According to Ofsted, history is successful in schools. Not so, says controversial historian Niall Ferguson : the inspectors are missing the ruination of the subject Is there a crisis in the teaching of history in British schools? Not if you believe the conclusions of History for All, the report published earlier this month by Ofsted. Based on evidence from inspections conducted between 2007 and 2010 in 83 primary schools and the same number of secondary schools, the report begins on a reassuringly positive note. “There was much that was good and outstanding” in the history lessons the inspectors observed. “Most pupils enjoyed well-planned lessons that extended their knowledge, challenged their thinking and enhanced their understanding.” In secondary schools, we are assured, “effective teaching by well-qualified and highly competent teachers enabled the majority of students to develop knowledge and understanding in depth”. In short, history is “generally a popular and successful subject, which many pupils enjoy”. Attainment at the secondary level is “high and continu[ing] to rise”. Well, that’s all right then. Clearly, all last year’s talk by Michael Gove, Simon Schama, myself and others about the urgent need for reform was mere alarmism, doubtless actuated by some sinister political motive. Or was it? A closer look at the main body of the report suggests that there are indeed grounds for concern. First, it can hardly be a cause of celebration that students in independent schools are almost twice as likely to study GCSE history as those in maintained schools. In 2010, more than a hundred state secondary schools entered no students for GCSE history. Second, as the inspectors’ report acknowledges, England is the only country in Europe where history is not compulsory for students beyond the age of 14. Worse, many state schools now offer a two-year key stage 3 course, which allows some pupils to stop studying history at the age of 13. And here are four more facts that are not in the Ofsted report: • 25% of all schools no longer teach history as a discrete subject in year 7 • 30% of comprehensives spend less than one hour a week on history in the years up to age 13 • More GCSE candidates took design and technology than history last year • More A-level candidates took psychology. It is a paradox indeed. History has never been more popular outside schools than it is in Britain today. Yet history has never been so unpopular in British schools. Even more disturbing is the evidence of widespread historical ignorance among school-leavers. A recent survey of first-year undergraduates reading history at a reputable UK university found that: 66% did not know who was monarch at time of the Armada; 69% did not know the location of the Boer war; 84% did not know who commanded British forces at Waterloo (a third thought it was Nelson); and 89% could not name a single 19th-century British prime minister. Such evidence should make us very sceptical indeed about Ofsted’s claim that history is “a successful subject in schools”. How did we get here? The problem is surely not poor teaching. Rather, it is the stuff that teachers are expected to do, which is the product of an unholy alliance between well-meaning politicians and educationalists, not forgetting over-mighty examination boards. The politicians ranged from Kenneth Baker, who vainly hoped that a new national curriculum would force schools to teach a rather traditional kind of history, to Gordon Brown, who decided (Scotsman as he was) that schools should be pressed to teach British rather than English history, in order to promote a sense of “Britishness”. Such initiatives from above provided the proponents of a so-called new history with a golden opportunity to reshape historical education. Historical “skills” such as source analysis, they argued, should be elevated above mere factual knowledge. And “discovery” by children should count for more than dusty old pedagogy. The result was a national curriculum designed to instil in schoolchildren all kinds of “key concepts” like “chronological understanding”, “cultural, ethnic and religious diversity”, “change and continuity”, “cause and consequence”, “significance” and “interpretation”. And these were to be taught with reference to an impressively wide range of subject matter. Who could possibly object to such an enlightened scheme? The trouble is not so much with the theory as with the practice that has evolved in too many schools. As Ofsted admits in a damning passage on primary pupils, “some … found it difficult to place the historical episodes they had studied within any coherent, long-term narrative. They knew about particular events, characters and periods, but did not have an overview. Their chronological understanding was often underdeveloped and so they found it difficult to link developments together.” The only thing wrong with this observation is that Ofsted seems to think it applies only to primary school pupils, whereas it could equally well be applied to those in secondary school – and students at a good few universities, too. In fact, as the inspectors concede elsewhere, in 28 of the 58 secondary schools they visited, “students’ chronological understanding was not sufficiently well developed: they had … a poor sense of the historical narrative”. This is hardly a minor deficiency. It’s a bit like saying that maths is a successful subject in British schools, apart from the fact that pupils in half of schools can’t count. I have complained before that it is possible to leave school in England knowing only about Henry VIII, Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. This is a caricature, admittedly, but it is not a wholly unfair one. Commenting on a not untypical primary curriculum, the authors of History for All say that “its principal weaknesses are the disconnected topics and the potential for the pupils to be left with a fragmented overview”. You can say that again. Consider this list of topics spread in this order over four years: • Romans and Celts – why have people invaded and settled? • Ancient Egypt – what can we find out from what has survived? • What can we learn about history by studying a famous person? • Why did Henry VIII marry six times? • Tudor times – rich and poor; exploration • What was it like to live here in the past? • Victorian children • Victorians – how your area has changed since the Victorian era • The second world war • Ancient Greeks • Britain since 1948 The word smorgasbord doesn’t really do justice to this random assortment. Lost, as Simon Schama has justly lamented, is the “long arc of time”, to be replaced by odds and sods. And some of those odds really are odd, especially if you go on to GCSE and A-level, where the “methods” become ever more idiosyncratic. If you really want to understand what’s going wrong in English schools, take a look at some of the lessons Ofsted singles out for praise… “Students in year 8 analysed the changing attitudes towards Oliver Cromwell from the 17th to the 20th centuries and, in year
Continue reading …According to Ofsted, history is successful in schools. Not so, says controversial historian Niall Ferguson : the inspectors are missing the ruination of the subject Is there a crisis in the teaching of history in British schools? Not if you believe the conclusions of History for All, the report published earlier this month by Ofsted. Based on evidence from inspections conducted between 2007 and 2010 in 83 primary schools and the same number of secondary schools, the report begins on a reassuringly positive note. “There was much that was good and outstanding” in the history lessons the inspectors observed. “Most pupils enjoyed well-planned lessons that extended their knowledge, challenged their thinking and enhanced their understanding.” In secondary schools, we are assured, “effective teaching by well-qualified and highly competent teachers enabled the majority of students to develop knowledge and understanding in depth”. In short, history is “generally a popular and successful subject, which many pupils enjoy”. Attainment at the secondary level is “high and continu[ing] to rise”. Well, that’s all right then. Clearly, all last year’s talk by Michael Gove, Simon Schama, myself and others about the urgent need for reform was mere alarmism, doubtless actuated by some sinister political motive. Or was it? A closer look at the main body of the report suggests that there are indeed grounds for concern. First, it can hardly be a cause of celebration that students in independent schools are almost twice as likely to study GCSE history as those in maintained schools. In 2010, more than a hundred state secondary schools entered no students for GCSE history. Second, as the inspectors’ report acknowledges, England is the only country in Europe where history is not compulsory for students beyond the age of 14. Worse, many state schools now offer a two-year key stage 3 course, which allows some pupils to stop studying history at the age of 13. And here are four more facts that are not in the Ofsted report: • 25% of all schools no longer teach history as a discrete subject in year 7 • 30% of comprehensives spend less than one hour a week on history in the years up to age 13 • More GCSE candidates took design and technology than history last year • More A-level candidates took psychology. It is a paradox indeed. History has never been more popular outside schools than it is in Britain today. Yet history has never been so unpopular in British schools. Even more disturbing is the evidence of widespread historical ignorance among school-leavers. A recent survey of first-year undergraduates reading history at a reputable UK university found that: 66% did not know who was monarch at time of the Armada; 69% did not know the location of the Boer war; 84% did not know who commanded British forces at Waterloo (a third thought it was Nelson); and 89% could not name a single 19th-century British prime minister. Such evidence should make us very sceptical indeed about Ofsted’s claim that history is “a successful subject in schools”. How did we get here? The problem is surely not poor teaching. Rather, it is the stuff that teachers are expected to do, which is the product of an unholy alliance between well-meaning politicians and educationalists, not forgetting over-mighty examination boards. The politicians ranged from Kenneth Baker, who vainly hoped that a new national curriculum would force schools to teach a rather traditional kind of history, to Gordon Brown, who decided (Scotsman as he was) that schools should be pressed to teach British rather than English history, in order to promote a sense of “Britishness”. Such initiatives from above provided the proponents of a so-called new history with a golden opportunity to reshape historical education. Historical “skills” such as source analysis, they argued, should be elevated above mere factual knowledge. And “discovery” by children should count for more than dusty old pedagogy. The result was a national curriculum designed to instil in schoolchildren all kinds of “key concepts” like “chronological understanding”, “cultural, ethnic and religious diversity”, “change and continuity”, “cause and consequence”, “significance” and “interpretation”. And these were to be taught with reference to an impressively wide range of subject matter. Who could possibly object to such an enlightened scheme? The trouble is not so much with the theory as with the practice that has evolved in too many schools. As Ofsted admits in a damning passage on primary pupils, “some … found it difficult to place the historical episodes they had studied within any coherent, long-term narrative. They knew about particular events, characters and periods, but did not have an overview. Their chronological understanding was often underdeveloped and so they found it difficult to link developments together.” The only thing wrong with this observation is that Ofsted seems to think it applies only to primary school pupils, whereas it could equally well be applied to those in secondary school – and students at a good few universities, too. In fact, as the inspectors concede elsewhere, in 28 of the 58 secondary schools they visited, “students’ chronological understanding was not sufficiently well developed: they had … a poor sense of the historical narrative”. This is hardly a minor deficiency. It’s a bit like saying that maths is a successful subject in British schools, apart from the fact that pupils in half of schools can’t count. I have complained before that it is possible to leave school in England knowing only about Henry VIII, Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. This is a caricature, admittedly, but it is not a wholly unfair one. Commenting on a not untypical primary curriculum, the authors of History for All say that “its principal weaknesses are the disconnected topics and the potential for the pupils to be left with a fragmented overview”. You can say that again. Consider this list of topics spread in this order over four years: • Romans and Celts – why have people invaded and settled? • Ancient Egypt – what can we find out from what has survived? • What can we learn about history by studying a famous person? • Why did Henry VIII marry six times? • Tudor times – rich and poor; exploration • What was it like to live here in the past? • Victorian children • Victorians – how your area has changed since the Victorian era • The second world war • Ancient Greeks • Britain since 1948 The word smorgasbord doesn’t really do justice to this random assortment. Lost, as Simon Schama has justly lamented, is the “long arc of time”, to be replaced by odds and sods. And some of those odds really are odd, especially if you go on to GCSE and A-level, where the “methods” become ever more idiosyncratic. If you really want to understand what’s going wrong in English schools, take a look at some of the lessons Ofsted singles out for praise… “Students in year 8 analysed the changing attitudes towards Oliver Cromwell from the 17th to the 20th centuries and, in year
Continue reading …
As BBC director general Mark Thompson discusses cuts, this week we ask whether British TV is in rude health or in need of a prune – starting with entertainment programmes Entertainment programming makes up some of the most watched, most profitable, and at times most controversial television on British screens. Like them or not, our noisy, trashy, shiny-floored shows bring huge ratings and have helped transform Saturday night television. That’s why America bought Pop Idol and turned it into American Idol. It’s why America bought Strictly Come Dancing and turned it into Dancing with the Stars. And it’s why, later this year when millions of Americans turn to each other during US X Factor and shriek “What IS this crap?”, we can all feel proud. That’s our crap, America. Ours. Once we were content to spend our weekends watching Ted Rogers hand over boxes of steak knives to badly permed women from Runcorn – but no more. Now entertainment shows are all about size and spectacle. I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! is broadcast live from the other side of the world. The X Factor is like being punched in the face by an exploding petrol tanker for three months at a time. Question the content if you like – and many, many people do – but these shows are the Clifton suspension bridge of their days. If Brunel could see the engineering that goes into making them, he’d weep. Creatively they’re berserk, too. A woman who inspects poo for a living being trapped in a rat-filled coffin until she faints. Members of the public compete against a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube. Soon we’ll be watching a show called Sing If You Can where, judging by the international versions , pop stars will belt out tunes while being mauled by a dog. It’s as if production companies have started to plunder avant garde foreign-language horror films for ideas. Of course, the internet has helped. Previously, Saturday evening telly was something you watched alone when everyone else was out having fun. But thanks to Twitter, the world has been transformed into one big living room, where people trade quips and make buzzer noises whenever a Take Me Out contestant drops below their desired level of acceptability. Twitter – not to mention Guardian liveblogs – has made entertainment TV a communal pursuit again. But there is a sense that we might be riding the crest of a particularly perilous wave. Every year The X Factor gets bigger, and every year its ratings swell to ever more ridiculous heights (at one point during last year’s final, 19.4 million people were watching ). But one day, maybe soon, The X Factor will inevitably go in to decline. Perhaps it will finally become too off-puttingly ridiculous for public consumption. Perhaps when the first episode of the next series is broadcast, ITV will realise that it still hasn’t hired any judges. But it will happen. And when it does, the flaws in our entertainment television will be exposed for all to see. For instance, we still don’t have a definitive chatshow. Product-plugging celebrities currently only have the choice of Piers Morgan (unappealing because he’ll make you cry), Top Gear (unappealing because Jeremy Clarkson will berate you for owning a Nissan Sunny once), Graham Norton (unappealing because you’ll just sit quietly for the whole show while he giggles at cat videos on the internet), Alan Carr (unappealing because it takes place in a room that looks like it was used to host wife-swapping parties in the 1970s) and The One Show (unappealing). The UK sorely needs a Letterman-style nightly talkshow that mixes comedy, guests and music. Also, there are a fair few horrors among the hits. Channel 4, for instance, might be the home of The Million Pound Drop – but then it also broadcast the risible Famous and Fearless, a show that assumed that people wanted to see Rufus Hound cycle around a convention centre. While Sky1 has Got To Dance, the nightmare that was Don’t Forget the Lyrics! should never be repeated. And just because we can sell international rights to everything we make, it doesn’t mean we should. America will soon be confronted with 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow, a remake of a tedious BBC1 misfire from last summer. If any Americans happen to shriek “What IS this crap?” during that, it might be best to keep schtum. The X Factor Television Entertainment Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As BBC director general Mark Thompson discusses cuts, this week we ask whether British TV is in rude health or in need of a prune – starting with entertainment programmes Entertainment programming makes up some of the most watched, most profitable, and at times most controversial television on British screens. Like them or not, our noisy, trashy, shiny-floored shows bring huge ratings and have helped transform Saturday night television. That’s why America bought Pop Idol and turned it into American Idol. It’s why America bought Strictly Come Dancing and turned it into Dancing with the Stars. And it’s why, later this year when millions of Americans turn to each other during US X Factor and shriek “What IS this crap?”, we can all feel proud. That’s our crap, America. Ours. Once we were content to spend our weekends watching Ted Rogers hand over boxes of steak knives to badly permed women from Runcorn – but no more. Now entertainment shows are all about size and spectacle. I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! is broadcast live from the other side of the world. The X Factor is like being punched in the face by an exploding petrol tanker for three months at a time. Question the content if you like – and many, many people do – but these shows are the Clifton suspension bridge of their days. If Brunel could see the engineering that goes into making them, he’d weep. Creatively they’re berserk, too. A woman who inspects poo for a living being trapped in a rat-filled coffin until she faints. Members of the public compete against a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube. Soon we’ll be watching a show called Sing If You Can where, judging by the international versions , pop stars will belt out tunes while being mauled by a dog. It’s as if production companies have started to plunder avant garde foreign-language horror films for ideas. Of course, the internet has helped. Previously, Saturday evening telly was something you watched alone when everyone else was out having fun. But thanks to Twitter, the world has been transformed into one big living room, where people trade quips and make buzzer noises whenever a Take Me Out contestant drops below their desired level of acceptability. Twitter – not to mention Guardian liveblogs – has made entertainment TV a communal pursuit again. But there is a sense that we might be riding the crest of a particularly perilous wave. Every year The X Factor gets bigger, and every year its ratings swell to ever more ridiculous heights (at one point during last year’s final, 19.4 million people were watching ). But one day, maybe soon, The X Factor will inevitably go in to decline. Perhaps it will finally become too off-puttingly ridiculous for public consumption. Perhaps when the first episode of the next series is broadcast, ITV will realise that it still hasn’t hired any judges. But it will happen. And when it does, the flaws in our entertainment television will be exposed for all to see. For instance, we still don’t have a definitive chatshow. Product-plugging celebrities currently only have the choice of Piers Morgan (unappealing because he’ll make you cry), Top Gear (unappealing because Jeremy Clarkson will berate you for owning a Nissan Sunny once), Graham Norton (unappealing because you’ll just sit quietly for the whole show while he giggles at cat videos on the internet), Alan Carr (unappealing because it takes place in a room that looks like it was used to host wife-swapping parties in the 1970s) and The One Show (unappealing). The UK sorely needs a Letterman-style nightly talkshow that mixes comedy, guests and music. Also, there are a fair few horrors among the hits. Channel 4, for instance, might be the home of The Million Pound Drop – but then it also broadcast the risible Famous and Fearless, a show that assumed that people wanted to see Rufus Hound cycle around a convention centre. While Sky1 has Got To Dance, the nightmare that was Don’t Forget the Lyrics! should never be repeated. And just because we can sell international rights to everything we make, it doesn’t mean we should. America will soon be confronted with 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow, a remake of a tedious BBC1 misfire from last summer. If any Americans happen to shriek “What IS this crap?” during that, it might be best to keep schtum. The X Factor Television Entertainment Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As BBC director general Mark Thompson discusses cuts, this week we ask whether British TV is in rude health or in need of a prune – starting with entertainment programmes Entertainment programming makes up some of the most watched, most profitable, and at times most controversial television on British screens. Like them or not, our noisy, trashy, shiny-floored