Is there a (spin) Doctor in the House? (1995)

Labour Party Conference 1995

TV Review from the November 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The conference season saw a renewed bout of political spin-doctoring designed to influence, persuade and mollify the media. Nowhere was this more evident than with the Labour conference in Brighton, where Labour had a team of no less than ten spin-doctors beavering away on behalf of Tony Blair’s media image. Chief among them was Alistair Campbell, former boot-boy for Robert Maxwell on the Daily Mirror before he jumped ship for Murdoch's now left-leaning Today, from where he ascended (if that is the right word) to head Tony Blair's press office.

On the day of the Leader's speech, Campbell and his fellow spin-doctors had a difficulty to overcome. The problem was that O.J. Simpson's trial verdict was likely to eclipse coverage of Blair’s peroration to the Labour conference, normally a guaranteed news-headline grabber. ITN’s tabloid-style early evening news led with O.J. Simpson and Campbell was furious that his man had been relegated to the status of a news also-ran on his big day. So what did Campbell do? He sent fax-after-fax to the BBC newsroom making sure they did not make the same mistake. And what faxes some of them were. Anyone under the illusion that the Labour Party has a higher moral purpose than the Tories, and are less likely to bully third parties into submission, should read the text of one of them in particular. It went as follows: 

"Old BBC, bad BBC. Bad BBC, no licence fee. New BBC, good BBC. New BBC, new Charter . . . from New Labour."

What a nice bunch of cuddly politicians they really are! If threats and blackmail are to be the style of New Labour’s media manipulation when in opposition, then goodness only knows what they will be like when they get a taste of real power.

Turn to the right . . .

Meanwhile, Guardian hack Francis Wheen has been identifying BBC TV reporters who have been less than scrupulous themselves. BBC Political Correspondent Steve Richards, for instance, has been writing in the Tory Party’s house magazine the Spectator that the Labour Party refuses to enter into an "honest debate" about its policies. and that Blair's brand of populism is "a masterful illusion". All quite correct of course, though why he chose the Spectator to say it is somewhat more of a mystery. Then there was Lord Callaghan's son-in-law Peter Jay, the BBC's Economics Editor, writing on the Daily Mail's leader page that Labour economic policy is “moonshine . . . like demanding six impossible things before breakfast ". Again, this is the truth, but since when has the truth been the concern of the BBC and its correspondents? Good stories yes. a quiet life, yes. but the truth?

Finally there is the example of Michael Gove another BBC Political Correspondent, moonlighting by writing a hagiography of Michael Portillo. Gove variously describes this greasy right-wing xenophobe as "supremely civilised" and a man who "feels deeply about his country". Now that is more like it. The British Bullshit Corporation in full flow, prostituting itself for an easy time from the rich and powerful, with a bit of cash on the side just to smooth things along.

There can be no doubt that political reporting in Britain is currently beset by a bout of infighting. intrigue, posturing and above all, moonlighting. While the BBC and ITN attempt to steer an unsteady course between the contending power-mongers, desperate not to upset either side, the hacks are scrambling around for any advantage they can glean from the next government (and just as there are many willing to criticise Blair, there are even more lining up behind him). Numerous political correspondents harbour political ambitions of their own, or—what is more understandable—higher pay checks.

The list of political commentators who have had careers or dalliances with the major capitalist political parties is a long one, with Robin Day, Brian Walden and Matthew Parris being the most obvious examples. Few can probably claim to be genuinely impartial, for to be impartial is not to have an opinion.and rarely does a political correspondent, interviewer or TV newsreader come into that category.

The pity about it all is that they are posturing over nothing of substance. While there are differences (just) between Tory and Labour, their differences are nothing compared to that which unites them—their support for the market economy. As the socialist movement grows the mettle of these TV pundits will really be tested, and so will that of the news corporations. Will the BBC still be able to refer to "Marxist” states in Africa and Central America? Will it carry on (mis-)using words like "socialism", “communism" and "democracy" with such reckless abandon? When socialists are more numerous than we are today, it is doubtful that they will, for although there will be no socialist government to threaten the BBC over its charter, there will be journalists, broadcasters, writers, secretaries and studio operators who will not want to put out such crap any longer. Force of argument and numbers will replace attempted blackmail by power-mongers, and posturing for a few more crumbs off the plates of the bosses will have lost its attraction and purpose. The workers run society—including the media—from top to bottom and the socialist movement for working-class emancipation will have no need or desire to tell lies about itself or the world it wishes to inherit. 

Dave Perrin

Between the Lines: What TV Does to People (1987)

The Between the Lines Column from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

What TV Does to People

The Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, has of late undertaken a course of ritual pontification about the effects of sex and violence on TV screens. Are these images corrupting the impressionable workers? Might Michael Ryan not have gone around shooting the inhabitants of Hungerford if TV had not given him a model to imitate? Did the rape scene in Sins create new rapists? Is all of the anti-social nastiness of daily life under capitalism but a re-enactment of the corrupting imagery of TV make-believe?

Socialists are not out to tell the bosses how to run their system. They will run it, if they can, in whatever way it will be most profitable and stable for them — and they will regulate their media accordingly. Of course, the Tories are in a bit of a fix. On the one hand they never tire of telling us that human nature dictates our anti-social behaviour: we are all born sinners and the best we can do is repent for being the murderous, evil little swines that we are. If that theory was true, then TV images would not make people anti-social, for we already would be. If the government accepts the view that the social environment moulds people’s behaviour (which is clearly what they are saying when they seek to limit the influence of TV) they are taking dangerous steps in the direction of the Marxist recognition that it is our social being which determines our consciousness. So, if Hurd and his colleagues advance to the recognition that we are what society makes us, then they must give up their traditional claims that murderers, rapists and other anti-social beings were born that way: if they were, then it would not matter how "clean" TV was, they would still commit their crimes.

Once the Tories accept the view that TV might affect the way people behave it becomes necessary for them to place the state in the role of censors, ensuring that we, the viewers, are not allowed to see what is bad for us. Needless to say. such censorship would not be unpolitical. We do not expect governments to act unpolitically. The state censors might decide to ban TV films which glorify violence, but so too might they decide to ban documentaries which undermine national morale. As soon as a censorship body exists it will be used to perform more than simply ethical functions. The pro-censorship lobby invariably couples sex and violence as the pernicious double-act of modern TV. But sex and violence are different images. Why ban sexual images from TV? Miserable Christians insist that nude bodies corrupt children. That tells us more about screwed-up Christians' self-repression than anything else. Of course, there is a massive difference between the televised depiction of sensitive love-making and the TV blockbuster which needs to kick off with a brutal rape scene because it will pull in the punters who read The Sun and who constitute an audience big enough to please the advertisers. If "sex on TV" is to be "banned" (to use the absurd terminology of the censorship brigade), are we no longer to see drama which includes the realities of sexual behaviour? The sex imagery which TV is far more culpable of exploiting is that related to gender roles — images which show women as flawed if they are not purchaseable commodities of femininity and which teach female viewers which character models to copy if they want to be like real TV women. It is that sort of "sex on TV” which is far more repressive and destructive than the scenes which Mary Whitehouse never seems to miss, and then always seems to want to ensure that the rest of us are banned from seeing.

As for violence, what kind of a society is capitalism which has armaments capable of blowing up the world several times over, research establishments plotting ways of creating biological weapons that can kill people by newer, more painful methods; which settles its international rivalries in pursuit of profits by the use of well-organised thuggery — which does all of these things openly and with pride —and then blames TV shoot-outs for creating social violence? The simple fact is that if we were not living in a social system based upon competition the incentive to be socially violent would not be there.

The Bloody Tragedy of it All

We do not know whether violent or pornographic pictures on TV make viewers behave differently. Different research provides contradicting conclusions. What TV does do to many, many workers is make us sad. Watching The News At Ten (ITV) night after night after night is a process which ends in feeling bloody miserable about the tragedy of it all. For millions of workers this tragedy is blotted out by booze or tranquillisers; in others it creates apathy; for some the bad news (which is almost everything) is blocked out and they wait for the bit at the end where ITN digs up a "happy story" to send the wage slaves to bed with a bit of hope.

Few documentaries conveyed this sense of overwhelming tragedy as well as the recent Channel Four series, The Politics of Food (Tuesdays, 9pm). The programme about Brazil (7 October) showed scene after scene of dying, starving children, many of them little more than babies. There was the interview with a mother who told the story of saving up enough money to take her malnourished son to the doctor. She brought him back in a coffin, now she has two more children both suffering from the same symptoms of malnutrition. Then there was the Brazilian man who worked producing cocoa for export so that his capitalist bosses could help pay off their $100 billion debt to the bankers. (This is the tragedy of capitalism: cocoa is grown for export and land producing crops which could feed starving peasants is converted to export production because the empty-bellied are also those with empty wallets.) The man, who earns a wage of £8 a week, says. "It used to be bad. but now it's worse. The harder I work the worse it gets." Another worker looks into the camera and states that the only thing left to wait for is death.

Of course, no solution is offered by the programme. A few reformists are wheeled on to advocate land reform, but, as the speaker for the Brazilian government quite openly explained, 1 per cent of the Brazilian population own 50 per cent of all land in Brazil and that is the most profitable land; these capitalists spend £7 million each year on private armies to uphold their ownership. In the last two years 500 Brazilian workers and peasants have been murdered by the landowners because they have been prominent in advocating land reform. Who says that there is no class war going on? These are our fellow workers being murdered in it. But land reform offers no solution; nor do increased loans to peasants from the World Bank or Cuban-style state ownership. The solution is socialism — a worldwide system in which all human beings will have free access to the goods and services of our abundant planet. Seeing children die and human lives wasted in despair and women bury their families — seeing all of that not as fiction, but as the real depiction of the society we inhabit —, that is the real obscenity on our TV screens. No. don't censor it, Mr Hurd; don't protect us from seeing the sickness of the system which you and those like you uphold. Let us see. and let us do more than just see.

Update

As The People newspaper has failed to correct its crass distortion of the ideas printed in this column in the August Socialist Standard (see October's "Between The Lines" for details), a complaint has now been sent to the Press Council. Readers will be informed

(a) whether the Press Council upholds the indisputable validity of our complaint, and

(b) whether The People, if censured for its distortion, will provide equal space in its newspaper to publicise such censure as it did to convey its original distortion.

Steve Coleman

Blogger's Notes:

• The October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article on Michael Ryan and the Hungerford massacre written by Janie Percy-Smith.
• There was a book tie in with the Channel 4/Yorkshire Television series The Politics of Food. The hunger machine : the politics of food by Jon Bennett and Susan George was published in 1987 by Polity Press, and is available over at Archive.org
• There was a sneering review of the PBS/Channel 13 version of The Politics of Food by the New York Times' TV critic, John Corry, that appeared in that paper on January 6th, 1988.

Between the Lines: East Enders (1985)

The Between the Lines column from the October 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard 

East Enders

 

There are three views which can be arrived at about EastEnders (BBC1, Tuesday and Thursday. 7.30pm). One is that it is an insultingly nasty caricature of London workers. Indeed, at times the producers of this series seem to be stuck in the rut of the My Fair Lady image of working class existence: decent folk with ruddy cheeks who say "Gawd blimey", need looking after and aren't too bright. The producers' assumptions that East End workers spend their lives fluctuating between the small talk of the semi-conscious and the violent dramas of deranged maniacs may contain a grain of truth, but the ultimate picture derives from superficial caricature rather than serious social characterisation. For example, the long scene in which Angie attempts to seduce Lofty (5 September) owes more to the remote observer's image of how the uncouth and immoral proletarians carry on than to likely reality.

The overwhelming image given out by the programme is of life as experienced by people who are too dull-witted to cope; thank goodness for Dr Legg who is always there to keep the hapless wage slaves on the straight and narrow — not to mention the escapee from Dock Green. Detective Quick. (Who thinks up these names?)

Secondly, one can see the series as a realistic portrayal of members of the working class whose lives are full from day to day with endless problems. We are shown it as a reflection of our own lives. Arthur's long search for a job. the repeatedly failed efforts of the three young lads to succeed as entrepreneurs in the knitting business. Den's need to trade in stolen goods in order to supplement his income from the pub, the lack of facilities for the young unmarried mother, the fear of the old women who dare not walk in the streets.

All of these problems flash before us and we are expected to accept complacently that "this is reality" as we watch the victims of the system crawl out of one contradiction and into the next. It is possible to imagine a person living in a future socialist society, watching video recordings of EastEnders and asking how such miserable lives could be offered as entertainment. After all. at least in Shakespeare's tragedies the audience was not expected to share the same fate as the fictitious victims; but the point of "reality" drama like EastEnders is that the viewer is supposed to relate through experience to the wretchedness on the screen.

There is a third point to be made about EastEnders: that it is nothing more than an attempt by the BBC to beat their ITV rivals in the soap-opera audience ratings war. TV programmes are like other commodities and TV companies are out to win viewers; EastEnders was devised by a gang of BBC whiz-kids whose prime aim was not to entertain or to convey a message, but to push up the ratings. If this could be achieved by screening performing jugglers, then that is what we would be shown.

Capitalism — the system which prides itself on providing for individual needs — is not interested in programme schedules which satisfy such needs, or high dramatic standards, but in putting on whatever will draw a mass audience.

The BBC is succeeding in this aim: EastEnders has now more than once beaten Coronation Street to the top of the ratings league. It will be interesting to see whether C4's Brookside, which was devised originally by its producer, Phil Redmond, as the soap with a social conscience, will be able to maintain its tendency to be more honest in its depiction of social reality than the mainstream soaps. The series certainly succeeded in this in its early days (especially those episodes written by the very able Jimmy McGovern) but, as C4 finds itself increasingly under IBA pressure to win in the ratings' war, it is significant that there has been a recent tendency to abandon realism for populist sensationalism, for example the July siege of the nurses' house and the sentimentalised saga of Edna's protracted death. One more piece of evidence. perhaps, that there can be no escape from the market even in the comfortable fantasy-land of the soaps.

Whose vision on our telly ?

Sounds of scandal and indignation from Broadcasting House as news of the activities of Room 101 is leaked. The NUJ protests. This is the thin end of the wedge, proclaims Vincent Hanna, who usually makes a living out of calling people extremists for getting hot under the collar like that.

Can it be true that M15 is vetting the job applications of BBC journalists? Can it be true that any BBC journalist with a modicum of political intelligence could have imagined up to now that MI5 was not vetting them? Of course the state will do its best to ensure that the right workers are appointed to the important jobs of telling its lies and distorting social reality. It is the function of the state machine, as the instrument of class rule, to see that the social order is upheld without interference from subversives.

Socialists do not call on the government to cease such secretive and undemocratic practices at once — to do so would be to express a degree of naivete which we do not possess. As long as the bosses are allowed to own and control the means of wealth production and distribution, which includes the means of mass communication. they will exercise their control to the advantage of minority class power and to the detriment of democracy. The task is not to democratise the BBC. as the NUJ might wish, but to revolutionise society: nothing less will do.

In a speech by George Howard, then chairman of the BBC. at Hull College of Further Education on 26 April 1982. the following quotation from the BBC's Charter and licence Agreement was quoted: "The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from sending any matter or matters of any class specified in any such notice; and the Secretary of State may at any time or times vary or revoke such notice. The Corporation may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given or has been varied or revoked". In other words, a government minister may force the BBC to refrain from putting out certain messages and the BBC authorities, appointed by the government, are free not to tell viewers that this has been done.

George Howard made the point, in his published speech, that such a provision in the Charter "would make a nonsense of our independence if. in fact, he (the minister) ever attempted" to use it. But how are we to know that it has not been used, for according to the wording of the provision it can be implemented and revoked without the BBC ever being under an obligation to tell the viewers. Now. there's something for the NUJ to think about.

Steve Coleman

Blogger's Note: 

According to this short piece about state vetting of BBC personnel during this period, it was Room 105 rather than Room 101.

New Blog Page: Proper Gander (Extras)

Back in July I posted on the blog a page dedicated to the Proper Gander TV Column, which is celebrating its 15th anniversary in the Socialist Standard this year. 

Following up on that, I thought I would compile a list of the twenty most popular Proper Gander TV Columns . . . according to blog stats, that is. Any opportunity to prod readers of the blog into exploring the Socialist Standard archive.

If you click on the month and year, it will lead you to the article.

20. Music For The Masses (Nov 2017)

19. Delicious Chips For Their Tea (Mar 2018)

18. Lights . . . Camera . . . Political Action? (Feb 2024)

17. Porn and Real Life (Sep 2014)

16. Home Truths (Aug 2017)

15. Back To The Future (Sep 2016)

15. YouTube And You (Feb 2020)

15. Flat broke (May 2023)

12. Alice Through The Looking Glass (Apr 2019)

11. The Benefits Trap (Jan 2017)

10. Maid In America (Jul 2017)

09. Monarchy Malarkey (Jun 2016)

08. Theroux the keyhole (May 2026)

07. The Vegan Revolution (May 2017)

06. Living The Dream (Dec 2016)

05. Mistaken Identity (Aug 2019)

04. Peering At The Peers (Apr 2017)

03. Super marketing (Sep 2023)

02. Bitter Pill (Mar 2015)

01. The Hand-Made Tale (Mar 2019)

TV Review: Camping it up (1994)

Brookside

TV Review from the September 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the history of British TV comedy there has been little to match the comic effect of an outrageously effeminate male camping it up with the best of them. Exaggerated mannerisms and affectations have delighted audiences for decades. Many of the popular sitcoms have had a camp figure of fun somewhere - Frank Williams as the overblown vicar in Dad's Army, the twinkly German Lieutenant in ‘Allo 'Allo, Melvyn Hayes in It Ain't Half Hot Mum and John Inman in everything he’s ever been in are among those that spring readily to mind.

