate and make a few headlines, and have style, wit and pace.

When I commission a programme, I'm trying to serve the audience and support creative risk-taking from programme makers.

The programme team and I will know if the finished result matches up to our aspirations.

But I have to realistic.

Reviewers will have their views.

And the industry will look at the overnights, as will the producers, even if I tell them not to.

By mid-morning the next day they'll be up there on the Guardian website.

They might even find their way into that nifty little box in the broadsheet. It's usually a few pages away from the editorial complaining we're all share obsessed...

Share is a fact of life.

People talked about figures back in 1964, when Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO was born, and people will continue to talk about them.

Measurement is here to stay, whether I like it or not. But share is a dull and leaden instrument, just showing whether you are there, not whether you care.

But as an industry could we be more sophisticated about it?

Could it help us get closer to understanding what people really feel about the programmes we make? What moves, excites, provokes, disturbs them?

Last summer on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO we showed a late night programme about astronomy, working with the Open University.

Not that many people watched it, no-one reviewed it - it was the middle of the night - but those who did see it were really passionate about it.

It got the highest AI score of the week.

The AI, the audience appreciation index, tells us the extent to which people value the programmes they watch. Not just that they are in the room.

I once worked on a programme for Channel 4 where we put camera inside people's tv to see what they actually did in front of them. Some of them were gripped - but others played the saxophone, vacuum cleaned the floor or had sex on the sofa.

The AIs measure how much people care, but they are far from perfect.

It takes over two weeks to get the data: no way to compete with the quick fix of the overnights.

And right now even their funding is under threat.

So I've a suggestion to make.

At a time when understanding our audience's attitude to programmes should be more important than ever, I think it's time to try to create a new kind of measure.

Think of it as a more intelligent son or daughter to the AIs, which will help us get closer to our audiences, and tell us quickly what really has impact for them - what they think, feel and care about.

Is this a tool we should all work with Ofcom on to develop?

Something which could challenge the dominance of the overnights throughout our industry.

Of course, no measurement tool is ever going to replace judgement and creativity, and nor should it.

As commissioners, we have a responsibility to surprise audiences with the new and the unexpected.

And to support and encourage what I believe are amongst the most creative programme makers in the world.

This is the heart of what Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO does.

We're committed to range and ambition.

Backing producers with ideas to develop, and new things to say, whatever genre they work in.

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO is a channel with a big role to play in the future of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and of tv in this country.

Because we're putting bold, impactful public service right into the heart of television, holding onto scale and ambition.

If the 40-year history of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO has taught us anything, it's that we should reject narrow notions of Public Service Broadcasting.

We should choose broad over niche.

Bold over meek.

Alive over embalmed.

Back in the early Sixties, television in this country stood at the dawn of one of its most creative and successful periods.

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO was a child of that era, fuelled by a desire to discover just what tv was capable of.

Forty years on, we're firmly into another era - this time a digital one.

Just think what the pioneers of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO would have done with online and interactive. I believe we've only just started.

Our challenge, on behalf of viewers and this industry, is to match their vision and ambition. To keep the vital continuity with the past going: but to look to the future as well.

To do this we need Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO to be part of a strong, well funded Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.

Only then will we be able to really push the boundaries of what is possible.

Given its head today - just as it was back in the Sixties - Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO can lead the way.

It can make the impossible possible.

That's the kind of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO I believe in.

Brave, bold and not afraid to have fun.

They say life begins at 40 - well let me tell you, the best is yet to come.

Thank you.

SPEECHES BY YEAR: