Tomorrow鈥檚 World returned to the TV screen recently with a new editor
鈥� a woman. Antenna, BBC 2鈥檚 science magazine, also returned last month with
a new editor 鈥� a woman. And when Horizon returns in two month鈥檚 time it
too will have a new editor 鈥� a woman. With Channel 4鈥檚 science series Equinox
safely in the hands of yet another woman, the only science show left in
town with a male editor still in charge is BBC 1鈥檚 QED.
The three BBC citadels that have fallen to women for the first time
in the past few weeks are the three main pillars of the corporation鈥檚 science
broadcasting edifice. Well-qualified women have been beating on the editorial
doors for years: now that they have broken through, does it mean peace and
calm 鈥� or is there another revolution round the corner?
A conversation with the three women in the BBC鈥檚 Kensington House 鈥�
a sort of science village alongside Shepherd鈥檚 Bush in west London 鈥� revealed
that some big changes are coming: some should be quickly apparent to viewers,
others are more subtle. Two of the programmes are now more than a quarter
of a century old with many different tricks already tried. Antenna is newer
and the changes are likely to be rather less noticeable.
Advertisement
The three women believe that the changes they intend to make savour
more of evolutionary commonsense than gender, but they recognise that their
accession to power is, to say the least, sudden and sweeping. They say that
the fact that they are women leading teams often largely composed of men
is irrelevant. One, Jana Bennett, does acknowledge that women, as carers
and mothers, often come closer to the products of science than do men. All
the same, the achievement of the three women within the BBC is unique: here
then are their views, their programmes and the problems they face.
The changes do not leave blood on the floor 鈥� the two male editors who
created the vacancies have gone off to edit series of their own. Horizon
is now in the charge of a 34-year-old American, Jana Bennett, not a scientist
but a political scientist who edited a journal of international politics
and economics after leaving Oxford. She joined the BBC 12 years ago and
worked on Panorama, Newsnight and The Money Programme before jumping over
the wall which separates current affairs from science and features at the
BBC. She joined Antenna as producer and quickly became its editor, finding
the opportunities in science programming at least as alluring as the breathless
race of current affairs. Budgetary controls are tighter too: in science
she finds she has to think before she shoots.
The very weight and sonority of Horizon, an international prize winner
with the style and sobriety of an expensive saloon car, must daunt any new
editor. During its season, it presents 50-minute films, usually beautifully
crafted, each devoted to one scientific issue. Among the last run were:
鈥楧o cows make you mad?鈥� about BSE, 鈥楳aking an honest fiver鈥� on the new 5
Pounds note, 鈥楾he space telescope鈥� and 鈥楳ount St Helens ten years on鈥�. In
each programme the scientists speak for themselves within a framework script
usually written by the producer and narrated by a professional voice. Most
are firmly on the side of science.
Tomorrow鈥檚 World falls into the hands of another American, Dana Purvic,
45. She is a self-styled university dropout who has been in the department
12 years, working for all the main science programmes. Latterly she was
on Antenna and has just finished her last film for that series. She takes
over the most populist of the three programmes, with an unrivalled lead
in applying science with a light brush to its large audience. This is probably
the hottest seat of the three.
Tomorrow鈥檚 World is lustier and at 25 has sometimes been more vigorous
than virtuous. For half an hour each week it scythes through a medley of
technological goodies at a sometimes frenetic pace. No nonsense here about
technologists talking for themselves: every item is firmly in the hands
of the reporting team, whose professionalism shines 鈥� they are probably
the most likeable team on factual TV. Items vary in length from 2 minutes
to 7 minutes and the pace never flags. (I once did fundamental particle
physics with the late Sir Alec Merrison in 3 minutes 30 seconds dead). The
best popular science magazine in the world, some say.
Antenna falls to 36-year-old Caroline van den Brul, who graduated in
chemistry from the University of Nottingham and has worked on all the BBC
science programmes. She has just finished a forensic science series to be
shown in the autumn, but despite this she has gently reshaped her first
edition of Antenna along the lines which she intends to pursue.
