There is No ‘Demise of Radical TV’

Recently Stuart Jeffries published an article in The Guardian regarding the ‘sad demise of Radical TV’, in which he argues that TV has evolved into a medium that is no longer suitable for radical content.  Jeffries argues that the intellectual programmes that were broadcast on British TV from the 70s-90s are unthinkable in the realm of TV today because “intellectual dissent is too difficult for TV to handle”. Jeffries questions where programmes with radical political and social messages have gone, but perhaps he is too narrow in what constitutes ‘radical’ and ‘intellectual’.

In the world of television today there are still many ground-breaking television programmes and series’. These radical series’ explore different structures, content, and production values to what had previously existed in the past. ‘Radical’ TV does not imply reprogramming similar content with remarkably similar structures that have worked in the past, but experimenting with the medium of television itself.

TV is perhaps as radical as ever with the content, production values, and structures that it utilises

It is conceivable that with the inception and increasingly popular realm of reality TV, which do not provide intellectual stimulation or content beyond the daily interactions of people, that one may conceive of the TV as a space not suitable for intellectual TV. Nevertheless, there is room to accommodate the intellectual and radical without generalizing the entire sphere of TV.

TV is perhaps as radical as ever with the content, production values, and structures that it utilises. The possibilities and direction of TV seems to be pushing forward whether it is in dramas, talk shows, documentaries, or comedies. TV and its acceptance of the portrayal of violence, profanity, sexuality, and taboo, have been able to transform the narrative possibilities of TV and allow for radical presentations of ideas and plots not available to previous generations.

To say TV is no longer radical or intellectual at all is absurd. It is perhaps not the same ‘radical’ and ‘intellectual’ TV Jeffries is used to, yet it is still remains radical and intellectual in different respects, whether it is straightforward or not, as the political and cultural messages are often embedded within TV programmes. The ‘radical’ and ‘intellectual’ TV mentioned by Jeffries did not have much room for women or ethnic minorities, and often showed unchallenged voices, typically white middle-class males, providing a direct narrative for an allocated slot. However, TV today is more concerned with representation and is more radical and progressive in that respect.  The representation of women, ethnic minorities, open homosexuality, non-binary and transgender characters is increasing.

Generalising the contemporary state of TV does not provide a full picture

Jeffries remarks: “We used to have The Late Show with Sarah Dunant; now we have The Late Late Show with James Corden. You can’t tell me that isn’t symptomatic of television’s decline.” Nevertheless, this ignores the plenty of panel and talk shows where intellectual issues are tackled, such as panels on major British news networks like Question Time as well as US examples like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Real Time with Bill Maher. There is enough room for light-hearted and humorous chat shows as well as programmes that deal with intellectual and radical topics, and the multitude of channels available provide viewers with choice between both.

The grand narrative of television’s decline, or decline in general, is not a helpful way of analysing the intellectual and radical properties of TV. Generalising the contemporary state of TV does not provide a full picture to analyse the intellectual and radical properties of TV available.

Modern television frequently provides a grey area, whether philosophical or moral, and requires thought and stimulation, invoking reactions and thought from viewers in ways that were not previously possible. Showtime’s Dexter allows viewers to sympathise with a serial killer; HBO’s Westworld – currently airing its second season – often provides philosophically dense and complicated narratives; Showtime’s Billions cleverly creates the obsessive conflict between US Attorney Chuck Rhoades (Paul Giamatti) and hedge fund billionaire Bobby Axelrod (Damian Lewis); and AMC’s Breaking Bad can be understood as a powerful social and political critique on the prohibition on drugs.

Streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime are breaking from the known structures of Network TV

The aforementioned TV shows do not invoke passive viewership and instead provide radical political and social messages. They are subversive in their narrative and forms, as well as innovative with their production values. These are but a few examples of recent TV, but shows among this calibre of intellectual and radical TV do exist alongside other lighter forms of television, including reality TV, simple dramas, and comedic panel shows.

Mediums that present explicitly intellectual and radical ideas are still available, yet in forms that are more suitable to their nature. Podcasts, radio, and services like YouTube are widely available and can cater to those who are interested in this strand of radical and intellectual content at a much lower production cost.

Nostalgia remains a strong force in society, and perhaps this generation will look on TV in the coming years and argue that there is a decline in quality.  Streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime are breaking from the known structures of Network TV, such as episodic structures and weekly instalments, and smaller screens that stream on demand services, such as phones and tablets, are fundamentally changing the way TV is produced and viewed.