@TheBJReview Defending the right to say it Sebastian Cody

In a world of social media that attacks those who disagree, shall we bring back a television programme that thrived on open debate?

Today we have Facebook and Twitter – debate in 140 characters – engineered to limit rather than expand discourse and leading to brutal reprisals to anything outside a specific space or experience. Freedom of speech seems now to mean only the freedom to agree. The public square and our right to speak our mind have been privatised by some of the largest companies in the world. Perhaps that is why kindly souls suggest from time to time that we bring back After Dark. Its values – time, thought, freedom, open- mindedness, nuance – are in short supply in today’s media culture. After Dark started as an experiment for the newly-established Channel 4, late on the evening of May Day 1987, based on an idea developed by Austrian state broadcasting. A small group of guests, all of whom knew a lot about a topic in the news, met in informal surroundings and just talked, freely and for as long as they wanted. After Dark quickly earned good audiences and a remarkable spread of critical enthusiasm, from the Socialist Worker and The Guardian to the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. It ran for 90 editions, including a transfer in 2003 to the BBC. The guests came from all sections of society. Housewives, prison officers and schoolchildren – and, on the very first programme, a Welsh hill farmer – mixed on equal terms with the famous, as well as some who might never have appeared on any other kind of television. What was behind the long-lasting success of a format which began tentatively and without many expectations? What lessons can be learned? And is it still relevant today, in our rather different media and political culture? 55

©Cody; DOI: 10.1177/0956474817746098; [2017/12] 28:4; 55-60 http://bjr.sagepub.com 56 British Journalism Review vol.28 no4 December 2017 each monopolisticbroadcasting systems. weaknesses for The prerequisites of – turned out to be more seriousthanviewers outtobemore – turned mighthave expected. During various astheSecondWorld Freud). War andthedeath of ( putsonthepresent history pressures and Russia regularly, –featured explicitly asdidprogrammes about the SouthAfrica Nicaragua, Israel, Iraq, as important–Chile,Iran, Eritrea, secrecy ortheTroubles Placesfurtherafieldbutjust Ireland. inNorthern exceptional sensitivity tothethenThatcher government, such asstate and sexual difference. Several were programmes with concerned matters of prisoners, and about class, cashandracial thementally ill,of children, of old waffle”). Channel4 board member, a former was, in the “a wordsload of of programme, couldbecomeexceptionally (and at interesting othertimesit What they tolisteningothersthey saidthen,ofteninresponse metonthe time”, butpastthepointwhen theguestshadsaidwhat they hadcometosay. with thewords “Iamsorry, we’ll have toleave itthere,we have nomore continued notonly pastthepointwhen TVnormally theflow interrupts speech. censorship: what of one mightcallfreedom No delay,transmitted. no editing, no hidden manipulation, and no actually live, whatever theconsequences. What theguestssaidwas themoment.But anything was “dodgy” saidintheheat of Awards were this year transmitted with a seven-second delay, just in case butstillclaims,recorded disappointingly, that itis“live”. The BAFTA TV Time political debate For transmission. editedbefore example, theBBC’s describe everything from theatrical events longinadvance recorded to “live” being a word broadcasters use with promiscuous frequency to place, without ordelay. prerecording thanonemightthink, This israrer was always live, really live, as it took the discussion being transmitted why. suggest thisuniqueformat of groups andindeedChannel4’sspecial-interest own executives. Two aspects controversies, includinga variety numerous of clashes with politicians, powerful weapons which led,first,totheprogramme’s successandthento Less apparently gambling, solemnsubjects–sport,fashion, popmusic We Britishissues:thetreatmentof about familiar madeprogrammes Second, theprogramme’s unshakeable principles was that One of The effectively programme exposed andchallengedtheprevailing –onairwhen After Dark After Dark discussion,thoughseemingly straightforward, concealed After Dark was theconversation anopen-endedprogramme: startedin1987andstillgoingtoday –ispre- After Dark notedanniversaries as After Dark After Dark Question Question was was participating (he left of hisown accordsometimelater). participating (heleftof British network television. with resumed, Ourprogramme Reed still the live previously programme, an interruption unknown of in the history hoax phonecallpersuadedajuniorChannel4executive tostoptransmitting “intellectuals”. uncomfortableperhaps becausehefelt of inthepresence about any drunkenness. apparent His brother was just “playing up”, –sat with andagent manager usbackstage andtoldushehad noconcerns held by philosopherAJAyer). SimonReed –Oliver’s brother, butalsohis might have thought(orasotherguestshadbeen–the drinking was record where hegotfamously sloshed,butperhapsnotquiteasmuch asviewers the courts, we invited himtodiscuss maleviolenceonourprogramme, erroneously Reed’s claimed that hebeat hiswife. In the light of successin context. Hehadjustwon atabloid newspaper, alibelactionagainst which War up, continue toturn oftenoutof duringthe1991Gulf appearance toloveLearning professional experts. more discussion andmightwell trumpthepolishedassertionsof scandalous, quieterfolkoftentriumphed.They the couldre-shape thatrememberconfess shecouldnolonger why shehaddonewhat shedid. terroristSilke Maier-Witt IRAman;andone-timeBaader-Meinhof former death penalty, authorised,hewould happily kill anotherguest,a that if the of yearning ajudge forthereturn hangman declare, of inthepresence Nikola Koljevic´ admittoSerbconcentrationcampsinBosnia1993;a what theRussians allweapons haddonetohiscountry; becauseof worst of theH-bomb Edward Tellerthe fatherof concedethat helobbied forthe rightsactivisttransgender Roz Kaveney. Otherremarkable encounterssaw athirdwriter, Dworkin,obsessed) Andrea intheobservant of presence unappealing Anthony totheequally Burgess (andequally charming sex- a discussionabout sex,introduced theprogramme physically never able to deal sofairly again with contributorstotelevision programmes. skilled professionals responsible. that Some report they were of to the dozens pride before, duringandsometimes even butasource aftertransmission, of It was ahighwire act,exhausting toputtogether, with many anexcitement This editionof includedOne programme filmactorOliver whose Reed, clips of In amongtheexceptional and thecelebrated, thestarsand After Dark Big Brother subsequently became notoriousbecausea 57 British Journalism Review vol.28 no4 December 2017 58 British Journalism Review vol.28 no4 December 2017 even earning The subsequentfurorewasannounced theseries’retirement. substantial, Guests sat in acircle andsoconcentrated oneach otherratherthanthe “distribution tocommunication”, orwhat we now callinteractive media. ago, calledforwhen heasked thatbemade“two-sided”, radio ashiftfrom what Brecht,85years opinion andgossipistheunanticipated outcomeof chatter,but nobody seemstobelistening. comment, This endlessseaof where theinternet, everybody istalkingchamber (orat least“sharing”) of beingrapidly supplantedby theinfinite echo TV –drizzlenow itself America. States of theUnited reality showfamous ona first became isnow of thepresident the personalbecomepublic andincreasingly perverse; andsomeonewho than entertainment;thepoliticalbecomesshowbusiness; theprivate and -with theconsequence that discussionanddebate becomenomore itself television -infact, iseating Reality(ie unreality). TViseating itself and actoutscriptedscenariosinwhat hasmodulated into“scriptedreality” people”who so-called“real lines learn increasingly of comeviaagencies let alonethealmostinvisible thingsthat were aspecialityof onalternative seeing,pressure making ways somethingshardertosee, of then constantincident,voyeurism, crueltyandcartoonconflict. This puts notdrama thinking. orif drama, “Reality”of shows createexpectations of world we now take or at least eased certain pathological for granted, ways economic. The televisionfor such fashion “reality” has shaped themedia to observe of that thepurpose year. inanentire earned Onedoesnothave tobeafully-fledged Leavisite themoney Channel4 show onceaccountedfornearly of three-quarters Channel 4bought vanishingly smallsuccess).Then in2000–andthisisnosmallthing what followed. First (with Channel4triedotherdiscussionformats with acelebrity hostandanoisystudioaudience”. orediting,into afixed time-slot,subjectedtopre-censorship orconfronted It is…theonly television whose programme guestswere notstraitjacketed warned that On Reality TV has been overtaken by what came along with multichannel TVhasbecomesoformulaicthat Since then,reality participants Such warningsmay seemanover-reaction onourpart,butconsider theprogramme’s success, in1991,Channel4 But at theheightof After Dark After Dark’s After Dark we didwhat we could.We triednottocensorormanipulate. Big Brother amentioninleadingarticle in “loss posessuch athreattobroadcasting freedom. . Here