A tale of two Brians

...and a bit of analysis.

If there is anyone in the UK with a posher accent than Brian Sewell then I have never heard them speak. He makes the Queen sound like a cockney. It is a splendid voice to be rude and irritating in, which he usually is. However, I found myself agreeing with him in this conversation about the formulaic and content-light nature of documentaries on the BBC, something I have commented on before. And he went up a notch in my estimation when he said this:

I taught history of art in Brixton jail for 10 years and one lesson I learnt very quickly is never talk down to people. If you treat them as equals, you've got them, they're with you. But talk down, they smell it a mile off and hate it. That's what the BBC does all the time.

He is dead right. There is a difference between avoiding incomprehensible jargon and omitting any meaningful content.

His complaint about the "patronising rubbish" of the travelogue formula that focuses more on the presenter than the content would have had a little more purchase if he hadn't made a few bob from Channel 5 of all people making exactly the same type of series. Nevertheless, the point about not trusting the intelligence of the audience is sound.

Funnily, it reminded me of a famous interview in a different time and a radically different context. This was the moment when the then manager of Nottingham Forest, Brian Clough, demolished the commentator, John Motson, with some withering put-downs. His complaint was the same. Stop patronising football fans. It is a masterpiece.



I was going to leave it there, but then this neat piece of analysis was posted by Martin Robbins about the absence of scientists, or anyone who actually knows something about the topics being discussed, on the BBC debate programme, Question Time. It has become dismal and I rarely watch it. Politicians use it to rehearse set scripts and it has become utterly predictable. To liven it up, they bring on guests from outside the main parties, but who are they?

Since the last general election 13 comedians have appeared on Question Time, and Russell Brand will make it 14 next week. The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times. The 'dragons' of Dragon's Den have appeared 4 times between them. Scientists have appeared just twice. Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice has been on as many times as all scientists or science writers put together.

He continues:

Literary performance artist James Delingpole is more likely to appear than any meteorologist. Peter Hitchens is far more likely to appear than any expert on drugs or addiction ... 

Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet... attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform.

An art historian, a football manager and a scientist all saying the same thing; the people that run broadcasting do not respect their audience. They underestimate the intelligence of people and, as a result of their desperate attempts to entertain, produce some extremely dull television.

Thanks to Paulie for the Clough interview