Drama shows best how much Northern Ireland has changed

The distinguished  Arts commentator Mark Lawson has an interesting blog post in the Guardian pegged to the new BBC2 thriller series “The Fall,” set in Belfast and launched on Monday night.  He uses it to discuss the impact of  “British ” in  the  BBC. He rightly observes the big change, that it’s now  Scotland with its independence  debate where the  “British” in” BBC” expresses more of an issue than it does in today’s Northern Ireland.  However I think he gets “The Fall” slightly wrong, although the headline lets him down.

Unless Mark knows more than I do as a mere viewer, this show is shaping up as the grim story of a serial killer that has nothing directly to do with the Troubles other than making deft references to the place, its new middle class and its history. Perhaps the thirties- something male killer whom we have already met was traumatised by some Troubles event as a child; we shall see. The show portrays  Belfast as a small Chicago, more or less normal but with an undertow that evokes a delicious thrill about a terrible past. The series is grist to the mill of creating Belfast as a voguish backdrop for film noir treatments that boost its improbable appeal as a tourist destination. To this exile anyway, it also emphasises how so much has changed.

Mark is right to differentiate between the local audience and viewers further afield. Locally did we do  so badly down the decades?  Government pressure is often a favoured explanation for deficiencies but  that’s  too easy.

The truth was often more practical and mundane.  Locally – and this is a part- explanation not an excuse –  the blunt fact was that  a small staff was swamped by  the daily flood of terrible incidents and understandably lacked the perspective to stand back at first. It took years – too long – for Spotlight to develop and UTV to rival it. .  RTE with its own preoccupation south of the border, likewise. (Spotlight’s first editor Jack Watson died this week at 89. Bernard Cornwell ( Wiggins) his successor and the author of the Sharp history novels recalled Jack’s contribution in this Chronicle piece).

We were also starved of airtime. It was over six years into the Troubles before Radio Ulster was launched.

There were lots of other explanations for whatever shortcomings there were : recoil and horror at what was going on; too much reliance on the police for reporting incidents – ( but it would have taken a small army to check them all out );  struggles with personal biases and beliefs. Emotional impartiality is not that easy to achieve. Editorial impartiality can become the lowest common denominator.

In the early days, national network reports implied devastating criticism of loyalist sectarianism and one party rule that shocked and dismayed much of the unionist community.   Reporters were sometimes physically attacked. But overall the audience quickly learned to apply their own filters to what they saw and heard, for good or ill. The BBC’s record was traced memorably in the 1980s by the late Rex Carthcart. The verdict stands I believe, that the BBC won widespread acceptance across the community and the world  as a prime news broadcaster. But thank God we had rivals and competitors.

As “the long war” became partly covert between insurgents and the British authorities, did we duck issues? Never entirely but we often failed to do them justice. You can read about it in what remains the most searing indictment of  the whole electronic media in Liz Curtis –  still compelling if overdone on British conspiracy theories. There were paramilitary conspiracies too,  just one or two.  With so much that was covert on all sides it’s inevitable that charges can be made that can’t be fully proven or refuted. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s misleading to represent the story of 30 years of broadcasting mainly through its peaks and troughs.

Mark has a point when he says : “the best analyses have inevitably come during the period since the peace process” Paramilitaries and even “securocrats”  felt freer to talk. But programme makers took risks routinely well before 1994, not all of them incurring the high costs of Death on the Rock and Real Lives:   On the Edge of the Union.

Drama tells a different sort of truth.  We could turn to it with relief not only for escapism and wit but to show how people coped with political turmoil while going through the same social changes as elsewhere.   I believe local people by and large loved feeling the pang of recognition they experienced for the first time when they watched the Billy plays.  If drama ever creates a problem it is that the glamour of “struggle” can overshadow its degeneracy, even if nemesis is the result in the end.

Some years ago Robin Wilson presented  powerful criticisms of how the media were too content to continue travelling along sectarian ruts.  If they still  do, it’s  largely a failure of imagination that keeps them there. When local politicians attack the media they know how little direct leverage they have.

But broadcast journalism has its own limitations aside  from the obligation of impartiality. The media  – certainly the BBC – cannot depict an ideal society divorced from the dominant reality. News’s fundamental values are those of philosophy’s idea of “ the reasonable person,”  a civilised construct that  is never entirely fulfilled.  Broadcast news cannot set its own independent agenda whether progressive or not.  While it can look under the surface for better ways, it is also bound to reflect the structures and conventions of the society it serves.  These can be  – and are –  questioned  elsewhere than News. It was and remains a godsend that  governance for local broadcasters  was and remains  finally in the wider  UK context and would be concerning if this was  radically to change. However not all is perfect.  Robin Wilson quoted Maurice Hayes bang on with a  criticism that still has echoes today.

Among the less endearing traits of the Ulster people in relation to their present conflict is a lack of humility and a poor sense of proportion. We take a perverse pride in the length and intensity of the struggle—no conflict is better than ours—and we find it difficult to understand how Northern Ireland does not dominate the headlines in the world press … In part, this results from the introverted and narcissistic immediacy of the local media in publicising the daily bomb, eternally recycling the views of a small number of politicians and continually examining the entrails for political comment, and concentrating on local issues to the exclusion of everything else.”

