Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Don’t Let Three Come Before Four.

It’s astonishing to think that that the BBC would even consider keeping BBC 3 at the expense of BBC 4. Changed and strange days indeed.

My feelings on “Three” have been made clear elsewhere on this blog.  However when you hear the likes of Ken Clark praising some of the channels programmes you might begin to wonder.

BBC 3 is, for the most part, tabloid telly for teenagers. At the forefront of dumbed-down television, its original remit has long since been consigned to the dustbin of quality television. 

Voyeuristic forays into the worlds of the dysfunctional and those less fortunate, with all the subtlety and morality that accompanied a Victorian freak show, has little  educational value and the channel’s attempts to disguise it as meaningful social documentary fail miserably.

“The World’s Strictest Parents”, “Don’t Tell the Bride”, “Young, Dumb and Living off Mum”, “Snog Marry Avoid”, “Under Age and Pregnant”, is a more than fair representation of the channel’s homemade output. All of which seem to be repeated ad nauseum.

Bulked out, only too readily, by jollies to music festivals (including the corporation’s very unhealthy relationship with the Glastonbury annual mud bath) and repeats from BBC 1 means that we have already seen much of what is on offer. And as good as the US imports “Family Guy” and “American Dad” are, even these wear thin on the umpteenth showing.  

And let’s not forget the irritating Cherry. “Cherry’s Body Dilemmas”, “Cherry’s Parenting Dilemmas” and “Cherry’s Cash Dilemmas” to name a few of Cherry’s dilemmas. One might wonder if it’s responsible to actually let Cherry out on her own. Perhaps see should stay in and watch the box – “Cherry’s So much Shite on the Telly Dilemmas”.

Left to their own devices, I have no doubt that “My Three Lesbian Mums”, “My Cross-dressing  Grandparents”, “I Married My i-Pod” and “I gave Birth to a Poltergeist” are coming our way soon.

Although BBC 4 is also blighted by the “rule of repeat”, its more eclectic programming, that encompasses both science and the arts, absolves it of the charges levelled at its spotty faced sibling.

It would be just as unacceptable to see the adolescent driven rubbish from “Three” share a channel with “Four”. Although I’m sure the programme makers would welcome the credibility that might come from association.

If there’s a niche, and it is a niche, for BBC 3, then its not at the expense of a channel that is superior in every way.

There’s plenty of rubbish like this on our screens as it is. There’s precious little quality.

There again, it only television.