In a Tiswas over Blue Peter (1995)

TV Review from the April 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

How capitalism moulds the minds of children should be of concern to any socialist. For it is in childhood that most people develop a value system which is, to a greater or lesser extent, that of the prevailing system of society. As anyone who has observed children in the playground or on the street will testify, acquisitiveness. competition, selfishness and aggressive behaviour are developed within the first few years of a human’s existence by capitalism in distinction to, and at the expense of. co-operation, mutual self-respect and community solidarity. It is in the formative years that a child learns what "human nature" is supposed to be and what "common sense" is. This is because capitalism requires unaccepting, competitive thoughts and behaviour traits— it is, by its very nature, a competitive. aggressive and ruthless system with little room either for "sentimentality" or critical thinking. It is the "I’m all right. Jack" society, with the moronic “sod you!” philosophy and value system, and children soon learn this well enough.

Commodities aimed at the children’s market reflect this process very obviously. The life of a child in capitalism now seems to be one of never-ending competition; not just in exams, but to kill the most aliens, collect the most pots of gold, be the toughest warrior or the prettiest and thinnest girl in the class.

Before television, it was comics that played a vitally important socialisation role in childhood development, and to a lesser extent they still do. Today, though, the Victoriana of Jackie and Bunty has been replaced with the competitive society's Just Seventeen (aimed at those nearer seventeen months than seventeen years) and the adventurism of the Eagle by the sci-fi horror of Judge Dredd and 2000AD.

This conditioning process is now dominated by television, with computer games catching up fast in the outside lane. Children's television is actually an object lesson in conditioning and socialisation. This is not to say it is all bad—indeed, some of it is rather interesting. It has to be of some meagre standard today if it is to attract the attention of children at all because they have so many other potential distractions. There is no overt conspiracy to indoctrinate—at least probably not—it is just that the values and prejudices picked up by the programmes’ makers throughout their lives in capitalism tend to be uncritically repeated or reinvented for the youngsters of today.

Milk bottle tops

Blue Peter has always been a good example of this. Though it has always been on the "safe" side by capitalism's standards, with comparatively little encouragement of competition and aggressiveness, it has nonetheless tended to reinforce prevalent political attitudes in society without ever stopping to really think about it. This is most transparently the case with its obsession with charity. No-one can deny that there is not a well meaning veneer to the work of Blue Peter on this front, but its activities never really go beyond youthful training for the Rotary Club, a sanitised guilt-trip for those who know that poverty, deprivation and starvation exist, but do not know why.

Blue Peter, like virtually all children's programmes. does not encourage its audience to ask questions. Let the kids collect their milk-bottle tops for Somalia, or Bangladesh, or for the poverty-stricken disabled in Britain, but don't encourage them to ask why they have to do it. Just run the jumble sales, send the parcels and money off and collect your Blue Peter badge before you go to heaven. Blue Peter's attempts at conditioning go well beyond its charity campaigning, however. If you doubt this, examine closely its portrayal of historical events in its potted-documentary slots. If the Great Man theory of history lives on. it is surely here. Blue Peter's inordinate preoccupation with Kings. Queens and great military leaders is such as to shame the most conformist primary school in the land.

Of course, these days the programme has gone a bit "trendy”, at least in outward appearance, and is in many respects a shadow of its former self, but the essential formula of charity work and ruling class propaganda disguised as knowledge is still very much intact.

Other children's programmes are even less subtle. The ever-growing list of cartoon programmes demonstrates this. Today Scooby Doo has been replaced by Power Rangers and woe betide anyone who gets in the way of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The common threads in these type of programmes are aggressiveness and competition with a hint of gang-warfare. Indeed, just as comics have become more violent and belligerent in tone, so have the cartoons. Is a preoccupation with maiming, death and destruction entirely healthy in those so young? Even some of the more worthy apologists for capitalism argue not. For some, pornography could hardly be a worse influence.

Unlike most of the cartoons, some children’s TV programmes are well worth watching for entertainment value and give a reasonable child’s eye-view of our insane world. Unfortunately, there are not many of them. Probably the best, ever since its inception in the late 1970s. is Grange Hill, the drama about life in a North London comprehensive. Created by Phil Redmond, the man who created Brookside, Grange Hill is an object lesson in how to write, direct and produce a realistic drama series— those working on EastEnders should certainly take note.

Among the most entertaining TV programmes for children are the ones shown on a Saturday morning. There is a definite end-of-term feel about these which makes them particularly engaging for those cooped up in a classroom all week, or for that matter, an office—which is the same thing without the playtime. Currently BBC I is running Live and Kicking while ITV counters with What’s Up Doc?, a cartoon-orientated programme which at its best has mirrored the never-to-be-forgotten Tiswas of the late 70s and early 80s. Live and Kicking hosted by Emma Forbes and Andi Peters is the latest descendant in the line stretching from Noel Edmonds's Multi-Coloured Swap Shop (remember that?) to Phillip Schofield and Sarah Green’s Going Live! Both are excellent examples of the mix of anarchic humour and pop star infatuation that has long characterised TV on Saturday mornings in Britain. They appear to be great fun to make—the camera operators rarely stop laughing—but they are invariably led by the values and concerns that infect the other kids’ programmes, merely doing it with more style, vigour and humour. This is something perhaps, but it’s not a great compensation.

One would have thought that television programmes aimed at the most junior members of society would try and cultivate their better natures and desire to exist peacefully and co-operatively, kindling inquisitive minds as much as possible. Despite the few exceptions that have been mentioned. this is generally very far from being the case. Realistic drama invariably takes second place to cartoon violence, and quality investigative programming to indoctrination and lowest-common denominator TV. We can probably expect little better from the market economy.

According to audience research figures, a hefty dose of those brought up on a diet of children's television and cartoons go on to become fodder for Blind Date (currently on its final warning from the Independent Television Commission) and The Word (ditto). There are no Blue Peter's badges on offer for guessing why.

Dave Perrin