Television
Critical
Alexander Chancellor
New York During the past week I have watched no -IV television at all, with the exception of the Grand National, one late-night film and part of an April Fool's Day breakfast televi- sion programme conducted by Mr David Frost. It is not a good record for a new television critic, and I am not at all proud of it. My principal excuse is that last Sunday I had to rush off to New York where I am now staying in a flat which contains a black-and-white set so small and so ill- functioning that I cannot even offer you my opinions of American television.
So I am reduced to writing about Mr Michael. Poole. Mr Poole suddenly emerged last month, from I'm not quite sure where, as a spirited critic of television critics. First on BBC2's Did You See. . . ?, and then in a long article in the Listener, he complained that most television critics do not take their subject seriously, have no specialist knowledge of it, and are not really able to understand it because they are either novelists or poets or at any rate people crushed by 'the dead weight of a literary tradition'. I myself, although neither novelist nor poet nor man of letters, was condemned before even committing a word to paper as being `in the same stridently amateur mould' as my distinguished predecessor, Mr Richard Ingrams.
I understand what Mr Poole means when he goes on like this. Television, as he sees it, is an awesome thing. It is the dominating cultural influence of our time, 'a major technology, a powerful institution, an in- dustrial process', and 'a medium which may well come to dominate all our lives in the kind of wired society we keep being pro- mised'. In preparation for this 'wired society', critics should be trying to
The Spectator 7 April 1994 penetrate and explain television's mysteries with a view, perhaps, to influencing its development. Instead, what do we find? A bunch of vain and patronising literati using television criticism as an excuse for showing off and trying to be funny. Their tone, ac" cording to Mr Poole, is `playful, top-heavy with "personality", aggressively non- specialist'.
But what does being a television specialist mean? It is obvious that nobody could be a specialist in all the subjects it covers: snooker, chess, gardening, grand
opera, politics, and so on. If specialised knowledge of these things is desirable, then television plays would better be reviewed by theatre critics, sports programmes by sports cor- respondents, concerts by music critics, and c. urrent affairs programmes by political Journalists. If, on the other hand, specialis- ed knowledge means knowing how televi- sion programmes are made, then there are number of television critics who have nothing to be ashamed of. Mr Clive James, to whom Mr Poole par- ticularly objects, has appeared in scores of television programmes and must have Pick." ed up a thing or two. Richard Ingrains also no novice as a broadcaster. And .11 myself, having worked briefly as a televi sion reporter, could tell you a few dark,. secrets about what goes into the making ` a 'three-minute package' for News at Ten. I am unmoved by Mr Poole's coniPlairit that people with literary backgrounds are unfair to television because they have an habitual way of assessing all are f cultural life according to literary critter!sa Does the same problem apply to film crii, for example? I doubt if he would think sa; And a few literary values are not unhelpful a critic, whose medium is after all e l printed word. Mr Poole, however, seems '11;
feel in a vague sort of way that differen as
critical criteria should apply to ill. .as, medium like television than to an 'elitist thing like literature. But he gives the stroll! impression of having no idea what he mean by that. As it turns out, the only two televisiall_ critics whom Mr Poole admires are peter Fiddick of the Guardian and Christopher Dunkley of the Financial Times. t thed have in common, he says, is a background in news reporting. `Free from the dean weight of literary tradition, they have 1:1_t able to address television as more than Pin' a string of isolated programmes as'. short, the complex technological, inst.iu, tional and industrial process it actually 15„ hIfacakIlgoronuenndeeidns nteowbseraeptoelnevinisgion critic is 4_
than I am off to a good start. But I cannot 7,1 agine why this should be any more use than a background in anything else. ,
What it all comes down to is this busine; of being serious. There are plenty of Fa.°P, who are always worrying about television.; purpose and mission (as Mr Peter Jay ,aseas ci to before finding he couldn't put his ',bed into practice), and it is a good thing are which fascinated There are also people who a_h fascinated by the complex processes nic 80 into creating it. But what the daily or weekly television critic is in practice con- fronted with most of the time is a con- tinuous attempt by the television companies to keep the masses amused and entertained. As this is their principal purpose, he is en- titled to judge them by their success or failure at it. And in doing so he is bound to be a little subjective, and not always serious.
Mr Poole seems to be one of those people who scour the newspapers for programmes tht. sound innovative, daring and of 'Maunal popular appeal. When he finds °, ne, he cannot bear it being dismissed as bad or boring, even if it is. Who is being elitist?
Previous page
