Censoring of older material in a modern age...
A subject that I may very well return to.
At the end of what I say I'm not sure that I'll be able to offer a solution.
Some of my fellow bloggers/messageboarders that access UK broadcasting may be familar with the following story. I state the facts as I believe them to be and am ready to ammend or remove my post.
It came to my attention that two editions of a radio comedy series classed by many as a classic and being rebroadcast had been pulled. We're talking of a series that is around 38 years old. Various pieces of information put into the public domain suggest that they were dropped because in the present time certain words/terms used may be upsetting/unacceptable. Well, in this case it was because the programmes were deemed racist.
Many listening to the station want to hear the programmes as they were and are of the opinion that they are a social document of the time and perhaps to please those who are politically correct maybe an announcement at the start or end of the show could say that these programmes were broadcast when certain views were different/acceptable.
Its been done on other programmes.
Its a slippery slope to go down, but some parts could be edited to make them acceptable.
Did you know that a couple of words have been snipped out of or substituted already in Only Fools and Horses and Fawlty Towers?
A listener decided to ask what the BBC's policy is regarding the rebroadcasting of archive material. Resulting in a feature appearing on Feedback where the public can quiz those who make and broadcast programmes.
I'm not sure that an adequate answer was given but the outcome was that one of the dropped episodes is to be re-instated at a later date(and the reason given for it being pulled)is now something on the lines that it originally would've aired at the time of the natural disaster in New Orleans where Hurricaine Katrina hit and part of the programme was set in that location and they were all talking with a Southern US accent. If anything it was a parody of the kind of films we've all seen about that area and the jazz music associated with that state.
OK...if it now gets replayed at a later date avoiding distress associated with that event(if that was the reason)but would it have aired again, had that listener not managed to get a response from the broadcaster.
The second has a couple of minor jokes that to call them racist actually makes them worse than they really are and compared to alot of material going out today are nothing at all. However, as its also been admitted that some material is edited I sat down with an original copy of the offending programme and with some editing I reckon all that would be lost would be 30 seconds at the most. One joke lasted around 6 seconds. Yet the whole show is now banned. The edits do if made do not affect the story.
The background of this particular programme is that its a parody of those British books/films of years ago where the British explorer/adventurer goes into the Jungle or some such location looking for some long lost treasure and usually ends up in battle with the natives. But as written the British being portrayed actually come out of it looking pretty stupid.
Is this ban because of the reaction that they think they'll get from some pressure group/listener/regulatory body resulting in a severe ticking off or a fine? Or because they do not wish to offend a certain section of society now part of the fabric of UK life? Is it because all stations can now be heard across the world and not just in the country of origin. I know years ago BBC programmes were edited so references to incidents that only a domestic audience would understand so when sold to another broadcaster in say Australia they'd not be puzzled because something did not make sense.
There have always been rules to follow when broadcasting, even in the BBC's earliest days there was a list of what was not allowed to be said on radio and producers/performers had to abide by them or find themselves usually suspended. Again, was that list BBC orientated or forced upon them by the Government at the time(maybe someone out there knows the answer to that)
During the 60's and 70's I think the broadcasters were allowed more freedom but we seem to be returning to a less open policy and yet as far as television goes when you see something such as Little Britain/Big Brother you could question whether anything goes!
But here's another anomoly...this decision was made by the management of that particular radio outlet and not necessarily within the guidelines across the whole organisation.
And radio guidelines on acceptablity seem to be different to those regarding television. And you can get away with more on television than radio. I understand that whereas television still has a kind of watershed where adult material is more likely to air, radio has never as such had regulation.
Perhaps radio has the raw deal because its speech that can offend and on radio be it song lyrics/speech its all language. What's also interesting is that the station playing the older material is the most popular of all the new digital stations and usually keeps or increases its listeners.
At the end of what I say I'm not sure that I'll be able to offer a solution.
Some of my fellow bloggers/messageboarders that access UK broadcasting may be familar with the following story. I state the facts as I believe them to be and am ready to ammend or remove my post.
It came to my attention that two editions of a radio comedy series classed by many as a classic and being rebroadcast had been pulled. We're talking of a series that is around 38 years old. Various pieces of information put into the public domain suggest that they were dropped because in the present time certain words/terms used may be upsetting/unacceptable. Well, in this case it was because the programmes were deemed racist.
Many listening to the station want to hear the programmes as they were and are of the opinion that they are a social document of the time and perhaps to please those who are politically correct maybe an announcement at the start or end of the show could say that these programmes were broadcast when certain views were different/acceptable.
Its been done on other programmes.
Its a slippery slope to go down, but some parts could be edited to make them acceptable.
Did you know that a couple of words have been snipped out of or substituted already in Only Fools and Horses and Fawlty Towers?
A listener decided to ask what the BBC's policy is regarding the rebroadcasting of archive material. Resulting in a feature appearing on Feedback where the public can quiz those who make and broadcast programmes.