shows bring huge ratings and have helped transform Saturday night television. That’s why America bought Pop Idol and turned it into American Idol. It’s why America bought Strictly Come Dancing and turned it into Dancing with the Stars. And it’s why, later this year when millions of Americans turn to each other during US X Factor and shriek “What IS this crap?”, we can all feel proud. That’s our crap, America. Ours. Once we were content to spend our weekends watching Ted Rogers hand over boxes of steak knives to badly permed women from Runcorn – but no more. Now entertainment shows are all about size and spectacle. I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! is broadcast live from the other side of the world. The X Factor is like being punched in the face by an exploding petrol tanker for three months at a time. Question the content if you like – and many, many people do – but these shows are the Clifton suspension bridge of their days. If Brunel could see the engineering that goes into making them, he’d weep. Creatively they’re berserk, too. A woman who inspects poo for a living being trapped in a rat-filled coffin until she faints. Members of the public compete against a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube. Soon we’ll be watching a show called Sing If You Can where, judging by the international versions , pop stars will belt out tunes while being mauled by a dog. It’s as if production companies have started to plunder avant garde foreign-language horror films for ideas. Of course, the internet has helped. Previously, Saturday evening telly was something you watched alone when everyone else was out having fun. But thanks to Twitter, the world has been transformed into one big living room, where people trade quips and make buzzer noises whenever a Take Me Out contestant drops below their desired level of acceptability. Twitter – not to mention Guardian liveblogs – has made entertainment TV a communal pursuit again. But there is a sense that we might be riding the crest of a particularly perilous wave. Every year The X Factor gets bigger, and every year its ratings swell to ever more ridiculous heights (at one point during last year’s final, 19.4 million people were watching ). But one day, maybe soon, The X Factor will inevitably go in to decline. Perhaps it will finally become too off-puttingly ridiculous for public consumption. Perhaps when the first episode of the next series is broadcast, ITV will realise that it still hasn’t hired any judges. But it will happen. And when it does, the flaws in our entertainment television will be exposed for all to see. For instance, we still don’t have a definitive chatshow. Product-plugging celebrities currently only have the choice of Piers Morgan (unappealing because he’ll make you cry), Top Gear (unappealing because Jeremy Clarkson will berate you for owning a Nissan Sunny once), Graham Norton (unappealing because you’ll just sit quietly for the whole show while he giggles at cat videos on the internet), Alan Carr (unappealing because it takes place in a room that looks like it was used to host wife-swapping parties in the 1970s) and The One Show (unappealing). The UK sorely needs a Letterman-style nightly talkshow that mixes comedy, guests and music. Also, there are a fair few horrors among the hits. Channel 4, for instance, might be the home of The Million Pound Drop – but then it also broadcast the risible Famous and Fearless, a show that assumed that people wanted to see Rufus Hound cycle around a convention centre. While Sky1 has Got To Dance, the nightmare that was Don’t Forget the Lyrics! should never be repeated. And just because we can sell international rights to everything we make, it doesn’t mean we should. America will soon be confronted with 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow, a remake of a tedious BBC1 misfire from last summer. If any Americans happen to shriek “What IS this crap?” during that, it might be best to keep schtum. The X Factor Television Entertainment Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As BBC director general Mark Thompson discusses cuts, this week we ask whether British TV is in rude health or in need of a prune – starting with entertainment programmes Entertainment programming makes up some of the most watched, most profitable, and at times most controversial television on British screens. Like them or not, our noisy, trashy, shiny-floored shows bring huge ratings and have helped transform Saturday night television. That’s why America bought Pop Idol and turned it into American Idol. It’s why America bought Strictly Come Dancing and turned it into Dancing with the Stars. And it’s why, later this year when millions of Americans turn to each other during US X Factor and shriek “What IS this crap?”, we can all feel proud. That’s our crap, America. Ours. Once we were content to spend our weekends watching Ted Rogers hand over boxes of steak knives to badly permed women from Runcorn – but no more. Now entertainment shows are all about size and spectacle. I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! is broadcast live from the other side of the world. The X Factor is like being punched in the face by an exploding petrol tanker for three months at a time. Question the content if you like – and many, many people do – but these shows are the Clifton suspension bridge of their days. If Brunel could see the engineering that goes into making them, he’d weep. Creatively they’re berserk, too. A woman who inspects poo for a living being trapped in a rat-filled coffin until she faints. Members of the public compete against a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube. Soon we’ll be watching a show called Sing If You Can where, judging by the international versions , pop stars will belt out tunes while being