Antenna is a calmer magazine and takes to itself topics which do not
run the length of a Horizon slot but which have too much weight for Tomorrow鈥檚
World. Only three years old, its style has been fitful, but it can be startling
and revealing as in the film that followed the human kidney train around
the world. Antenna runs for 50 minutes: a recent issue included children
talking about scientists, filmed at the British Association鈥檚 meeting; Nazi
medical experiments; and the Royal Greenwich Observatory鈥檚 move to Cambridge.
One of the most important facets of life in Kensington House is that
it is a kind of shuttling collegiate: programme makers change from science
series to science series; everyone knows everyone else (almost); and all
its staff carry information and contacts from previous programmes. This
means that there is a very deep well of knowledge about many aspects of
science. Nor is all that knowledge superficial. From biochemistry to zoology,
there is somebody around who knows something, which is an enormous advantage
to anybody connected in whatever way with science TV and an object lesson
to any university which cares to look. But the depth of experience and the
weight of years can also prove very strong bulwarks against change, and
I wondered how each of the new editors felt about tradition and how it might
conflict with their intentions. Tomorrow鈥檚 World, for example, comes shrink-wrapped
and ribboned: how do you get inside the package?
鈥業t鈥檚 a difficult one,鈥� said Dana Purvis. 鈥楾he programme鈥檚 been developed
over all these years to arrive at this particular format. One suspects there鈥檚
a reason for that. You don鈥檛 just chuck it out of the window because you
instantly want to try something else.鈥� But she sees a need for some change:
鈥業鈥檓 going to slow it down, if necessary, while keeping its variety.鈥�
One of the problems Purvis faces is keeping her audience. Tomorrow鈥檚
World has been known to attract an audience of 12 million, depending on
its subject matter and placing in the evening schedules. Audience figures
have currently fallen to between eight and nine million 鈥� still a very large
figure for a science show 鈥� and the decline is in line with the overall
loss of BBC1鈥榮 audience to ITV. This type of fall could ultimately
pose a threat to the existence of the BBC in its present form. So figures
have to matter to Purvis and they have to be balanced alongside changes
designed to remedy one of the programme鈥檚 faults: the lack of context. Too
much technology can be flung at the audience in gobbets, fascinating in
themselves but undigested, without meaning much to many of the viewers.
She鈥檇 like to know what readers of New 杏吧原创 think of the programme.
Purvis says: 鈥榃e need to find a way, with our incredibly short items,
to inject a variety of approaches into the kind of story we tell. We have
to try to deal with the implications of science and technology in terms
of politics and social issues 鈥� indeed in terms of people鈥檚 suspicions of
science today. We cannot blindly ignore that and happily proceed on the
basis that everything in and of itself is interesting enough 鈥� and that
it鈥檚 enough to tell people about it. What it is, how it works and why it
works are not enough. It is the context that matters as much in some stories.鈥�
Purvis鈥檚 dilemma is to keep Tomorrow鈥檚 World鈥檚 audience, possibly even
increasing it, while relating the artefacts it shows more closely to their
real meaning for humankind. 鈥業 think there鈥檚 a general shift in perspective
about science in the community. People are not so happy to accept information
without perspective. Information is not as 鈥榗lean鈥� as we used to pretend
it was.鈥�
One way to provide more context may be to do some items at longer length,
says Purvis. 鈥楢 very hopeful and pleasing sign to me is that the 鈥榮pecials鈥�
which Tomorrow鈥檚 World does from time to time, where everything devolves
on a single issue, and therefore gives itself scope to look more thoroughly
at how science interacts with other people鈥檚 lives 鈥� these are getting bigger
audience. Received wisdom says that鈥檚 not supposed to happen, it鈥檚 death
if you don鈥檛 maintain the zippy 鈥榠f-you-don鈥檛-like-this-hang-on-for-two-minutes-ther鈥檚omething-else-
coming-up鈥�. But the specials do show that people are concerned with context.
I am sure there鈥檚 a way to move towards the style of the specials in the
general run of Tomorrow鈥檚 World while still maintaining the variety of subject
matter. What鈥檚 clear is that I am looking for an audience double or treble
what my colleagues on Horizon and Antenna have.
I turned to Jana Bennett, pointing out that one of her predecessors
in Horizon鈥檚 editorial chair thought it enough to say, when I asked him
about his policy, 鈥榳e are FOR science鈥�. I thought this naive and I also
thought that Horizon had been less than adventurous over the crisis in British
science, in whose survival, if nothing else, it has a vested interest. So
what now?
Bennett said: 鈥楾he classic science documentary, which Horizon represents,
in some ways hampers our image, and so does the weight of authority. Horizon
has gone through phases of campaigning in the past 25 years in a way that
TV doesn鈥檛 do very much at the moment. But it does have this image of being
very neutral, doing overviews of scientific areas of research in a way which
is obviously pro-science. I wouldn鈥檛 want you to write us off .. It seems
to me there鈥檚 not going to be any problem over still representing the big
science stories, classics like the journey of Voyager, a brilliant alliance
of science and TV. There鈥檚 no way I鈥檇 chuck away that kind of thing.
鈥極n the other hand we鈥檙e going to follow stories like cold fusion and
homeopathy,鈥� says Bennett. 鈥榊ou might not come down on any side at all but
you鈥檇 be looking at the process of science and you鈥檇 be quite critical with
it. Then there鈥檚 the Hubble space telescope and the NASA mess and all the
issues of 鈥榖ig science鈥�. These are all valid areas.
鈥楾aking Horizon forward in the 90s, trying to push the programme into
looking at issues, we should perhaps be not quite as cosy in terms of the
scientist giving us lots of help. I think there will be a need for change
towards addressing concerns on behalf of the viewer, as opposed to representing
the scientific community .. I鈥檓 not saying Horizon hasn鈥檛 done that, but
there is a danger of being a bit cosy.鈥�
All three editors clearly see that this kind of shift is necessary and
inevitable. But van den Brul sees a different emphasis for her programme,
Antenna: 鈥榃e鈥檙e staying with the scientists because that鈥檚 Antenna鈥檚 line,
but it will also show up some of these arguments because on a lot of issues
scientists don鈥檛 agree. One says one thing, but another is saying something
else. I am sticking with what scientists are saying and why they are saying
it. We will show the arguments that go on in science and how they are resolved,
and the processes of science.
鈥業鈥檓 going to try to do three different stories in each programme and
we鈥檒l have one perspective piece. I want to introduce a 鈥榟obbyhorse鈥� spot
where insiders can express a dissatisfaction with the way science, medicine
or technology affect people.鈥�
Soon after this conversation van den Brul took a film crew to the British
Association鈥檚 meeting at Swansea to ask schoolchildren what they thought
of science and scientists. Van den Brul believes that Antenna has more scope
than Horizon: 鈥榊ou can do all sorts of things, you can cover stories in
different ways and you can experiment 鈥� if a story鈥檚 worth ten minutes you
can give it ten minutes, if its worth forty you can give it forty. I personally
think it is the nicest programme around because it鈥檚 got that format. It鈥檚
also the only BBC science programme that鈥檚 on all the year round, so you
can pick and choose topical issues.鈥�
Bennett broke in here with one of Horizon鈥檚 problems: 鈥楬orizon starts
each January and runs to July, which means that for half a year we can appear
not to be there, which is a shame because science doesn鈥檛 just start in
January and end in July. There are good stories which you cannot do because
you won鈥檛 hit them at the right time.鈥�
I said I thought Antenna had an even bigger problem 鈥� appearing only
once a month made it more difficult for the potential audience to match
the weekly viewing habit, an essential part of maintaining good viewing
figures. Van den Brul said she thought that people were getting the message
because the figures were fairly consistent (around two million). 鈥業f you
look at timewatch, another series in the same cycle, their figures go up
and down depending on whether they get lots of publicity and lots of interest
generated in the item they鈥檙e doing. But once a month can be a difficult
frequency. People might remember what鈥檚 happening next week but they don鈥檛
remember what鈥檚 happening in a month鈥檚 time, so we rely on the pick of the
day in newspapers and the trailers we show. I鈥檓 also going to put our own
trailer at the end of each programme 鈥� a sort of coming shortly sign.鈥�
All three women have worked for one another in the department, this,
I think, is an easier thing for women to accommodate than status-and-prestige
conscious males. They often lunch together, they have a common culture and
show that they enjoy it. 鈥楽ometimes you can do the best part of a need so-and-so鈥�
and somebody else says, 鈥業 know so-and-so and where to get the rest of the
information鈥�. You realise you are getting a lot of help with your research,
all for nothing,鈥� said Bennett. But there is also a problem or two inside
the cosy cultural compartment.
