To fully understand the landscape of British broadcasting pre-Channel 4, it is necessary to look deep into the “first wave” of British television between the 1940s and 1970s. Firstly, it is important to note that the television industry, compared to the more physical industries of the day, was relatively unaffected by the rapid economic decline of the British industries in the 1970s. Goodwin points out that it was both technological and cultural limitations that protected the industry from decline, stating that “Brazilian telenovellas might be cheaper to produce than Coronation Street … but they wouldn’t get you sixteen million British viewers.”

Even so, there was a fairly united group of critics who felt that the British television industry required overhaul to completely change the structure of the components of the duopoly – the BBC and ITV. Therefore the highly important Annan Committee’s report in 1977 came as something of a disappointment as it was praiseworthy of the system currently in place. One area in which it did support the critics of the 1970s was the introduction of the fourth channel, which had been possible since the early 1960s. The argument then, therefore, became what the fourth channel was going to be broadcast. Two ideas were put forward – one being a second ITV under the authority of the IBA. The other was the “third force” in television that was promoted by the same critics who had wanted the third channel in the first place. Anthony Smith, a former BBC producer, is cited by Goodwin as finding “most favour with Annan” by saying:

“A great opportunity would be missed if the fourth channel were seen solely in terms of extending the present range of programmes …”
- p21, Television Under The Tories - Goodwin

So, clearly, the widespread belief was that the new channel wasn’t going to follow the rules that those already established did. This was further established by Willie Whitelaw soon after the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher, to whom Whitelaw was deputy, and her Conservative government. Thanks to the insistence of the Conservative government wanting a commercially driven channel, the Open Broadcasting Authority was scrapped; the Independent Broadcasting Authority remained, and was eventually put in charge of Channel 4.

With this background, Channel 4 seemed destined to be the home of the niche market, making the most of a new channel to produce a mix of mainstream and unconventional, of independent production and imports, and so on. The path of Channel 4 since its inception is not a huge part in answering how the channel has changed the landscape of UK broadcasting, but even at a most basic level, cross-referencing the original Public Service Remit that the new channel was expected to follow with the most recent one defined by the Communications Act 2003 offers an insight into the way the channel has changed. Firstly, the Broadcasting Act 1980, quoted in Goodwin, enforced the following:

“It shall be the duty of the Authority [IBA] –
(a) To ensure that the programmes contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV;
(b) … to ensure that a suitable proportion of programmes are of an educational nature;
(c) To encourage innovation and experiment in the forms,
And generally to give the Fourth Channel a distinctive character of its own.”
- p28, Television Under The Tories - Goodwin
This can be contrasted with the current PSR, which currently dictates the channel through Section 265 of the Communications Act 2003:
“(3) The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular—
(a) demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;
(b) appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;
(c) makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and
(d) exhibits a distinctive character. ”
- section 265, Communications Act 2003

One might consider that the points of the two are not altogether different. However, on closer inspection, a notable absence in the 2003 PSR is the lack of reference to any other public free-to-air channel. This demonstrates the way with which the public channels, including Channel 4, have become more balanced in the content they offer and can be interpreted in two ways in reference to the question. One could claim that Channel 4, because of advertising requirements, has had to become more mainstream to secure audience figures, which would render its overall impact on the broadcasting scene as quite low. However, this point could also be interpreted as the opposite – that Channel 4 has had such a large effect that the BBC and ITV have had to adapt to fit the new style of entertainment which the “newcomer” offered, thus normalising the Channel 4 output style. In reality, a mix of the two is probably the case, with Channel 4 compromising through the Grade era in the early 1990s, but the other channels making steps to emulate popular Channel 4 themes and programmes later on in the same decade.

Such themes have had a large effect on the styles that the other channels have adopted. Big Brother (Endemol UK; 2000) was the first of the reality television genre that we as a society are so addicted to today. It is quite fascinating to follow the path of reality television from the first Big Brother series. There is no doubt that reality TV is geared towards the entertainment side of things – as Crisell points out the docudrama is now a chance to make things happen and report on the findings rather than the opportunity to reflect on historical or contemporary events. The spread of this genre from Channel 4 to ITV (Survivor – 2001, I’m a Celebrity… - 2002-present) and even the BBC (Castaway – 2001) showed a distinct recognition from the established organisations that Channel 4 television styles could work for the “mainstream” audience. With the explosion of reality television that we have since seen, this view has been vindicated.

Similarly, the way Channel 4 broadcasts was quickly to change the way in which the BBC and ITV conducted some of their own operations. The channel was the first to incorporate broadcasting methods like Stranded Programming, which involves the linking of similarly themed programmes and promoting and airing them in one straight evening or over the course of a weekend. Examples of this include 4mation – the channel’s animation season – and even, of course, the channel’s own 25th birthday celebrations which occurred very recently in November. The BBC, ITV and in particular cable and satellite broadcasters have followed this with their own “theme” nights and weekends, which usually centre around a contemporary event that is appreciated by a mainstream popular audience. Channel 4 remains the only broadcaster which seems likely to broadcast a themed evening of entertainment focusing on a subject that was not considered popular or current affairs – for example the Stirling Prize, which is awarded to architects, receives quite a broad promotion for what would be considered a niche or specialist subject area.
Apart from programming, the Public Service Remit that originally controlled the station dictated that Channel 4 was to be a publisher of content, rather than that of actual producer. This differentiated it from the established channels because BBC and ITV almost universally had in-house production policies. One of the most obvious effects of Channel 4 was the inclusion of the following referring to the BBC and (in this particular example) ITV in the Broadcasting Act 1990:

“(h) … that in each year not less than 25 per cent. of the total amount of time allocated to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes in the service is allocated to the broadcasting of a range and diversity of independent productions. ”
- Section 16 (2(h)), Broadcasting Act 1990

This inclusion was to guarantee that the established broadcasters would take at least some of their content from independent production. The fact that Channel 4 had established this principle and had been more than moderately successful with it means that this was a direct influence by it on the way British Broadcasting worked. Even so, it can be questioned just how much of an impact this had because Channel 4 remains, in terms of international import at least, at the top of the board in imported content such as drama and comedy. Whilst this would be expected since it is explicitly mentioned in its remit, the relevance of the change should still be questioned because it does not necessarily guarantee that this would be the case. Hypothetically, if British television (and thus its own in-house production) was poor enough to warrant it, either of the established organisations could import all of their programming for broadcast. The fact that the in-house productions of the established companies are well received means that the change to the overall landscape, whilst strong enough to have some importance, is not overwhelmingly severe. This can still be seen today – Channel 4 imports several U.S. programmes like Ugly Betty (Touchstone Entertainment) and My Name Is Earl (Fox), whilst the other terrestrial channels import few, if any. Channel 4, similarly, is virtually unique in its use of different series of drama that are British but put forward a unique view via an independent producer. Series like Sugar Rush (Shine) and Shameless (Company Pictures) are all examples of this.

Whilst this argument can be used to dispel the idea that Channel 4 altered the landscape of broadcasting, it can also be used to develop the idea that Channel 4 in its own right changed the situation in the industry just by existing with the system it had in place. By increasing the diversity that existed it can be suggested that Channel 4 had, and continues to has, a large effect on its own.

This situation was further exacerbated by the acceleration of the start of the independent production industry, caused primarily by the independent requirement that Channel 4 had. In the 1984/85 financial year, Channel 4 made payments to 313 independent production companies . Nearly all of these would be new in response to the setup of Channel 4 and its publisher-broadcaster remit.

Despite all this, Channel 4’s inception was not only groundbreaking for its broadcasting novelties. With the promise of a diverse programming remit came a promise of a Welsh-language channel. Originally, the Conservative government, keen to gain the Welsh vote, promised a stand-alone channel for Wales itself. This was then curtailed to a single-nation broadcast with limited Welsh-language programming that caused huge uproar in Wales. The Plaid Cymru leader threatened to go on hunger strike, and the culmination of the dispute resulted in the reversal of the Conservative policy. Therefore there was to be a dual-language broadcast – a very novel idea that required incredibly different programming. Only the BBC World Service could claim any sort of par with this in British Broadcasting of the day, and the broadcasting of radio was far easier and with far less complication than with television.

Additionally, it was Channel 4 that first launched a wide range of sister channels that have become synonymous with today’s digital cable/satellite services. Starting with FilmFour in November 1998, and having gone through many evolutions between free services and subscription ones, the Channel 4 family remains one of the strongest because it is one of the oldest. For a company that is thirty years younger, it still launched its first sister channel a month before ITV did, and a whole four years before the BBC introduced their first digital channel.

With the coming of mass broadband and the now-widespread digital cable and satellite, a new era of television technology has been born. Television is now more important than ever in the lives of people because it is available much more readily. Gone are the days of the cupboard full of blank VHS tapes and a five-channel selection. In its place are hard-drives built into signal receivers and a huge number of programmes and series available on demand. Channel 4, at the head of the innovative group, were one of the first to pioneer the on demand idea with a new service called 4OD that offers most popular Channel 4 programmes, including favourites like Father Ted (Hat Trick). Not only did they make this service available to digital satellite and cable customers, but also to the online user. The wonderment of watching Shameless on a laptop rather than buying the box-set is incredibly useful to many users in a difficult position in reference to funds, of course to which group almost all students are desperate subscribers. Joking aside, however, the internet is the real forefront of today’s technology. The possibility of now watching television on computer and doing away with the box altogether is frankly quite frightening. The fact that Channel 4 is at the head of this surging movement is testament again to the potential power of change that the channel held and continues to hold.

It would be a ridiculous idea, of course, to suggest that Channel 4 is an all-conquering broadcast medium that has totally revolutionised British broadcasting. Sure, the methods it has employed have changed how things work, but how many of these were forced upon the channel in the first place? How many would have inevitably been incorporated into the system? It is, for me, imperative to look at the diversity of Channel 4 to fully understand the changes that it has made to the broadcasting landscape. Indeed, to continue the metaphor, I would claim that the diversity from the mainstream would be inextricably linked to the size of the shovel one is using to make said landscape changes. The question is whether Channel 4 was your average landscape garden effort or a “let’s move half of France” effort. The effect that Channel 4 has had over the years diminished as time went on because as it became more diverse the niche market it was representing was being lost. It was a niche market because no one supplied it with broadcasting. When Channel 4 did that such effect was lost and it ceased to be the groundbreaking channel it was intended to be. That said, the changes we have seen over the years leave little to the imagination of someone who sees the bigger picture. Channel 4 became more populist when gaining profit from advertising revenue became an issue.

Put simply, Channel 4 was no longer broadcasting for the public alone. It had gained a frenetic need to sell the programme to the advertiser. When, in the early 1980s Channel 4 was new, under very little pressure and comforted by the safety net that was in place, diverse programmes for ethnic minorities, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community and the anarchist youth were all feasible programme ideas because it didn’t matter how much advertising space sold. As the squeeze began to tell and Michael Grade started turning the newly founded corporation into a business venture, the difference was plain to see. It was not the disaster that one would imagine though – cultural entertainment was still shown and was still of a higher quality than some programmes on the established channels: another reason, in fact, why one could champion Channel 4 as changing the broadcast industry. However, what was previously diverse became unfortunately samey as time continued on and Channel 4 became increasingly aligned to the BBC and ITV’s production themes. Whilst being an important part of the argument supporting the idea of Channel 4’s big effect on the industry, shows like Big Brother and Property Ladder have dragged down the theory of Channel 4 being a cultural hotspot of media. However, the independence of Channel 4 is still a strong point. The intervention that the channel had in creating the production industry in both TV and Film (Trainspotting, Football Factory) is something the channel should strive to recreate. By funding the industry, they can gain a lot out of it – a point proven with independent producers submitting huge hits like Sugar Rush and Shameless. But one has to wonder whether the channel has already departed from the innovation and creativity that it was set up to produce for a stupidly monotonous television schedule. And if it has sacrificed such a mantle, is the criticism that Crisell suggests that it has received fair? As he says, because of the growth of the channel, the minority it was intended to serve is no longer a minority and actually forms part of a stable business plan. So, therefore, why should it still receive a remit for a service that it no longer has the opportunity to provide? Whatever the answer to this argument, the fact remains that Channel 4’s influence on the industry has, at the very least, been rather eventful, if not wholly groundbreaking. I am, like most students, firmly in the corner of Channel 4 because of its programming for the 18-35 demographic (which, by the way, does not include Hollyoaks) and also because of the fact it is a modern, forward-thinking organisation that makes use of new mediums. When ITV offers its programmes online on demand, I may change my view, but Channel 4 may actually be making steps towards the end of the “box in the corner” as we know it.

—

References:

Broadcasting Act 1990 (c.42) - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900042_en_3#pt1-ch2-pb1-l1g16
Accessed 13th December 2007 – Office of Public Sector Information, London

Channel 4 Television - http://www.astra2d.com/channel4.htm
Accessed 13th December 2007 – Astra 2D

Communications Act 2003 (c.21) - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_25#pt3-ch4-pb2-l1g265
Accessed 13th December 2007 – Office of Public Sector Information, London

Crisell, A. - An Introductory History of British Television: Second Edition - Routledge, Oxon – 2007

Goodwin, P. – Television Under The Tories: Broadcasting Policy 1979-97 – British Film Institute, London – 1998

The controversial 2004 film Football Factory (Nick Love) is a perfect example when attempting to describe the influence a group can have on its younger members. Set in London, the film is based around a group of football hooligans (known as a firm) who, in the words of main character Tommy Johnson, spend their Saturday afternoons: “Kicking people’s fucking heads in”. A large amount of Group Communication Theories can be applied to the firm – concerning everything from dress code to group hierarchy.

One of the most radical theories referring to Group Communication is the Group Think theory, as devised by Irving Janis in 1972. A comment from Janis sums his theory up; referring to Group Think as “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement which results from in-group pressure.

In the film, the Chelsea firm can, in one way or another, be associated with all of the Concepts of Group Think:

Illusion of Invulnerability
As may seem obvious from the title, this concept involves the feeling of invulnerability from a group. The Chelsea firm can often be seen with an illusion of invulnerability – the best example is when the radio reports littered through the latter stages of the film suggest there will be a large police presence at the Millwall game, yet there is not even a thought that the “meet” with the Millwall firm should not take place.

Collective Rationalisation
This is the process where group members rationalise with others and themselves after being given warnings by something or someone. This is again apparent in the film, when Tommy goes to buy flowers for his grandfather’s friend Albert’s funeral, and his friend questions his actions and attitude. Tommy’s response is simply “We’re only having a laugh”. It is interesting to notice how Tommy explains away the warning with such a flippant attitude; since it is probably created by the entire group thinking the same thing.

Illusion of Morality
Probably the largest inaccuracy of the group’s ethos is the idea that they think they are actually doing something for society. A short scene at the start gives a brief introduction to Tommy’s grandfather Bill – a war veteran, living out his final few days before jetting off for Australia. Tommy speaks of how it “makes him sick that the country treats him the way it does”, and even goes as far as to suggest that his anarchy is trying to rectify that fact. Tony Harris even salutes Albert’s grave. This is morality in its most twisted form.

Excessive Stereotyping
This doesn’t occur quite as often, but there are two major examples. Firstly, the animosity against the middle classes is a clear factor. This is shown firstly in Tommy’s dislike of Rod’s girlfriend, and then – after a few lines of cocaine – by Rod himself towards her family. Secondly, Billy Bright verbally, and physically, attacks the judge on two occasions, questioning his middle-class attitude, anchored by Tommy’s narrative explaining a stereotype of judges going to child-prostitutes and giving them crack money. This is an aggressive stereotype, which is probably only true for even less than 1% of judges, if for any at all.

Pressure for Conformity
Tommy uses this pressure on Rod during Rod’s time with his girlfriend. This, again, is one of the lesser occurring concepts of Group Think in the film. It involves putting pressure on those seen as “not pulling their weight”.

Self-Censorship
This happens a lot to Rod during his brief relationship, but more so to Zebedee during his fear and eventual dislike of Billy Bright. He often just shuts up and says nothing. Indeed this is the aim of Self-Censorship – Zebedee says nothing to assure his place in the group.

Illusion of Unanimity
This is very subtle in the firm – most displayed by Harris’ orders that are questioned by nobody. This illusion is the belief that everyone agrees with the actions suggested. It is often that silence means consent within Group Think affected groups.

This is usually the leader, who chooses the group’s reality. It is quite amazing that a group can end up believing what this person tells them. Indeed reality is not an issue for most Group Think groups – rather their own distorted reality. In the film, the entire group is under the impression that what they are doing is just a bit of a laugh, and isn’t hurting anybody. As the young mother in the first fight scene points out, this is sincerely not the case.

Since all concepts of Group Think affect the Chelsea firm, it is not surprising to realise that the group is very similar to political totalitarian groups of the past – not least those of Hitler’s Nazis, and Stalin’s Communists. Personally, I can also relate this to Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell, 1949) where, in fact, the word GroupThink as one word was coined from. The totalitarian control in all three cases modelled the youth of the three nations and this, to an extent, applies to Harris’ authoritarian control in the film.

He takes Zebedee under his wing early on, and looks after him as he makes the transition to a full-time member of the firm.

There is clearly a respect for Tony Harris throughout the firm – he is as hard as nails, an old-timer with a lot of experience. Zebedee looks up to him as a sort of father figure. This isn’t the case with the older men, but they still respect Harris’ decisions. Of course Harris’ leadership came about with a certain degree of common sense – on the one occasion on which members of the firm do disobey Harris, the three of them – Tommy, Rod and Billy Bright (naturally) are arrested for starting on some Stoke fans that Harris rightfully informs them to leave. Stanton (1996) suggests that the location of a group may add to the chance of Group Think concepts being implemented. In this case, the group has been brought up on council estates in London – therefore they’re not the most sensitive individuals in the world. Indeed, with short scenes on some of the characters’ childhoods, this assumption is probably correct. The environment, as well as the group and task, are uncontrollable variables in group effectiveness. The reason the above are uncontrollable is due to the fact that all three have to exist for a group to have any reason to continue.

However, it is not only Group Think that leads to the youth of a group being influenced by the leaders. A perfect study to compare with is one from the 1930s by Lippitt and White (sometimes referred to as Lewin, Lippitt and White or Lewin et. al. since Lewin led the experiment, but not the study).

There were three groups of school children – each was required to create masks as a group. There was a leader for each group – Authoritarian, a leader that was to remain aloof and not inform the group nor consult them before giving orders; Democratic, a leader that encouraged, participated and offered guidance while discussing tasks with the children first; and Laissez-Faire, who informed the children of their tasks but did not get involved.

The results show that the Democratic group ended up creating masks of the highest quality, showing that democracy does help in completion of tasks to a high standard. The authoritarian group created the most number of masks and finished second quality wise. This shows that authority clearly helps to get things done, and to a relatively good standard too.

This is important in application to Football Factory since the leadership style of the Chelsea firm is indeed authoritarian. Tony Harris doesn’t stick around asking for ideas from others; he just implements them into his plans. Generally, the plans go very well – satisfaction and success occur.

Further conclusions from the Lippitt and White experiment suggested that some children preferred authoritarian leadership since they were brought up that way. This was certainly true of a son of an army colonel, who was brought up very strictly, and in fact relished the idea of being under authoritarian control.

Interestingly, under this control two distinct groups emerged between the children - an aggressive group and an apathetic group. The aggressive group were more likely to blame others and attention-seeking, as well as being rebellious. The apathetic group were more likely to be laid back and placed less demand on the leader – as well as being less critical.

This is fascinating since it is now possible to apply Tuckman’s Stages of Group Formation. Considering that the group is full of aggressive hooligans, it is possible to suggest that the Storming stage of Tuckman has occurred. On looking at the idea that two groups were formed, it is likely that those in the Chelsea firm who have been apathetic in the authoritarian group have been removed in the storming process, leaving only aggressive people and therefore desirable members for a group of hooligans.

The whole idea of authoritarian leadership’s effects on young members is extremely important when applying it to the Chelsea firm. Tony Harris and his small group of leaders are authoritarian, meaning that the members of the group get the most amount done possible in the time allowed. Considering this is the desired effect, youthful members are being nursed into the correct role all the time.

This does in fact happen throughout the film. Even in the short time that we see the characters, personal growth of the younger members occurs. Zebedee, for example, finally learns that to be good in Billy Bright’s eyes, he will have to be a hero at the Millwall meet. Even Tommy grows – and he is nearly 30. They are not alone. I believe it is important to note that it matters not how much an individual grows; as long as they are in a group that is authoritarian and embroiled in Group Think concepts, they will never be able to grow as an individual, rather as a pawn in someone else’s arsenal.