mauled by a dog. It’s as if production companies have started to plunder avant garde foreign-language horror films for ideas. Of course, the internet has helped. Previously, Saturday evening telly was something you watched alone when everyone else was out having fun. But thanks to Twitter, the world has been transformed into one big living room, where people trade quips and make buzzer noises whenever a Take Me Out contestant drops below their desired level of acceptability. Twitter – not to mention Guardian liveblogs – has made entertainment TV a communal pursuit again. But there is a sense that we might be riding the crest of a particularly perilous wave. Every year The X Factor gets bigger, and every year its ratings swell to ever more ridiculous heights (at one point during last year’s final, 19.4 million people were watching ). But one day, maybe soon, The X Factor will inevitably go in to decline. Perhaps it will finally become too off-puttingly ridiculous for public consumption. Perhaps when the first episode of the next series is broadcast, ITV will realise that it still hasn’t hired any judges. But it will happen. And when it does, the flaws in our entertainment television will be exposed for all to see. For instance, we still don’t have a definitive chatshow. Product-plugging celebrities currently only have the choice of Piers Morgan (unappealing because he’ll make you cry), Top Gear (unappealing because Jeremy Clarkson will berate you for owning a Nissan Sunny once), Graham Norton (unappealing because you’ll just sit quietly for the whole show while he giggles at cat videos on the internet), Alan Carr (unappealing because it takes place in a room that looks like it was used to host wife-swapping parties in the 1970s) and The One Show (unappealing). The UK sorely needs a Letterman-style nightly talkshow that mixes comedy, guests and music. Also, there are a fair few horrors among the hits. Channel 4, for instance, might be the home of The Million Pound Drop – but then it also broadcast the risible Famous and Fearless, a show that assumed that people wanted to see Rufus Hound cycle around a convention centre. While Sky1 has Got To Dance, the nightmare that was Don’t Forget the Lyrics! should never be repeated. And just because we can sell international rights to everything we make, it doesn’t mean we should. America will soon be confronted with 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow, a remake of a tedious BBC1 misfire from last summer. If any Americans happen to shriek “What IS this crap?” during that, it might be best to keep schtum. The X Factor Television Entertainment Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As BBC director general Mark Thompson discusses cuts, this week we ask whether British TV is in rude health or in need of a prune – starting with entertainment programmes Entertainment programming makes up some of the most watched, most profitable, and at times most controversial television on British screens. Like them or not, our noisy, trashy, shiny-floored shows bring huge ratings and have helped transform Saturday night television. That’s why America bought Pop Idol and turned it into American Idol. It’s why America bought Strictly Come Dancing and turned it into Dancing with the Stars. And it’s why, later this year when millions of Americans turn to each other during US X Factor and shriek “What IS this crap?”, we can all feel proud. That’s our crap, America. Ours. Once we were content to spend our weekends watching Ted Rogers hand over boxes of steak knives to badly permed women from Runcorn – but no more. Now entertainment shows are all about size and spectacle. I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! is broadcast live from the other side of the world. The X Factor is like being punched in the face by an exploding petrol tanker for three months at a time. Question the content if you like – and many, many people do – but these shows are the Clifton suspension bridge of their days. If Brunel could see the engineering that goes into making them, he’d weep. Creatively they’re berserk, too. A woman who inspects poo for a living being trapped in a rat-filled coffin until she faints. Members of the public compete against a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube. Soon we’ll be watching a show called Sing If You Can where, judging by the international versions , pop stars will belt out tunes while being mauled by a dog. It’s as if production companies have started to plunder avant garde foreign-language horror films for ideas. Of course, the internet has helped. Previously, Saturday evening telly was something you watched alone when everyone else was out having fun. But thanks to Twitter, the world has been transformed into one big living room, where people trade quips and make buzzer noises whenever a Take Me Out contestant drops below their desired level of acceptability. Twitter – not to mention Guardian liveblogs – has made entertainment TV a communal pursuit again. But there is a sense that we might be riding the crest of a particularly perilous wave. Every year The X Factor gets bigger, and every year its ratings swell to ever more ridiculous heights (at one point during last year’s final, 19.4 million people were watching ). But one day, maybe soon, The X Factor will inevitably go in to decline. Perhaps it will finally become too off-puttingly ridiculous for public consumption. Perhaps when the first episode of the next series is broadcast, ITV will realise that it still hasn’t hired any judges. But it will happen. And when it does, the flaws in our entertainment television will be exposed for all to see. For instance, we still don’t have a definitive chatshow. Product-plugging celebrities currently only have the choice of Piers Morgan (unappealing because he’ll make you cry), Top