I'm not sure that an adequate answer was given but the outcome was that one of the dropped episodes is to be re-instated at a later date(and the reason given for it being pulled)is now something on the lines that it originally would've aired at the time of the natural disaster in New Orleans where Hurricaine Katrina hit and part of the programme was set in that location and they were all talking with a Southern US accent. If anything it was a parody of the kind of films we've all seen about that area and the jazz music associated with that state.
OK...if it now gets replayed at a later date avoiding distress associated with that event(if that was the reason)but would it have aired again, had that listener not managed to get a response from the broadcaster.
The second has a couple of minor jokes that to call them racist actually makes them worse than they really are and compared to alot of material going out today are nothing at all. However, as its also been admitted that some material is edited I sat down with an original copy of the offending programme and with some editing I reckon all that would be lost would be 30 seconds at the most. One joke lasted around 6 seconds. Yet the whole show is now banned. The edits do if made do not affect the story.
The background of this particular programme is that its a parody of those British books/films of years ago where the British explorer/adventurer goes into the Jungle or some such location looking for some long lost treasure and usually ends up in battle with the natives. But as written the British being portrayed actually come out of it looking pretty stupid.
Is this ban because of the reaction that they think they'll get from some pressure group/listener/regulatory body resulting in a severe ticking off or a fine? Or because they do not wish to offend a certain section of society now part of the fabric of UK life? Is it because all stations can now be heard across the world and not just in the country of origin. I know years ago BBC programmes were edited so references to incidents that only a domestic audience would understand so when sold to another broadcaster in say Australia they'd not be puzzled because something did not make sense.
There have always been rules to follow when broadcasting, even in the BBC's earliest days there was a list of what was not allowed to be said on radio and producers/performers had to abide by them or find themselves usually suspended. Again, was that list BBC orientated or forced upon them by the Government at the time(maybe someone out there knows the answer to that)
During the 60's and 70's I think the broadcasters were allowed more freedom but we seem to be returning to a less open policy and yet as far as television goes when you see something such as Little Britain/Big Brother you could question whether anything goes!
But here's another anomoly...this decision was made by the management of that particular radio outlet and not necessarily within the guidelines across the whole organisation.
And radio guidelines on acceptablity seem to be different to those regarding television. And you can get away with more on television than radio. I understand that whereas television still has a kind of watershed where adult material is more likely to air, radio has never as such had regulation.
Perhaps radio has the raw deal because its speech that can offend and on radio be it song lyrics/speech its all language. What's also interesting is that the station playing the older material is the most popular of all the new digital stations and usually keeps or increases its listeners.
posted by The Great Gildersleeve | 5:24 pm
4 Comments:
That's an interesting piece Gildy; can you tell us the names of the shows? I'm sure this has happened many times over the years but probably with far more regularity in these PC obsessed times we live in.
I agree it's a slippery slope but also think the 'defence' comment re broadcasting far and wide where before it may not have reached that particular audience is a good enough reason for minor edits.
It does seem strange if you consider the improbability (impossibility!!) of anything being edited/ not shown because it was offensive to white, UK/US people.
oh...go on then ;-)
Round The Horne is the series in question. What's even more crazy is that one of the dropped programmes has aired on the BBC once maybe twice in the last few years either on BBC7, its their action that caused this to come to light and it also appeared on Radio 2 in the last couple of years introduced by Bill Pertwee who appeared in the series.
If you can access R4 listen again between now and friday and listen to Feedback you'll hear the piece where this is discussed.
There is more on the BBC7 messageboard in threads connected directly to RTH and even under a thread about Steptoe and Son.
Another point is that you can buy them intact without the edits commercially.
Also I avoided mentioning it in the original blog and its an anecdotal point but the other night Nick Abbot on his LBC phone said that someone he talked to in BBC management was talking of the difference of what is acceptable on radio/tv and said...
"You watch television by choice but radio is an univited guest!"
Well, I choose to listen to the radio as much as I may television.
Is it really because most complaints are about speech and language and that's what radio mainly is, the regulators lay down more regulations?
It would be a rum old world if your last sentence is true. Radio is patently words/speech and language but TV is that plus pictures...if the Beeb powers that be hold upo a graphic showing 80% of complaints were due to speech etc and so duely hammer radio when in fact 99% of those complaints could have been in conection with TV programming...all supposition...but the comment "You watch television by choice but radio is an univited guest!" ignoring tha fecat that you can LISTEN/HEAR TV as well (also as an unvited guest) seems to point in my 'supposed' direction.
I'm glad that I have left you the chance to make your latest point(and not totally written a piece that means that I have covered all bases)because again on Nick's programme he also made the point that in theory the regulator should be more strict as its also showing images as well. But he still thinks television gets away with much more than radio ever can.
Have you ever looked at the monthly bulletins that Offcom in the UK issues regarding what listeners and viewers complain about? Also, how many get upheld or dismissed. It really is amazing sometimes what small things cause the most offence.
You do not have a television but there is a lunchtime programme that's very light entertainment hosted by Des O'Connor and Melanie Sykes and though memory fails me of the exact incidents people have even written in about some feature on that series.
So what is the hope for broadcasting in the UK. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home