The demise of ITV's News At Ten has reinvigorated a debate in Britain which is beginning to assume the hallmarks of an obsession. Are the media dumbing down and, if so, does it mean the country is dumbing down?
We may smile at the irony of describing the process with an ugly Americanism, but there is no doubt about its intensity. This week the London Independent ran a series on the topic. The BBC came under fierce criticism from the great and the good in the House of Lords who fear it is losing its commitment to the public service ethic as it chases ratings.
Similar attacks on both press and broadcasting were aired with some bitterness at a recent conference about the media's supposed loss of public confidence. This weekend concerned journalists and academics are talking about it again at yet another conference entitled "Culture Wars: Dumbing Down or Wising Up?"
As that title implies, there is significant split between those who think we're all off to hell in a handbasket and those who argue that making television and radio more accessible to people, giving them what they want, is the true definition of democracy.
We have finally got wise to satisfying the demands of the majority.
It's possible to argue that such a dispute is as old as television itself. But, as I write this, I realise I'm being far too narrow. Most groups of intelligentsia, of whatever variety and in diverse societies throughout history, have fought to educate the populace only to throw up their hands in dismay at the result. Political and religious elites have been, if anything, more horrified. They have always preferred to dictate what they think is in the best interests of the "common" people.
Their disappointment and anger have been most obvious at moments when a new technological development has allowed a rapid growth in the numbers of people able to exercise their own discretion about what they consume. This happened in the 15th century across Europe after the printing revolution engendered by Gutenberg and Caxton, and reoccurred in Britain at the dawn of the distribution of newspapers in the 17th century.
Book publishing and the press long ago renounced any true public service ethic, having succumbed to private ownership and the requirements of the market. Now, somewhat belatedly, comes the latest manifestation of the same struggle: the battle for the soul of television and, of course, its audience.
The passing of News At Ten suggests that the marketeers are on their way to another victory. Amid the pap of ITV's regular output, its main news bulletin has been of huge symbolic importance. By pushing it to the margins, ITV is clearly giving up any pretence of being a public service network.
For confirmation, consider the response to that charge by the network director of programmes, David Liddiment. "The new schedule enables us to provide a more diverse range of programmes for viewers, particularly through the opening up of a new tier of programming at 10. Public service broadcasting doesn't just mean news and current affairs. It means genuine diversity, the escapist and the challenging."
This disingenuous view, trying to equate fly-on-the-wall docu-soaps with genuine news reporting, is a pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
It follows the gradual and stealthy killing off of serious current affairs on ITV. Though World in Action has survived with a peak-time slot, it has done so at the expense of its previous investigative brief. It is nothing like the kind of programme which made it famous. Its tabloidish approach is surely a clear indication of dumbing down.
Then again, the modernisers would reply, it's no good spending money to screen programmes viewers won't watch (and which, therefore, advertisers will not support). In a multi-channel TV world, it is vital to retain audience share by giving people what they want, not what you think they ought to have. To do the former is considered elitist, out of touch, old-fashioned.
Indeed, so far has this process gone that the ITV network's only serious political programme, Jonathan Dimbleby, is screened on a Sunday at lunchtime.
That's the new TV market for you. It bulldozes aside genuinely serious programming (which is pejoratively labelled "minority output") in favour of wall-to-wall entertainment with a sprinkling of pseudo-serious infotainment.
Incidentally, the so-called regulator, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), which is supposed to ensure ITV's commitment to a public service ethic, has conspired to allow this change without a noticeable protest.
Now comes the final irony. ITV gets a decent share of viewers and has been doing even better of late despite News At Ten being in place. Similarly, News At Ten has been, and still is, very successful at appealing to viewers itself. Advertising agencies have always fought to place their commercials during its break.
The most recent research figures show that in one week News At Ten twice attracted audiences of more than seven million. Remember, it does this despite BBC1 and BBC2 screening entertainment at the same time.
From next week everyone will by poring over the research data for the ITN bulletins at 6.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. If they dip significantly it's not impossible to conceive of Big Ben's bongs returning to their former slot. Then we'll all know that it's the programme executives, rather than us, who are dumb.