Gear (unappealing because Jeremy Clarkson will berate you for owning a Nissan Sunny once), Graham Norton (unappealing because you’ll just sit quietly for the whole show while he giggles at cat videos on the internet), Alan Carr (unappealing because it takes place in a room that looks like it was used to host wife-swapping parties in the 1970s) and The One Show (unappealing). The UK sorely needs a Letterman-style nightly talkshow that mixes comedy, guests and music. Also, there are a fair few horrors among the hits. Channel 4, for instance, might be the home of The Million Pound Drop – but then it also broadcast the risible Famous and Fearless, a show that assumed that people wanted to see Rufus Hound cycle around a convention centre. While Sky1 has Got To Dance, the nightmare that was Don’t Forget the Lyrics! should never be repeated. And just because we can sell international rights to everything we make, it doesn’t mean we should. America will soon be confronted with 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow, a remake of a tedious BBC1 misfire from last summer. If any Americans happen to shriek “What IS this crap?” during that, it might be best to keep schtum. The X Factor Television Entertainment Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Chief executive blames ‘fragile consumer sentiment’ • UK demand lagging European neighbours • Tour operator cutting capacity • £20m bill from Middle Eastern unrest Demand for foreign holidays has fallen sharply in the UK in recent months as weak consumer confidence continues to bite, Thomas Cook warned on Tuesday. The holiday group said that Britain was lagging behind other European countries, with the rate of bookings for summer trips “slowing noticeably” in the UK this year. This has forced Thomas Cook to cut the number of holidays it offers UK customers. “Summer holiday bookings are ahead of last year across most segments, with particularly strong growth in our German tour operator and airline, as well as in northern Europe,” said chief executive Manny Fontenla-Novoa. “It is a weaker picture in the UK where recent trading has also been affected by fragile consumer sentiment. In response, we have taken a more prudent approach to capacity.” Although the UK recession officially ended more than a year ago, consumer confidence has slumped to its lowest level in nearly two years – due in part to growing inflationary pressures and austerity cutbacks. Economists have warned that this means many “big ticket” purchases are being shelved. Thomas Cook reported on Tuesday that it has sold just 1% more holidays for summer 2011 to UK customers than at the same stage a year ago. On 8 February it told the City that bookings were 6% higher than in 2010, indicating a sales slowdown during the last two months. This followed a 5% drop in cumulative bookings from the UK for winter breaks. Trading is stronger in central Europe. Sales to Germany, Austria and Switzerland are 4% higher than a year ago. In northern Europe, including Sweden, sales of summer holidays are 11% higher. The ongoing unrest in the Middle East has also caused disruption for Thomas Cook and left it with a £20m bill . It spent £5m repatriating holidaymakers early, and also lost another £15m of potential profits due to travel restrictions. A total of 150,000 holidays to Egypt and Tunisia were cancelled. Most restrictions on flights from Europe to the Middle East and North Africa have now been lifted, and Thomas Cook reported that hoteliers are offering “attractive discounts to rebuild confidence in the area”. Thomas Cook Travel & leisure Arab and Middle East unrest Consumer spending Economics Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Target to inspire one million adults will be dropped • Olympics secretary signifies strategy shift for Sport England The government is preparing to turn its back on one of the key legacy aims for the 2012 Olympics – the pledge to inspire one million adults to play more sport. It is understood that key participation targets bequeathed by the previous administration, towards which only negligible progress has been made, will be dropped. Jeremy Hunt, the Olympics secretary, has also indicated a significant strategy shift for Sport England, the grassroots funding agency that will merge with elite funding body UK Sport after the Games. Both have had their funding protected through to 2015, thanks to a change in the way Lottery income will be distributed. But Hunt indicated that from 2013, Sport England would concentrate its strategy on school-leavers and young adults. “I do think it’s reasonable to ask whether, with resources as constrained as they are, if it’s an appropriate use of taxpayers money to be focusing on adult participation when really what we want is to be getting young people into a habit for life,” he said. “We are looking very closely at whether we should target our resources more effectively in that respect. That would be a very significant shift that we’re actively talking to them about.” Through the shift, it is hoped that older teenagers and those in their early twenties will get into the habit of playing sport and it will ultimately drive up adult participation figures in a more effective manner. A total of £480m is invested through governing bodies under the current Whole Sport Plan to 2013, but it remains to be seen whether that total is maintained in the next four-year cycle. Shortly after London won the right to host the 2012 Olympics, Labour pledged to use the power of the Games to inspire a million more people to play sport three or more times a week. A second pledge, to be delivered through the Department of Health, promised to get a million more people doing more general physical activity, a broader definition that included decorating and gardening. In an interview with the Guardian, Hunt