Lying in bed on Sunday morning, in one of those half-awake states and listening to the rain, my mind turned towards TV. More specifically, what was the last programme I watched? Now being in a dozy state I was probably not best-equipped to come up with a definitive answer but the conclusion I reached was that it had been Lie to Me the previous thursday on Sky 1.
Since that idle thought, I started to become more aware of what I was watching and when. The results do not bode well for the british TV industry - or at least they wouldn't if I was considered part of their core demographic which I seem to be a long, long way from. Apart from the above mentioned series, which I watch regularly - at least when I remember to, there doesn't appear to be much that I actually sit down, stop doing anything else and pay attention to. I do turn Newsnight on from time-to-time, but this is frequently while on the computer and is more of a background: something I can turn to if an item piques my interest.
TV watching with multiple, virtual screens
Since I run Linux as my main operating system (with virtualised Windows instances as and when the need arises) I have up to 8 "virtual" desktops that I can switch between. This means I can run my web browsers in one, terminal emulators for command-line programs in another, Windows in a third and TV / media in another. Since the TV sound stays on even when I'm not on the "TV" desktop, I can listen to programmes without having them on my screen. It's surprising how little visual content is needed to still get all the information from most programmes. There seem to be very few occasions where a presenter, or actor refers to something on-screen, without giving a full (and redundant?) description of it. Maybe this is a conscious policy for non-sighted viewers, or maybe it's just that most programmes I watch are really just radio content with talking-head characters added for good measure, but with no extra value, for TV).
|
Likewise with most dramas. Although TV is supposed to be a visual medium (certainly most of the production, cost and transmission is taken up with the visual content: making sure the picture is high-quality, that the colours are correct and even that the definition is high), most of the actual information comes from the sound. All the dialog, narrative, news content and delivery from factual programming is through the sound, not from the pictures. Anyway, I digress - this was supposed to be about the lack of worthwhile programmes, not a technical discussion of the medium.
I do tend to pidgeon-hole programmes. Apart from anything else, it saves a lot of decision-making and means I don't have to spend my time seaching the new programmes that are almost certainly not to my taste (although I do this anyway if something looks promising or has a trailer than appeals), just to find the occasional gem that interests me. So with a deft wave of the hand, or wave of the remote, I can remove huge swathes of lovingly produced (and frequently repeated) content from my viewing menu: Goodbye sports, adios soaps, hasta luego reality TV, au revoir celebrities, arrivederci game shows. For some strange reason, I've also discovered that programmes who's title is just a single word, I can generally ignore without missing anything (the notable exception being Cheers when it was new: some 10 or 20 years ago). Phew!
What this means in practice is that BBC1 and the ITV1 simply don't exist for me. Channel 5 is of no consequence and I am a stranger so far as Four goes, too. If listening to it, while doing something more interesting is counted I do "watch" a few hours a week of BBC2 or 4 (the new BBC2, since BBC2 became the new BBC1 :-)), though I'd be hard pushed to recount the next day what I saw or what it was about. So far as other subscription or freeview channels are concerned, there are a few oases in the entertainment desert - but not that many. As I mentioned at the start, there is maybe an hour (possibly two) hours a week of original stuff on Sky that I like
| [update: March 2010 Something pretty terrible seems to have happened to Sky's TV output. Up until christmas, it did have more than it's fair share of watchable programmes. For the past 3 of so months they have all disappeared. I don't think I've watched a single minute of it's content since it became a platform for cartooms, reality and celebs. Even if some of the good stuff did come back, I've got so out of the habit of watching it, that I probably wouldn't even notice] |
. There are a few american imports on FX which I watch when they're on (including NCIS - which I think of not so much as a crime drama, but as a comedy show: with it's 1-dimensional caricature characters, it's compulsive-obsessive dialog, nationalistic (to the point of xenophobia?) attitudes and where good-guys always win and the bad-guys never have any redeeming qualities). Another series, in a similar vein on the same channel is Burn Notice, a sort of modern day accidental do-gooder cowboy, trying to undo injustices and clear his name..
But surely there must be more than just this? You'd think so - I did, but couldn't come up with much. It did get me interested in finding out just what is available - the results make sorry reading.
It turns out that my subscription gives me access to just over 250 channels - the number varies as new ones appear and the dregs go bust. When you filter out all the "+1" channels, regional channels, premium channels, shopping, sports and god, then nearly half of them have gone. Remove the childrens' channels and the list is down to 123. This is where it starts to get a bit controversial. Next for the chop are channels I simply have never heard or, can honestly say I've never watched or don't know what sort of programming they provide. With these culled, the number of channels I have ever watched from my subscription is 39. This number includes ones I have seen, but not watched regularly (e.g. E4 and More4 - I have a recollection of them, but can't think exactly what I saw), or the SciFi channel that I watched years ago when they were screening Babylon 5 (still the best science-fiction series ever) - but haven't felt the need to return to since then. Of these remaining, 3 are pure news channels. I have included Sky's 3 channels - although only 1 of these shows any original programming - the other two (from what I've seen) are merely repeats: ITV2, 3 and most of ITV4 - similarly. Which brings us down to 28 channels of entertainment. Which ones have I not watched in the past 6 months? well, that would knock out Bravo, Bravo2, CNN, Dave, all the Discovery channels, Film4, Five USA, Living, MTV, Movies24, Movies4Men, Sky3 and VH1 leaving a core of 12 channels - or less than 5% of what's possible. No wonder the TV industry is in such a bad state these days - if 95% of the channels mean nothing to it's audience (or to me, at least)!
Would I be sad if this irrelevant 95% disappeared forever? Hardly, I probably wouldn't even notice.
