What is it in the human
brain that makes it bereft of common sense, normal reactions or indeed much
balance when it comes to famous or prominent people?
I have seen strong men who
were against class, monarchy, wealth, authority and rest, hard left and proud
of it go glassy eyed and wobbly at the knees at the thought of meeting a star
of a major TV programme.
One lady, another determined
type, none shall pass might well have been her motto, was affected in the same
way by actors playing star roles in her favourite soap. When I suggested that they were prone to
quite ordinary human frailties I got it well and truly in the neck.
What was really worrying
about this was that they reflected to a great extent the reactions of large numbers
of people. More so was that the lady not
only identified with the characters but came to regard them as somehow higher
and extraordinary beings as apart and above the rest of us.
After commercial TV began
in competition with the BBC monopoly in the late 1950's, the BBC ratings soon
dropped like a stone and it became the minority TV channel of two by a good
margin. Worse was that many viewers
regarded themselves as either "ITV" or "BBC" and many of
the former resented the License Fee as an unwanted tax.
So the 1960's and later
became a battleground for viewers.
Critical to this was to capture the prime time evening viewing. This was done by putting on highly popular
programmes with people promoted as major stars and personalities that became
required viewing to be able to converse etc. with other people.
To this end the BBC were
granted a second channel, BBC2, into which was shunted the cultural, minority
and bettering the masses items leaving prime time clear for the Corporation to
take on ITV head to head in the race to the bottom.
Therefore all we had in
the UK was a two and a half channel service so one effect was to make the
leading performers in effect Chosen People in the eyes, affections and interest
of the masses.
Inevitably, it took in
the other media as the print part had to defer to it for sales, especially as
ITV was a direct competitor for crucial advertising revenue.
Consequently, from about
1960 to the 1990's, allowing for the fourth channel of the 1980's, there was a
generation of TV viewers in thrall to a limited number of performers. It really was a devil's pact. The TV channels needed performers to pull in
the viewers, the performers needed TV to make it to fame and fortune.
One way or another it ran
across most forms of TV. There were the
newsreaders, the sports commentators, and experts as well as the actors and
other artistes and performers. For pop
music TV coverage could rocket you up the charts, for the TV managements the
kings and queens of pop were essential to the ratings.
For the BBC this was
survival and the license fee. For ITV it
was the advertising revenue and spin offs.
Inevitably, this became enmeshed with politics and other things.
In the UK it became all
very close and together because of the London effect, even allowing for some
regional activity in the case of ITV. We
all knew who the Chosen People were and they knew that they were Chosen.
Some ran into trouble,
often for tax evasion, but did not suffer much for it. A few mingled with criminals, others lived
complicated lives, many gambled heavily and more drank heavily.
They were readily forgiven
their sins because they were Chosen and didn't we all have our faults? The detail was never clear and a lot went on
unmentioned or ignored or keep quiet.
The Chosen people needed
TV, the TV needed Chosen people, the elite needed TV and public confidence in
it and TV needed the elite to maintain and bolster the duopoly and avoid the
kind of competition and diversity that was developing in other countries.
There is not a great deal
that is new about this. But the
difference in the TV age was the immediacy of impact in every home and at hours
to suit the viewers. Suddenly, just
about every home and other places had TV and it was TV that delivered the
information, comment, analysis if any and the stories of the day and the rest.
It would be possible to go
down through history and show examples of human attachments to princes,
prelates, preachers, orators, famous people and leaders of the past. There are some sorry tales. One is The Divine Right of Kings at one
extreme, others the horrors of the Roman arenas and many more.
We only have to look at
the various cults of leadership around the world in the 20th Century alone to
tell us that the human race is a ship of fools and easily deluded and led. So what is now emerging from the past should tell
us a great deal.
But will we learn from it?
This post provided the missing jigsaw piece in a conversation the Spouse and I had recently about the baffling ubiquity of 'selfies'.
ReplyDeleteIf today's youngsters (and some people who are really old enough to know better) have been brought up to believe that appearing on TV somehow generates a mystical aura of being 'Chosen', then it makes perfect sense that, given the means to disseminate their own images via electronic media, they will do so ad nauseam.
"But will we learn from it?"
ReplyDeleteDo we ever? Maybe we'll eventually be more insightful about the Chosen, but I doubt it.