was. Here bigbusinessforthenetwork: the Big Brother was, nakedly andunashamedly, The Times After Dark . We We . . interests andeveninterests languages. Back then, separate networkseven covering of Channel5,let alone dozens different were significantly lessthannow: notonly there wasn’t nointernet, was there The potential audiencewon’t pay much attention becauseitwants topost its express themselves, orahate-tweet iepostaselfieonInstagram on Twitter. do. They don’t want tolistenandthey don’t want todebate; they want to they don’t want to. Now that they canallpublish, that’s what they want to Channel 4:there’s TEDtalks, The Conversation etcetc. out that Butitturns they want. They don’t need theeliteif They canlistentothe wisdom of concluded thisprocess. Now peoplecancommunicate inany way they like. away from it to the people. themandredistributing has The internet the printingpress, thiscontrol technologyhasbeenwresting invention of distinction,writes: David Cox, now amediacommentator of watching. ex-LWT Asmycolleague, former and only The problem as24/7internet. wouldeven bethat very fewwould if be After six millionforChristmasDay 2016,an80percentlossin30years. which hasn’t happened anywhere recently. Indeed,that figure was down to and another age. the public splinters, having movedattention of on from what was truly may programme well haveforum? The timeforthiskind of passed,asthe adapted, extended, enhancedby later technologies –stillanappropriate thiskind. goalforany realistic perhaps nolonger mediaproduct of future changing their minds on air. Relearning how to listen seems a reasonable but on occasionviewers even saw guests–slowly, perhapsonly provisionally – when speaking. Infact, often filmedlistening, far more expressive asight faces thanthe we make the watching audience cameras.at home, participants Forwere thebenefitof in thestudiobutalso conversation with itengendered viewers and be challengedandextended. own high-velocity bile, boastsandracist notlook at otherpeople’s.” Of course it is vital that the current limits of public discourseshould limitsof courseitis vitalthat thecurrent Of “Once upon a time the elite controlled public discourse. Since the Given onecouldnodoubtforce abudget, somethingontosomechannel, A political and social need may well exist but is “television” – however EastEnders After Dark After Dark got an audience of more than30milliononChristmasDay, more gotanaudienceof After Dark launched in1987,when theUK’s viewing options After Dark gave such opportunitiesforlisteningthat was notonly about theconversation Crossroads was onfour nights aweek Weekend World supremo supremo 59 British Journalism Review vol.28 no4 December 2017 60 British Journalism Review vol.28 no4 December 2017 the television andstartedtotalk.Butsincethat timethemechanisms, the onlyprogramme afterwards, really began when theviewers switched off widertherefore society:theAustrian producer usedtosay that the this article isavailable at wias.ac.uk/after-dark-and-the-future-of-public-debate. the production company OpenMedia.A longer version of Sebastian Cody isheadof quixotic someone outthere enoughtogivemight inspire itago. Good luck! not ground-breaking, idea), maybe this notion chat (a good, if life in real UntilGoogle/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc findbeing nolonger • Aswell ashintingat alternative ways of • Facebook/Twitter/etc… Andalongtheway reveals theinbuiltproblems of • Which enoughpeopletobeself-sustaining… attracts • To • Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc)… Get sponsorship • happened allthoseyears –couldbethefollowing ago plan: of Austrian inventors format were. With thatlesson inmind,perhapsthereal will need to be as radically countercultural, inventive and thoughtful as the today –Google, YouTube,new monopoliesof Facebook, Twitter etc–one the onewants totacklewhat theproblems of cannow bedoneinstead?If tweeting, Snapchatting, Facebooking, even Skyping). tend tobeelectronically elsewhere engaged at thesametime(emailing, take TVseriously any more, andwhen theyround doget towatching, they technology andviewing have patterns fundamentally fewpeople changed: After Dark as a result stopfunding.as aresult systematically proposition liberal and tobeacharming undermined Beyond going tothepub, puttingaway the smartphoneand having a television and So if build some fortoday –drawing from what historicalanalogy adirect kind from of After Dar

ingenious a media k are no longer sufficient for the purpose, sufficientforthepurpose, nolonger k are monolith (back then product (then totheworld… responding After Dark Google/YouTube/ ORF and C4, , now what?)… now