confirmed the second target had been quietly dropped shortly after the coalition government came to power. The first target, towards which the sports have made only glacial progress, nominally remains in place for now but it is understood that it too will shortly be dropped in favour of a “more meaningful” national measure. It is likely to be designed to keep up the pressure on governing bodies to improve participation figures ahead of 2012, while also preparing the ground for the shift in strategy after the Games. “It’s pretty hard to justify, in the current environment, Sport England funding office workers to try and encourage them to go to the gym more often. I’d rather encourage young people to get into sport for life,” Hunt said. He said some studies showed the number of children playing sport dropped by two-thirds when they left school. The new School Games should provide a framework for “much closer links” between schools and governing bodies, he said. Figures published last week by Sport England showed barely any progress was being made towards the target of 7.815m people playing sport three or more times a week by 2012-13. Its latest quarterly Active People survey showed the figure stood at 6.881m, only a marginal increase on the 2007/08 baseline of 6.815m. Over the four-year period football gets more than £25m, tennis more than £26m, cricket more than £38m, badminton more than £20m, rugby union more than £31m and rugby league more than £29m. Sport England has been forced to warn sports that their funding could be cut if their participation figures don’t improve. The government is believed to be keen to ensure that the shift in strategy doesn’t let governing bodies off the hook. A total of 17 sports have seen a decrease in the number of people participating once a week since 2007/08, while just four (athletics, mountaineering, netball and table tennis) have recorded an increase. Basketball England this week became the first governing body to suffer a cut in funding. It was docked £1.2m as Sport England attempts to get tough over the issue. Meanwhile, the sports minister Hugh Robertson will meet British Olympic Association chairman Lord Moynihan on Tuesday in a bid to find a solution to its ongoing contract dispute with the London Organising Committee over any potential surplus from the 2012 Games. The embarrassing dispute, which the BOA is taking to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, comes as the International Olympic Committee’s inspectors arrive in London to check on progress. The BOA insists that the Olympics would yield a substantial surplus of up to £400m if all costs associated with the Paralympics were stripped out. But Locog believes the two events are part of an integrated whole and have budgeted to break even. The government, who believe they have first call on the first £63m of hypothetical surplus in any case, and the IOC back Locog’s view. Moynihan will meet with Robertson, who has been trying to mediate between the two sides, ahead of a meeting of all the Olympic sports represented by the BOA. “Good progress was made over the weekend and at our request the government has agreed a meeting to discuss an amicable resolution to the current contractual dispute,” said Moynihan at a press conference to unveil a cast of British Olympic legends who will provide motivational, practical and fund raising support to Team GB. Olympic Games 2012 Jeremy Hunt Owen Gibson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Royal to endure temperatures down to -45°C, sleep on the ice and drag a 100kg sled on trek for charity Prince Harry is en route to the Arctic where he will join a group of wounded servicemen in training before taking part in the first five days of a trek to the north pole. The 26-year-old is expected to play a full part in the team’s final preparation for the expedition, including sleeping out on the ice, dragging a 100kg (220lb) sled, and attending daily briefings. He is patron of the Walking with the Wounded charity, which is aiming to raise £2m from this unaided trek to help other injured service personnel find work, peace of mind and security. Harry will meet up with the team of four injured soldiers, two charity founders and a polar guide in Longyearbyen in Norway, which is considered the best place to train for treks to the magnetic north. With temperatures set to plummet to -45°C the third in line to the throne will endure extreme conditions in one of the world’s most inhospitable regions. On Friday, after completing an intensive course of training on the island of Spitsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago, the prince will fly with the team to the Borneo ice airfield, where he will spend five days with the men on their 200-mile (320km) challenge. All four servicemen sustained their injuries fighting in Afghanistan. Captain Martin Hewitt was left with a paralysed right arm after being shot, while Captain Guy Disney had his right leg amputated below the knee after he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Private Jaco Van Gass had his left arm amputated and was left with significant tissue loss to his left leg when he too was hit by an RPG and Sergeant Stephen Young suffered a broken back after his vehicle was blown up by an improvised explosive device. They will be joined by Simon Dalglish and Ed Parker, who co-founded Walking with the Wounded, and Inge Solheim, a polar guide. Each team member will haul a sled, known as a pulk, which weighs around 100kg and is packed with everything they will need on the trip, including 40kg (88lb) of food, clothing and personal kit, a share of the cooking equipment, fuel for their stoves, tents and communications equipment. Prince Harry Monarchy Military Charities Voluntary sector Arctic guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …