MEDIA STUDIES
Why digital television will be a bit like W.H. Smith
STEPHEN GLOVER
Last week the reality came one step clos- er when the Independent Television Com- mission awarded a licence to run Britain's first digital television network. It went to a consortium called British Digital Broad- casting, comprising Carlton and Granada, the two largest ITV companies. BDB will offer 12 new free channels and three paid- for channels. BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and a new BBC 24-hour news channel will also be available on digital ter- restrial television.
BDB's successful bid was made without BSkyB, which Rupert Murdoch controls. BSkyB had been part of the consortium, but was required to drop out at the last minute by the Independent Television Commission lest it become too dominant a force. This might appear to be a setback for Mr Murdoch. But BSkyB is supplying three paid-for channels, including Sky Sports, in the new BDB package. It is also involved in developing the £200 black box. In the jargon of modern television, BSkyB is a programme supplier, and it matters lit- tle to the company that it is not part of BDB so long as it can provide much of the programming.
Terrestrial digital television is only one part of the story. There is also digital satel- lite, which will unleash over 200 channels. (BSkyB will be a leading provider here too.) To receive digital satellite you will need the same black box, as well as a dish on your roof. You will also be able to get video on demand. The selection of programmes will be bewilderingly large. Even the BBC is getting in on the act, offering six new chan- nels, some of which will also be available on terrestrial digital television. I'm not at all sure that the BBC should be involving itself in this maelstrom of new channels. For one thing, its new 24-hour news service has diverted funds from the already hard- pressed news and current affairs budget.
The prospect of well over 200 channels invokes Kingsley Amis's judgment that more will mean worse. At first sight it seems an irresistible contention. Even Channel 5 — one solitary new channel launched a few months ago — has trouble filling the air- waves with worthwhile material. Occasion- ally I flick over to the new channel only to find a group of obscure and not noticeably articulate people chatting away about noth- ing in particular. The conversation down at the Rose and Crown is probably twice as gripping. If Channel 5 with its not inconsid- erable resources has such difficulty in mak- ing interesting programmes, it hardly seems sensible to imagine that dozens of new pro- gramme-makers, most of them with much lower budgets, will do any better.
But there is another way of looking at the explosion in the number of channels. Until recently, most of us were limited to four of them. We sometimes find ourselves watch- ing programmes which we are willing to watch but which we do not necessarily want to watch very much. It is as though there were only four newspapers and magazines available to us in the whole world. Not one of the three or four old channels was specifically made for us in the way that a newspaper or magazine, such as The Spec- tator perhaps, may seem perfectly tailored to our needs. The range of traditional tele- vision is broad and all-inclusive.
It is possible that digital television will enable each of us to find more of what we want. Or, to put it another way, there will be less need to watch what we don't partic- ularly want to watch. No doubt there will be a very great deal of rubbish on show. In fact, most of it will undoubtedly be rubbish as we would define it. I expect there will be many more new bad programmes than new good ones. The experience of digital televi- sion will be rather like walking into W.H.
Let me do the talking.' Smith and being confronted by a vast selec- tion of publications about subjects ranging from sex to sewing and from current affairs to gardening.
The discerning viewer will be like the knowledgable reader in W.H. Smith, able to pick his way among the rubbish and find whatever niche particularly appeals. The main trouble is that not all readers are dis- cerning. Children in particular may find themselves drawn towards programmes they had better not watch. It will be diffi- cult to exert much control over their 'surf- ing' through 200 channels. Channel 5 is already showing programmes during the day that previously would have been judged unsuitable for children. The minds of the young and halfwitted may be at best rotted and at worst corrupted by this deluge of unregulated images.
In a curious way television itself may suf- fer too. In the old days the country could gather around Morecombe and Wise or even Panorama and talk about it the following day. Such programmes had enormous influ- ence. They were part of a shared national life. Digital television promises a future in which the medium itself becomes generally more powerful but specifically less influen- tial. No programme among thousands on more than 200 channels is going to have the impact that a single programme could when there was only BBC 1, BBC 2 and ITV. That's another price that is going to be paid for having so much choice.
Representations have been made to me that my passing comments about the Observer's foreign news coverage may have been somewhat harsh in my column about that newspaper two weeks ago. I said that there seemed to be a preponderance of human interest stories and little evidence of the old high-mindedness that distin- guished David Astor's Observer. Now it is asserted that the paper is positively bulging with worthy foreign stories. Two weeks ago there was a long piece about torture in Somalia. This last Sunday there was an excellent article about Hong Kong by that old Observer hand, Peter Hillmore. So it goes on. The point is taken, but I still believe it was a mistake to do away with the foreign pages and incorporate all interna- tional news on the news pages. It conveys a sense that foreign news has been down- graded, even if it has not been.
Previous page
