John Humphry's T.V. Critisim

I find John Humphry's lecture in 2004 to be a very opinionated and personal piece. He is direct in everything he says and I find he feels he can speak for the majority of the population through the constant use of the phrase "good" and "bad" television.

From the very beginning he states that he is not attacking television as a whole, and that there are a lot of good quality programmes broadcasted on today's screens, however, he says that there is more "mediocreÐ'...damagingÐ'...seedy" programmes on, and states that although the good television has got better, the bad television has got worse.

Humphry's then goes on the talk about Reality television and how damaging it is to the viewer. He refers to it as a disease that has "infected the mainstream" and affecting the programmes he likes to watch, like "living history", and tells us that their influence is a destroying force working at our society. Later in the piece he moves from talking about the television programmes, to the people that star in them, the celebrities, and says that the values they foster in our children are "utterly shallow and kill real ambition", however, the contestants on the shows are usually in their twenties, thirties, and sometimes older, showing that the values that have been passed on to "our kids" must have been there in the past. When he talks about the Big Brother house "getting evil" he implies that the makers of the programme are the evil ones putting the contestants into explosive stations, however, what he doesn't understand is that that's what the people want to see, its entertainment, and the idea of watching another human being at their lowest ebb, highest high, or in excruciating pain is exciting, and people have watched this sort of entertainment for hundreds of years, i.e. Gladiators.

At the heart of Humphry's argument he states that what he would like to do with television is to "limit the harm", and the way he would do this is by introducing an additional fee, so that the "people who want the stuff that I find offensive can always get it if their prepared to pay." This obviously wouldn't work due to class standards, and economic differences.

At the end of the extract Humphry's admits that "Television can enrich lives." And actually seem quite proud of the television his country has put out. He, quite rightly, just doesn't want to see it "dragged down".

I do agree with a lot of what Humphry's says, and I disagree with a lot more. For example, I do agree with the idea that "Big Brother" is neither productive, nor beneficial to society. It's extent of voyeurism could possibly be quite damaging, and that "reality television erodes the distinction between public the and the private", however, it does give us a good insight into how our society has changed, and into the mind of the average person. It is meant to be viewed as entertainment, and although the contestants do have "real livesÐ'... real children" they opt to go on the show, just as a boxer opts to be beaten up.

He refers to television today as being "no-brow" and deems it empty and without purpose, which may be true, however, I feel that we need this kind of television is good for society, a chance to switch off and get away from the hectic lifestyle we have today. Humphrys has been isolated from television for so long he has related his own opinions on his own common experience before being isolated form television. I get the feeling that John Humphry's is upper, or middle class, and that he doesn't have the understanding of the nation as a whole to make such bold statements. E.P Thomopson defines class as what happens "when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs". Humphry's is mearly one of the opposing men and doesn't listen to the other classes. He has his own opinion about the subject and thinks that it is everybody's best interest to follow his ideas. Thompson also says that "Class is defined by men as they live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition." So everybody has their own opinion, whether it is the society which has lead them to think this or the environment in which they have been persuaded by.

I think he does try to include the thoughts and feelings of all classes in his theory of "fixing" television, but he is stubbornly sticking to what he believes to be "good television" and not allowing for the five years of media development. As years pass society and the environment change; just as television has changed, people have changed with it. After not having a television for five years, I fear that Humphry's has forgotten the years when he did have one. It sounds to me like he was shocked with the sudden jump in society and how we see ourselves, that television has suddenly turned into a sordid box of sins