As far as mainstream British comedy has been concerned, campness is the “acceptable” face of an unmentionable homosexuality to the viewers and actors alike, so much so that such a great actor as Kenneth Williams — as camp as a row of tents to the end — could barely admit his own homosexuality to himself let alone anybody else, as his Diaries testify. Williams was clearly aware that camp humour, in his day at least, hinted at homosexuality but rarely endorsed it in any way, being content to remain at the level of innuendo and whimsy. In recent years one or two comics have broken this unspoken rule, most clearly Julian Clary whose full frontal assaults on the sexual sensibilities of the audience have won him an army of gay supporters, but most homosexual actors have kept with the approach developed in the music halls and adapted for TV and film.

The British film and TV industries have been the masters of camp humour. It can still be seen in Coronation Street occasionally, though with the welcome twist that it emerges most notably of all in the affectedness of the definitely heterosexual Racquel. barmaid at the Rovers. More straightforwardly. Kenneth Williams, Frankie Howard and Charles Hawtrey all became household names because of their ability to mince in front of the cameras. Did they do their sexuality a disservice? To the extent that they reinforced one of capitalist society’s most enduring stereotypes, probably, but those homosexuals in the acting profession and elsewhere who took an outwardly hostile stance towards homosexuality for the sake of their public image did a greater disservice still.

Innumerable actors have been paid to betray their own sexuality. A recent re-run on BBC2 of one of the classic Steptoe and Son episodes saw old Albert berating Harold for consorting with an antique dealer he considered to be "a bleeding poof’, in the true style of a working class Tory bigot. What many viewers wouldn’t have been aware of was that Wilfred Brambell, the actor who played Albert, was himself a homosexual convicted in the early 1960s under the British state's anti-gay sex laws. Watching this episode again, it was difficult to raise much of a laugh.

Prisoners all

The current cult TV show among the active gay lobby in Britain is the Australian import Prisoner Cell Block H, which is still showing on most ITV networks. This is strange, as Cell Block H is a programme transparently about Good and Evil, and the active lesbians have generally slotted into the latter category. The leading lesbian, a warder called Joan Ferguson, otherwise known as ‘The Freak", has a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp and the general manner of a woman whose role in life is to cause as much anguish for others as possible. Since Prisoner finished its turn in Australia several years ago. we can surmise that she can soon expect the call-up for EastEnders.

The only reason lesbians can find this show attractive, apart from its marvellously worked-out plots, is that it focuses on the lives of oppressed women. But with what is commonly considered to be a psychopathic "bull-dyke” as the chief character, it is not much of a blast forward for the gay counter-culture. In truth, for all her entertainment value, "The Freak" gives far more succour to the stereotypical image of homosexuals than Kenneth Williams or Larry Grayson ever did.

To find the most realistic treatment of homosexuality on TV we must turn, once again, to Channel Four's Brookside. Here, the unfolding of Beth Jordache’s lesbian sexuality has been tastefully and seriously portrayed, even if her lesbianism is a partial reaction against the sexual abuse meted out by her father. Most pleasing of all, the character of Beth is not stereotyped — on the contrary, she appears to be a normal intelligent teenager confronting bigotry and deceit, and winning support because of the strength of her arguments to live her life without the interference of those who want to impose their own norms on her.

Brookside could have gone for cheap laughs with this storyline, but it is to be congratulated on its approach. For the more the working class see their differences — of colour, gender and sexuality — eclipsed by their common bonds rather than highlighted through division, the easier it will be to achieve a society where stereotyping is remembered primarily as a feature of daft old films and peculiar Australian soap operas.

Dave Perrin

The wrong story (2026)

From the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Earlier this year BBC television serialised a new adaptation of William Golding’s famous 1954 novel Lord of the Flies. There was uniform agreement among the critics that it was well made, but does the novel itself tell the right story? In portraying what happens to a group of British schoolboys stranded alone on an island, it shows a fairly rapid descent from civilised behaviour to conflict, chaos and eventually outright savagery. What’s usually been taken from the story is that evil, depravity and brutality are inherent in human nature and, if left to themselves, any group of humans will develop a mob mentality, end up at one another’s throats and a hierarchy of tyranny will form.

It’s a plot that certainly chimes in with a lot of what was being written and published widely in the decades following the Second World War. We need only think of books like Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape, Konrad Lorenz’s On Aggression, Robert Ardrey’s The Territorial Imperative, and (arguably) George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And from some sources at least this take on humanity kept on coming right up to the end of the century, an example being Richard Wrangham’s 1996 book, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. What such writers were doing in effect was to put forward a secular version of the longstanding religious dogma of original sin, a view of human beings as tainted by innate selfishness and aggression and in inevitable competition with one another. As for Golding, this was openly his agenda, as expressed in the words he used in an interview in 1970, where he said ‘man is a fallen being’ and went on to state: ‘He is gripped by original sin. His nature is sinful and his state perilous’. He is also on record as saying about himself: ‘I have always understood the Nazis, because I am that sort by nature.’ So what he seems to be doing in Lord of the Flies is projecting his own dark view of humanity on to children while turning it into a supposed lesson about human nature for millions to read.

As for the TV adaptation, it must be said that its creator, the screenwriter Jack Thorne, did make an effort to temper the ‘human nature’ message by providing ‘back stories’ for its main protagonists. So, for example, we were given to deduce that the savagery of one of the most violent child characters might be, at least in part, a function of the loveless household he had been brought up in. But such tweaks only mitigated to a limited extent the original message carried by Golding’s book and which, as we have seen, the author himself was never shy of defending. In light of this, we can only agree with what Steve Coleman wrote in an article on Golding in the August 1993 edition of this journal: ‘Few novels have so eloquently served the cause of capitalist ideology which contends that humans are inherently aggressive, gullible, self-serving, easily led and uncooperative than Golding’s Lord of the Flies.’

So one thing to be said is that the 2026 TV version of the book came across as a bit of a throwback, largely reflecting as it did views about human nature which have been widely superseded since the book’s original publication. It seemed to close its eyes to the large amount of recent well-evidenced research and investigation on the topic to be found in works whose titles speak for themselves, for example Beyond War. The Human Potential for Peace; Team Human; Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity; Ultra-Social, many of which have been discussed in articles and reviews in the Socialist Standard (see Suggested reading ). The majority of these investigations conclude not that human beings are automatically non-selfish, non-competitive, or non-prone to violence but rather that selfishness, non-cooperation and fighting are not their most natural inclination, even if they are capable of being driven to such behaviour by circumstances. The historian Rutger Bregman, in particular, in his 2020 book, Humankind. A Hopeful History (reviewed in the Socialist Standard May 2021), explicitly takes up Golding’s challenge about the kind of situation portrayed in Lord of the Flies by recounting a ‘real-life’ story of shipwrecked schoolboys. What took place in this case was the exact opposite of what was portrayed by Golding. In 1965, six boys from a boarding school in Tonga stole a boat, got caught in a storm, and were washed up on a remote, uninhabited island in the Pacific. They stayed there for 15 months, during which time they established a friendly cooperative way of living, taking care of one another before they were discovered and rescued. In other words, when real children found themselves alone on a real island, there was no impulse to tyranny, no one descended into savagery, nor was any kind of cruel hierarchy set up as in Golding’s novel. This, as well as other examples of human behaviour Bregman draws on, leads him to reject the notion of an innately self-serving, potentially evil human species. Instead anti-social behaviour, when it occurs, is seen as the reaction of the highly adaptable and flexible creatures that human beings are to conditioning and circumstance (ie, bad circumstances can make us bad people), all of which lies very far away from Golding’s dark view of humanity.

So, while there is no doubt that, when people feel unsafe, unseen, deprived, or their needs are unmet, their actions can shift in unpredictable and undesirable ways, overwhelmingly it is the human capacity for working cooperatively with others that comes to the fore when circumstances make it necessary. What we can envisage with some confidence, therefore, is the likelihood that this will be the default behaviour in the democratic free-access society of from each according to ability to each according to need that is campaigned for by socialists. So not difficult at all to imagine that, in a society organised in that way, peacefulness, cooperation and empathy – the diametrical opposite of what is portrayed in Lord of the Flies – will be the overwhelming order of the day.

Howard Moss

New Blog Page: Proper Gander

Proper Gander At 15

While reviews of television programmes have occasionally appeared in The Socialist Standard since the 1950s (with possibly the earliest being in January 1955, about the BBC’s adaptation of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four), it wasn’t until 1985 that they became the subject of a regular column. This was Steve Coleman’s always-perceptive and engagingly-written Between The Lines, which ran until 1994. Dave Perrin then followed on with his sharp analysis of how TV reflects the world, continuing until 2001. A decade later, The Socialist Standard’s Editorial Committee decided to bring back the format, and suggested the name Proper Gander. I was happy to be asked about writing it, having recently produced a collection of reviews of dystopian fiction to accompany a Summer School talk. 

The first Proper Gander article appeared in January 2011, covering the sixth series of The Apprentice, which still continues unchanged in format in 2026. Much else has changed in the realm of television, though, in those 15 years. Most obviously, there is now much more ‘content’ competing for our attention, not just in the growth of channels available with or without a subscription, but also through social media and YouTube. While the traditional television channels are steadily on the decline, they can still produce ‘content’ which other outlets can’t manage. TV documentaries and video podcasts are both in the market of influencing viewers’ opinions, but the talking-head template of podcasts isn’t equivalent to the journalistic format of documentaries. The BBC’s Panorama and the exposés commissioned by Channel 4 have remained consistently reliable as sources for Proper Gander articles. Well, that’s reliable in the sense of always being there rather than reliable as interpretations of their subject matter. Usually in a polished, abridged way, they highlight problems generated by the capitalist system, but never identify the system as their cause, of course.

Drama can have more of an emotional impact than a documentary can, whether or not it’s based on real events. An emerging trend during the 2020s is that politicised dramas are likely to have a high profile on the sporadic occasions one is produced. ITV’s Mr Bates Vs The Post Office and Netflix’s Don’t Look Up and Adolescence raised awareness and prompted discussion, for a while. The BBC has appeared less interested in this sub-genre for many years, especially compared with its often-impressive output in the 1960s and ‘70s. 

A trend which appears to have burnt itself out is trash television, such as exploitative gameshows, ‘poverty porn’ schlockumentaries and point-and-sneer talk shows such as The Jeremy Kyle Show. This type of programme, the modern counterpart of travelling ‘freakshows’, has been supplanted by social media content which even more bluntly insults those already downtrodden. Another TV genre which has dwindled is that of comedy, maybe because wider society finds less to laugh about these days. So, sitcoms, satire and sketch shows have rarely been the subject of a Proper Gander article, unfortunately. Looking into what has and hasn’t been covered in the column over the years has been made much easier with the listing below, with a handy description of each show discussed. Thanks go to Imposs1904 for taking the time to compile this for his splendid blog.

Mike Foster

July 2026

2011

• Jan:  Proper Gander (Alan Sugar's The Apprentice.)
• Feb: Know Your Onions (The Onion's satirical programme,  In The Know.)
• Mar: Brooker's Bile (Charlie Brooker's How TV Ruined Your Life.)
• Apr: Cabarets in the lunch hour (BBC2's The British At Work.)
• May: The Stepford Geezers (ITV2's docusoap, The Only Way is Essex.)
• Jun: Celebritherapy (ITV1's reality TV show, Home Is Where The Heart Is.)
• Jul: Choosing To Die (BBC Scotland documentary, Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die, on the subject of assisted suicide.)
• Aug: The pecking order (Channel 4’s Undercover Boss.)
• Sep: From WAGs to Riches (BBC3's celebrity culture documentary, Cherry’s Cash Dilemmas.)
• Oct: Cleopatra Coming At Ya (BBC’s children series, Horrible Histories.)
• Nov: Stripped Blair (Channel 4's The Hunt For Tony Blair. The Comic Strip crowd combine political satire with 1950s film noir.)
• Dec: Sugar Rush (Alan Sugar's new reality show, The Young Apprentice.)

2012

• Jan: Reflections on Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror.)
• Feb: Fancy a Pint? (BBC4’s documentary, The Rules of Drinking.)
• Mar: Point and Sneer (Channel4’s docusoap Big Fat Gypsy Weddings.)
• Apr: Right whinger (BBC2’s Rights Gone Wrong? with Andrew Neil.)
• May: Camcordia (Channel4's The Sinking Of The Concordia – Caught On Camera.)
• Jun: A Masterclass in Manipulation (ITV1's documentary, Britain Beware, about Public Information Films.)
• Jul: A Load of Crystal Balls (Sky's series, Psychic Today.)
• Aug: Undercover Under the Covers (UKTV Really reality television show, Cheaters.)
• Sep: Tory Teenagers (BBC2's documentary, Young, Bright and On the Right.)
• Oct: Giggly Walking CCTV Cameras (Channel 4's reality television show, The Audience.)
• Nov: The Magic and History Tour (BBC3's documentary, Creationism: Conspiracy Road Trip. Mixing pre-history with 'intelligent design' and age-old debates between science and religion.)
• Dec: Bed Pan Humour (BBC4's satirical comedy about the NHS, Getting On.)

2013

• Jan: Pandering and Pampering (BBC2's Inside Claridge's.)
• Feb: Courting Mormons (BBC3's documentary, Young, Mormon and Single.)
• Mar: Night Of The Living Tweet (Charlie Brooker’s sci-fi anthology series Black Mirror.)
• Apr: Christianity’s Inanities (Religious television.)
• May: Monarchy’s Maladies (BBC2's documentary, Fit To Rule – How Royal Illness Changed History.)
• Jun: Hoard Today, Gone Tomorrow (BBC1’s Britain’s Biggest Hoarders.)
• Jul: Quizzing the Whizzkids (Channel 4's documentary, Child Genius.)
• Aug: Hidden Cameraderie (Channel 4's reality TV show, Eye Spy.)
• Sep: Smoking Woodbines In The Outside Lav (The working class in television, Paul O’Grady’s Working Britain.)
• Oct: Left In The Dark (Channel 4's The Blackout. A docu-drama about Britain's National Grid being at the receiving end of a cyber-attack, and the resultant breakdown of society.) 
• Nov: Fascist Pepperpots (Dr Who, the Daleks and storylines drawn from the real world.)
• Dec: Fish In The Net (MTV's reality TV show, Catfish.)

2014

• Jan: Screening The Working Class (Owen Jones giving Huw Weldon Memorial Lecture Totally Shameless: How TV Portrays The Working Class.)
• Feb: Who Benefits From 'Benefits Street'?  (Channel 4's docusoap, Benefits Street.)
• Mar: Channel Hopping The Shopping Channels (QVC and BidTV.)
• Apr: To EDL and Back (BBC3's documentary, EDL Girls – Don’t Call Me Racist.)
• May: Mythtaken Identity (BBC2's The Olden Days: The power of the past in Britain.)
• Jun: Ballads And Beards (BBC1's  Eurovision Song Contest.)
• Jul: Hunger For Anger (Channel 5’s Angry Britain: Mean Streets.)
• Aug: The Downside of Upgrading (Jacques Peretti's documentary series, The Men Who Made Us Spend.)
• Sep: Porn and Real Life (More 4 documentary, The Golden Rules of Porn.)
• Oct: Electronic Heroin (Channel 4's Web Junkie: China’s Addicted Teens.)
• Nov: A Barrage of Farage (Panorama’s The Farage Factor. The murky shenanigans and double dealings of Nigel Farage.)
• Dec: Fiscal Exercise (Channel 4’s documentary about social mobility, How Rich Are You?)

2015

• Jan: Do Have Nightmares (BBC 1's Crimewatch.)
• Feb: Court On Camera (ITV's British version of Judge Judy, Judge Rinder.)
• Mar: Bitter Pill (Adam Curtis's documentary, Bitter Lake.)
• Apr: Putting Protest To The Test (BBC3’s documentary, Fighting The System.)
• May: Puppets and Politics (Puppet-based satirical sketch show, Newzoids.)
• Jun: ‘I Love The Smell Of Rubbish In The Morning’ (BBC2’s fly-on-the-wall documentary Wastemen.)
• Jul: Taken To Taskers (Channel 4’s reality TV show, Running The Shop.)
• Aug: Together In Electric Dreams (Channel 4’s drama series, Humans.)
• Sep: Under the Concrete Carpet (BBC4's Britain’s Nuclear Secrets: Inside Sellafield.)
• Oct: High-Tech Hide and Seek (Channel 4's Hunted. State surveillance as a game show.)
• Nov: Soldiering On (BBC1's reality TV show, DIY SOS – Homes For Veterans. A special makeover show focusing on creating a liveable environment for ex-armed forces personnel with physical and mental health conditions.)
• Dec: Cheapness At a Price (Channel 4's Dispatches programme goes undercover in Aldi’s Supermarket Secrets.) 

2016

• Jan: Prejudice and Pride (BBC 3's Reggie Yates’ Extreme UK: Gay And Under Attack.)
• Feb: Victim Porn (A review of voyeuristic schlockumentaries such as I Survived Evil and Fear Thy Neighbor.)
• Mar: The Golden Swill Bucket Awards (Television adverts.)
• Apr: Whatever Happened To Political Drama? (A look at Play For Today and Our Friends in the North.)
• May: Legal Highs And Lows (BBC3's documentary series, Drugs Map Of Britain.)
• Jun: Monarchy Malarkey (Channel 4’s soap opera sitcom, The Windsors.)
• Jul: Branded Comedy (BBC4's sitcom, Going Forward.)
• Aug: Belonging to Our Belongings (Channel 4's reality TV show, Life Stripped Bare.)
• Sep: Back To The Future (BBC2's In The 80s With Dominic Sandbrook.)
• Oct: Prison Break (CBS's Reality TV show, Troubled Teens: Jail Shock, A look at juvenile detention.)
• Nov: Soap Gets In Your Eyes (A look at the BBC's longstanding soap, EastEnders.)
• Dec: Living The Dream (Adam Curtis's documentary, ‘Hypernormalisation’.)

2017

• Jan: The Benefits Trap (Ken Loach's 'I, Daniel Blake'.)
• Feb: Views On The News (BBC2’s reality TV show, Common Sense.)
• Mar: The Extremes of Exploitation (Channel 4’s documentary, The Modern British Slave Trade.)
• Apr: Peering At The Peers (BBC2’s documentary series Meet The Lords.)
• May: The Vegan Revolution ( BBC iPlayer's mockumentary, Carnage.)
• Jun: Slave to the Algorithm (Panorama's What Facebook Knows About You.)
• Jul: Maid In America (The TV adaptation of Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid’s Tale.)
• Aug: Home Truths (BBC1's reality TV show, The Week The Landlords Moved In.)
• Sep: From The UN To Anarchism (BBC4’s Storyville, Accidental Anarchist: Life Without Government.)
• Oct: The Jihadis’ Tale ( Peter Kosminsky's political drama, The State, about the experiences of four young British Muslims who fly to Syria to join Islamic State.)
• Nov: Music For The Masses (BBC4's documentary series, Tunes For Tyrants: Music and Power. Authoritarian regimes and their use and abuse of music for propaganda purposes.)
• Dec: Nutters and Putters (Gary Younge's Channel 4 documentary about disquiet in the American heartland,  Angry, White and American.)

2018

• Jan: Out Of The Blue (David Attenborough's Blue Planet II.)
• Feb: On The House (David Olusoga social history documentary, A House Through Time.)
• Mar: Delicious Chips For Their Tea (Product placement and Coronation Street.)
• Apr: At The Movies: Red Carpet Campaigning (A look at the Oscars.)
• May: A Tale Of Two Cities (China Mieville's dystopia drama,The City And The City.)
• Jun: Image And Identity (BBC3's documentaries on obesity and body image.)
• Jul: ‘One Does’ (Television coverage of the Royal Wedding.)
• Aug: Counter Culture (BBC’s Shopgirls: The True Story of Life Behind The Counter.)
• Sep: Revenue Streams (New media and streaming platforms.)
• Oct: Guarded Bodies (BBC1’s political drama, Bodyguard.)
• Nov: The Great Russian Fake Off (An overview of the Russian State's ongoing disinformation campaigns on social media.)
• Dec: Pulling The Trigger (Derren Brown's Netflix special, Sacrifice.)

2019

• Jan: Sold A Pup? (BBC 1's consumer programme, Watchdog.)
• Feb: Making A Drama Out Of A Crisis (Channel 4’s docudrama, Brexit: The Uncivil War.)
• Mar: The Hand-Made Tale (BBC2’s The Victorian House Of Arts And Crafts.)
• Apr: Alice Through The Looking Glass (Channel 4’s documentary, Sleeping With The Far Right.)
• May: Investigating The Yorkshire Ripper Investigation (BBC4’s three-part series, The Yorkshire Ripper Files: A Very British Crime Story.)
• Jun: With Kid Gloves (ITV documentary series, Planet Child.)
• Jul: ‘An Urgent Referral Still Takes Quite a Long Time’ (Channel 5’s fly-on-the-consulting-room-wall documentary, GPs Behind Closed Doors.)
• Aug: Mistaken Identity (BBC3's political drama, The Left Behind.)
• Sep: Can’t A Cleaner Like Avocados? (BBC2’s How The Middle Class Ruined Britain.)
• Oct: Palmed Off (BBC3's Unmasked: Make-Up’s Big Secret. A look at the environmental impact of palm oil production.)
• Nov: Cash And The Castaways (Channel 4's reality TV show, Treasure Island With Bear Grylls. A variation on Lord of the Flies - but with adults - for your evening's entertainment. Not so much a 'survival of the fittest' but a 'survival of the slickest'.)
• Dec: ‘You’ve Had It, Ain’t Ya?’ (BBC4’s Arena documentary, A British Guide To The End Of The World.)

2020

• Jan: ‘All I Can Think About Is The Housing’ (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Born Homeless.)
• Feb: YouTube And You (A look at the social media behemoth, YouTube.)
• Mar: All’s Whale That Ends Well? (BBC 3's documentary, Stacey Dooley Investigates: The Whale Hunters.)
• Apr: ‘The Detail Which Moves You Is The Same Detail That Lets You Know It’s True’ (BBC2's Confronting Holocaust Denial With David Baddiel.)
• May: TV and the Virus (Television coverage of the lockdown.)
• Jun: At The Movies (Jeff Gibbs environmental documentary, Planet of the Humans.)
• Jul: Luxury Legoland (BBC2's documentary series, Inside Monaco: Playground Of The Rich.)
• Aug: Turning The Page (Channel 4's documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth.)
• Sep: ‘I’ve Got Nothing. I Ain’t Got No-one. But I’ve Got The Shops’ (Channel 5’s fly-on-the-wall documentary, Shoplifters: At War With The Law.)
• Oct: Radio Ga-Ga (TalkRADIO and right-wing talking points.)
• Nov: Rubber Reboot (Britbox revives 1980s favourite, Spitting Image, but misses the satirical mark.)
• Dec: Control And Coercion (BBC3's documentary on domestic violence, Is This Coercive Control?)

2021

• Jan: Cutting-Edge Drama (Steve McQueen's Small Axe films.)
• Feb: Fame And Fortune (BBC 2’s documentary series Celebrity: A 21st Century Story.)
• Mar: An Emotional History (Adam Curtis’s documentary, Can’t Get You Out Of My Head.)
• Apr: Keep Calm And Carry On With The Clichés (BBC1’s documentary, Blitz Spirit With Lucy Worsley.)
• May: ‘She’s Part Of Those Statistics Now’ (Dispatches' The Black Maternity Scandal.)
• Jun: Track And Trace (BBC3’s Tagged series: Women on Tag.)
• Jul: Another Problematic ‘Class System’ (Panorama's Paralympics: The Unfair Games?)
• Aug: Brexit And Exports (Panorama's Brexit: Six Months On.)
• Sep: Between The Lines (BBC3’s documentary series, High: Confessions Of An Ibiza Drug Mule.)
• Oct: Remoulding The Activist (CBS’s reality TV show, The Activist. The politics of charity and 'activism' as a game show.)
• Nov: Police And Abuse (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Cops On Trial. When the police are the criminals.)
• Dec: Capturing The Christmas Spirit (Christmas, consumerism and woke culture.)

2022

• Jan: Charged Up (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, The Truth About Electric Cars, and BBC 1's Panorama's, The Electric Car Revolution: Winners And Losers.)
• Feb: The Shape Of Things To Comet (Adam McKay's political satire, Don't Look Up.)
• Mar: Where the wealth went (BBC 2’s documentary, The Decade The Rich Won.)
• Apr: The Media as Intermediary (Media bias and state propaganda.)
• May: Four Sale (The privatisation of Channel 4.)
• Jun: Getting over the horizon (Panorama's The Post Office Scandal.)
• Jul: A Bite From The Apple (Apple TV's dystopian drama, Severance.)
• Aug: Hack To The Future (Channel 4's political drama, The Undeclared War.)
• Sep: A Problem Not Registering (BBC News documentary, Disappearing Dentists.)
• Oct: Profits and power ( Panorama's The Energy Crisis: Who’s Cashing In? The energy companies and their super profits.)
• Nov: Hard Labour (Al Jazeera’s four-part documentary series, The Labour Files. The Labour Right's undermining of Jeremy Corbyn and the smearing of the Labour Left.)
• Dec: Mindsets And Misinterpretations (Panorama's Disaster Deniers: Hunting The Trolls. Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists pouring scorn on disasters and tragedies.)

2023

• Jan:  The richest and poorest (Channel 5's two-part documentary, How The Other Half Live.)
• Feb: Dukes And Rebukes (Channel 4's Prince Andrew: The Musical.)
• Mar: Exploring Englishness (Channel 4's Grayson Perry’s Full English.)
• Apr: Exploitation at work (Panorama's Sex For Work: The True Cost Of Our Tea.)
• May: Flat broke (Panorama's What’s Gone Wrong With Our Housing?.)
• Jun: Send in the crowns (The King's coronation.)
• Jul: Splashing out on drip (Channel 4’s Untold series. Addicted to Drip, which looks at addiction and conspicuous consumption.)
• Aug: The state of North Korea (BBC2 documentary, North Korea: The Insiders.)
• Sep: Super marketing (Channel 4’s documentary, Secrets Of The Supermarket Own-Brands.)
• Oct: SSRIs and side effects (BBC iPlayer's documentary series, Are My Antidepressants Worth It?. Mental health and medication amongst young people in Scotland.)
• Nov: Gathering storm (Channel 4’s docudrama, Partygate. The Conservative Party at play, misbehaving during Covid and lockdown.)
• Dec: Fashion Victims (Panorama's Boohoo’s Broken Promises. A look at the business model of fast fashion.)

2024

• Jan: An appetite for profit (BBC 3's The Skinny Jab Uncovered.)
• Feb: Lights . . . Camera . . . Political Action? (ITV's political docudrama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.)
• Mar: Crossing the line (Channel 4's documentary series, Miners’ Strike 1984: The Battle For Britain.) 
• Apr: Presenting the past (Historical dramas and multiculturalism.)
• May: Going public about going private (Panorama’s NHS Patients Going Private: What Are The Risks?)
• Jun: United by music, non-politically? (BBC1's  Eurovision Song Contest.)
• Jul: Temu’s temerity (Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, The Truth About Temu.)
• Aug: Anti-social media (ITVX’s drama serial, Douglas Is Cancelled.)
• Sep: Hacked off (ITV’s phone-hacking documentary, Tabloids On Trial.)
• Oct: Flipped Off (Channel 4's reality TV show, The Great House Giveaway. The popular British past times of house renovations and Keeping up with the Joneses.)
• Nov: Not-so special offers (Panorama's Supermarket Deals: How Good Are They? The reality of big business supermarkets. If it looks too good to be true . . . )
• Dec: Far into the far right (Channel 4’s documentary, Undercover: Exposing The Far Right. A look at the growth of the far right across Europe.)

2025

• Jan: The latest celebrity to be accused (The scandal surrounding MasterChef presenter, Gregg Wallace.)
• Feb: All over the shop (Netflix's Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy.)
• Mar: The maxim of maximising (Radio 4's documentary series, The Prophets of Profit.)
• Apr: Realistically altruistically (Radio 4's series, The Infinite Monkey Cage.)
• May: Lessons from Adolescence (Netflix’s crime drama Adolescence.)
• Jun: Looking into Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror.)
• Jul: Being informed about informers (BBC documentary, Informers: Hunting The Enemy Within, on state surveillance in Putin's Russia.)
• Aug: Tell A Vision In Turkmenistan (YouTube documentary,  TV in Turkmenistan is Insane.)
• Sep: Heading down stream (The growth in streaming services.)
• Oct: Crafty cover-ups (BBC4’s documentary, What Are UFOs? Are they out there, and why don't they want to talk to us?)
• Nov: Anti-social media (BBC3’s documentary Blackmailed: The Sextortion Killers. The devastating impact of cyber-crimes.)
• Dec: Manipulated by the Monoform (A look back at the life and career of the radical filmmaker, Peter Watkins, who had recently died.)

2026

• Jan: The luxury gap (Channel 4's documentary series, Inside The World’s Most Luxurious…)
• Feb: Processing progress (Matthew Sweet's documentary, What Happened To Progress?)
• Mar: Reporting on reporting (Panorama's Our Man In Moscow.)
• Apr: Automation and occupations (Panorama's Will Robots Take My Job?)
• May: Theroux the keyhole (Louis Theroux's Netflix documentary, Inside The Manosphere.)
• Jun: Regulations, nations and alienation (As part of the BBC News Scams & Scandals documentary series,The Immigration Fraudsters looks at the prevalence of 'bogus' asylum seekers.) 
• Jul: Grander designs (Kevin McCloud's Channel 4 series, Listed Britain, which details the history of Britain's listed building and British grand architecture.)