BY JANE DUNBAR
Here comes Prime Minister Helen Clark on a white charger promising change. "Quality TV" is on its way, and the "crassly commercial" can head for the door.
We all nod sagely. That's what we want. It's time we had it.
But do we agree on what this "quality TV" is?
Dr Kevin Glynn, an American academic working at the University of Canterbury, is wary of the term "quality."
Dr Glynn, author of a book on "tabloid TV" about to be published in the US, says that when politicians talk about "quality TV," they are usually talking about ensuring that television reflects their own middle-class values and interests.
The dominant definition of quality is also a generational one, he says, and part of the furore over "dumbing down" is related to the growth of programming for young audiences.
"Often, this is programming older audiences simply don't 'get' - their kids understand it much better than they do.
"I do think a lot of so-called quality television is very good," he concedes. "But I get very suspicious of the term when it's used to discredit other forms of popular taste."
Entertainment versus education is a core part of Broadcasting Minister Marian Hobbs' position on the "quality" issue.
"Quality, whether in fiction, comedy or documentary, is what makes you stop and think, preferably from another perspective," she says. "Have we had it in New Zealand? Some TV programmes have made me sit back and think, but there hasn't been very much."
Marian Hobbs also wants local programmes to cover a wider range of subjects.
"We should broadcast a range of programmes that reflect our diverse interests," she says.
"In New Zealand, many people love brass bands. Yet rarely does such music get a slot on TV. That is what we mean by diversity. It's not what I might watch. But it is one part of a range of interests - gardening, opera, science, history, architecture, mechanics ...
"We also have to make sure there are programmes that tell New Zealand stories, play New Zealand music, feature New Zealand talent - programmes that celebrate who we are and which reflect us back to ourselves."
This may be music to the ears of TV2's general manager, Stephen Smith.
Smith is among many in the industry who are waiting for a fuller explanation of what the Government might mean when it says TVNZ should provide more quality programming and less of the crassly commercial.
TV2's top six programmes last year were Dream Home (local), My House My Castle (local), Shortland Street (local), Veronica's Closet (American) Motorway Patrol (local) and Weddings (local).
"These programmes show New Zealanders living their lives in their ways, in a way people enjoy participating in and watching," says Mr Smith.
If the Government is interested in "public interest" broadcasting, these are the programmes which clearly interest the public, he says.
Soap operas, for example, have not been regarded as "quality." But Dr Glynn argues that shows such as Shortland Street should be, because they often cover crucial issues about personal relations, sexuality and race relations, and sometimes even public policy issues such as the privatisation of health care.
Of course Shortland Street's New Zealand origins and focus mean it is likely to flourish in the new environment heralded by Helen Clark and Marian Hobbs.
The planned TVNZ public charter will place a strong emphasis on New Zealand culture, heritage and artistic achievements, says Helen Clark.
But while Dr Glynn is enthusiastic about having more emphasis on New Zealand programming, he believes a public charter for television should cover a broad base of tastes.
Notions of quality, he says, depend on perspective.
"Buffy the Vampire-Slayer, for example, could fit into the notion of quality television from the perspective of someone like Helen Clark. It deals with gender issues in a positive way, and is in many ways entirely feminist in its representation of adolescent girl life."
But Dr Glynn suspects Buffy will be viewed as one of the "crassly commercial" American products the Prime Minister apparently regards with disdain.
Dr Glynn's view is shaped by the field of cultural studies, in which everything is open to question and re-evaluation. We might think we know what "quality" means, but do we really?
And from what perspective are we judging good and bad? Cultural studies also aim at breaking down the division between "high" and "low" culture, saying, for example, that "popular" forms of TV, as opposed to "quality," can reveal something about ourselves and our values.
You might think Buffy the Vampire Slayer is rubbish, but Dr Glynn says it is popular because it engagingly addresses a range of issues important to young people.
Many other media academics have a more traditional view of what constitutes "quality," and their views are more likely to match those of Helen Clark and Marian Hobbs.
Dr Alan Cocker, head of the Masters of Communication programme at the Auckland University of Technology, believes most viewers can identify what is quality TV and what is not.
"Most people can discern between programmes that have depth and merit and programmes that are merely distracting or formulaic," he says.
And most viewers could see the "inherent worth" of a David Attenborough wildlife series as opposed to Baywatch.
"Almost all know that from the wildlife series we're getting more than distraction and entertainment It's TV at its most powerful - it teaches people something."
Jo Tyndall, chief executive of New Zealand on Air, also sees a difference between programmes that merely distract their audience and those that engage and educate.
"Sometimes people do want to 'blob out' - watch things that don't require a significant mental commitment and involvement," she says. "They're happy to sit back and watch Suzanne Paul or Mitre 10 Changing Rooms. There is definitely a place for those programmes on TV."
But these had to be balanced by other programmes that went beyond ephemeral pleasure or enjoyment and gave audiences a higher and longer-lasting satisfaction - "something like Our People Our Century for example."
Dr Glynn sees problems with the view that public broadcasting should educate and edify its viewers.
Attempts to "educate" can be more about bringing people into alignment with some official middle-class notion about what is valuable, he says And distinctions between entertainment and education "don't tell us anything about what's going on in people's heads when they're being 'merely entertained.' What entertains people may be a lot more significant than that position allows."
What some groups may dismiss as "crass American content" may be speaking powerfully to others, he says.
Take music videos and hip-hop, for example. Hip-hop provided a way of expression, for some Maori and Pacific Island youth to talk about their identity and discontent in ways not previously available here.
Dr Glynn believes it is important for New Zealand TV to deal with New Zealand life. But again he has questions. Whose New Zealand culture? Which New Zealanders?
"Usually the kind of TV produced in New Zealand that deals with New Zealand is very much mainstream Pakeha New Zealand life. It does, to its credit, have a strong egalitarian streak - it's not highbrow life.
"But it is still mainstream Pakeha perspectives that are mostly circulated."
Marian Hobbs says public consultation will begin soon, and that a public charter for TVNZ should be through Parliament within 12 months.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from Lifestyle
Heather Mills: ‘I lost my leg, had a million illnesses. You just carry on’
The former model and ex-wife of a Beatle on saving herself... and her vegan food empire.