, , , , , ,

  • Ruarai

    Brian, quick question on this:

    He rightly observes the big change, that it’s now Scotland with its independence debate where the “British” in” BBC” expresses more of an issue than it does in today’s Northern Ireland.

    Can you unpack that? Is there a move in Scotland to change the name of the BBC? Assuming not, and not having read Lawson’s piece, I’m not sure what this claim is or what its supprting evidence is?

  • Ruarai

    Sorry Brian, I just noticed you had linked to Lawson so I read it.

    He says, The word behind the BBC’s first initial was explosive to many nationalist viewers

    Really? The word alone? I’m not buying that one. Sure there were and are issues with bias that may have flared at times but that’s to do with news reporting accuracy, not the name of the channel.

    I still choose the BBC, for all it’s pros and cons as, a go-to news source and I’m in the US.

  • Brian Walker

    From a Good Guardian piece

    “In its recent manifesto for independence, Your Scotland, Your Future, the SNP suggests the BBC would continue in Scotland, but under Scottish control:

    BBC Scotland’s services would continue with the same staff and assets, but with a management that would be charged with responsibility for reflecting Scottish life, culture and interests. [But] it wouldn’t operate in a vacuum – far from it, in fact.

    We will be able to access programmes from around the globe, just as we do now, including the BBC, ITV and the many cable and satellite channels, meaning Scottish viewers will continue to receive popular programmes such as EastEnders, the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. These programmes are all available in Ireland, for example.

    But this raises numerous questions: how would the BBC take on a new role in an independent Scotland? Could it be split up and its Scottish assets given straight over to a new Scottish broadcasting service? How would it be funded? What about Scotland’s share of UK-level BBC assets and programming outside Scotland? What would happen to the BBC’s local coverage and its website? How would Scottish audiences see all the BBC’s channels and programmes, such as Strictly, or BBC3, or the Today programme, not made in Scotland?

    The Scottish government’s current policy is to set up a wholly new Scottish public service broadcaster.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/29/how-would-the-bbc-be-divided-if-scotland-became-independent

    In other words, total muddle. But all three S,W and NI devolved UK institutions are in my view likely to get some oversight over their own broadcasts

  • Ruarai

    What’s more depressing, A or B?

    A) That the SNP feel the need to assure wavering voters that post-independence: “Scottish viewers will continue to receive popular programmes such as EastEnders, the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing.”

    Surely a better policy is to warn “anyone caught watching such rubbish wll be immediately stripped of the right to vote on public safety grounds”.

    or B) Unionists’ case for their union increasingly comes down to laughable hands-flailing hyperbole around issues like, “but how would we handle the BBC?!”

    Again, in an age where China can build a city in the length of time it takes Britain to release a paper on the expansion of Heathrow Airport, surely such laughable non-problems are evidence of people unfit for public policy debates in the first place, never mind managing policy for Scotland as well as England.

    The Scottish independence debate is, in my view, steadily if not yet rapidly emerging as a one massive, “Are you serious?” – a call to arms for any self-respecting Scots insulted once too many times by the sheer defeatism and negativity of a union campaign based on little more than:

    “You Scots could never run Scotland alone, you idiots!”

  • I thought it was interesting that an American actress, Gillian Anderson of X Files fame, was cast to play the lead role. Until I read further in the article and discovered that the show was set in contemporary Belfast and not during The Troubles, I thought the idea of an English woman as the detective was laughable both on account of her gender and her ethnicity.

    Incidentally, the article mentions a movie I wasn’t even familiar with as the leading post-Troubles NI movie. I think of “The Boxer” in that role, but it is a matter of definition. “The Boxer” is set in the twilight era between the first and second ceasefires.

  • DoppiaVu

    I did find the Guardian article a bit irritating when I read it yesterday.

    I agree with Ruarai about the BBC thing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard nationalists having a problem with the British part of the name. He’s just made that up to support his narrative.

    The bit about Death on the Rock and Thames subsequently losing their franchise. Again, it appears to be pure speculation in order to back up his narrative (happy to be corrected on this if there is some evidence out there that this is true).

    But the bit that really annoys me is that he seems to have this idea that NI people only want to watch stuff about the troubles. Quite frankly, I’ll be utterly dismayed if this turns into yet more bilge about the troubles.

  • Brian Walker

    DoppiaVu,

    Yes the BBC had few problems from nationalists because of the “British” label. It came up more from unionists when they claimed they weren’t getting a fair hearing. That’s not to say nationalists didn’t complain too, just that they may have had different expectations.

    But there’s no doubt that Catholics/nationalists were under represented in BBCNI up to the mid 1970s in staffing and output, as Cathcart explains and something of an institutional bias against them beyond the limits of a small informal quota.

    It also took a big expansion of airtime and funding to begin to do justice all round. For a place of its size NI is now very well served. But no doubt some will dispute this as usual! .

  • BluesJazz