One trouble with Horizon and Tomorrow鈥檚 World is that 鈥榯hey are rather
too much affected by their past,鈥� says Bennett. 鈥楶eople say: 鈥極h we鈥檝e done
that six or seven years ago 鈥� we covered why elephants needed culling in
order to be saved!鈥� Then you get the ivory ban and people say: 鈥楨lephants
again? Why do elephants again?鈥� But the audience doesn鈥檛 remember the whole
portfolio 鈥� all they want to know is: 鈥榃hat鈥檚 interesting tonight?鈥�
All three women agree on one of their principal difficulties 鈥� the anti-science,
arts-based culture in which everyone in Britain has to operate. Van den
Brul. 鈥業 feel very strongly about this .. infants should be taught reading.
They鈥檙e not, because the teachers teaching them generally didn鈥檛 do science.
They didn鈥檛 require a science O-level to get into teachers鈥� training college.鈥�
Purvis defines a uniquely British snobbism as one of the cultural enemies
of programmes such as Tomorrow鈥檚 World. 鈥榃hat I have to fight is the dislike
of populism. Popular is seen as something second rate, something to be discouraged.
For instance Tomorrow鈥檚 World has done items about venture capital and about
the implications of technology. I think its scope is greater than it鈥檚 given
credit for. Sometimes I think our critics haven鈥檛 been watching the programmes.鈥�
Bennett believes that despite the arts culture there is an appetite
for science among the general public and an interest in the big ideas and
what science is doing to everybody 鈥� in an abstract as well as local way.
鈥業 was sitting in the hairdresser the other day and I opened a fashion magazine,
Cosmopolitan I think, and there was an article on why science is the trendy
thing to read about. They listed all the books. The required reading to
be a fashionable person today apparently includes A Brief History of Time,
Chaos, and Does God Play Dice?. It was all about moving away from the 1980s,
not being greedy and worrying about your house.鈥�
From fashion we came back to figures 鈥� audience figures. Purvis made
the point that very often received wisdom is wrong. Tomorrow鈥檚 World, for
example, is supposed to appeal largely to younger people, but in fact the
audience profile shows an almost completely even split from the 15-year-olds
up to 65. Each age group is about evenly represented except that there is
a slight bulge in the 25 to 34 segment. In terms of class, the As, Bs, Cs
and Ds and Es are also equally represented across the survey. And men and
women in the audience divide exactly 50:50. This must be almost unique among
TV programmes. Most programmes appeal to some groups but not to others.
鈥楾his is why I have to stand up for populism against its enemies even while
I am experimenting with the programme. We must maintain this very surprising
audience spread. And we are one of the very few factual programmes left
running at a peak time on BBC1.鈥�
Bennett pointed out that Horizon on its last run had done exceptionally
well, 鈥榳ith audiences ranging up to three and even four million, including
the repeat showings鈥�.
It still irritates and puzzles intellecutals and members of the BBC
are so concerned about figures. Why do they matter so much? Coming events
cast long shadows in broadcasting and in 1996 the BBC鈥檚 charter and licence
fee system expires. The corporation is aware that the government is beginning
to think ahead to decide its future. Within the BBC it is believed that
its licence fee will go, to be replaced by subscription and sponsorship.
These two methods of financing are almost completely unknown to Britain.
Viewers would probably be willing to pay directly to watch sport, comedy
and soaps, but there is not the slightest guarantee that people would pay
in the large numbers that would be required to finance Horizon or Antenna.
Tomorrow鈥檚 World might well survive on BBC1, but the balance
of science broadcasting would be lost.
Most people in Britain are probably anti-science. The only mass correctives
available to work against this belief are the TV science programmes 鈥� all
of them, the ones on Channel 4 and ITV as much as the ones on BBC. Ultimately,
this is the importance, too, of Dana Purvis, Jana Bennett and Caroline van
den Brul.
Glyn Jones devised Tomorrow鈥檚 World and was its first editor.