Maureen Barnes Down the tube
Money, the SABC is always telling us, is the problem which prevents us from watching top-quality television – a fact which we silly viewers just can’t get into our heads. There’s not enough money from the government; there’s not enough money from advertisers and there’s not enough money from us – that’s why they spend a fortune on expensive advertisements telling us to pay our licences.
Sometimes they address the malefactors among us in threatening terms; sometimes they are kindly as they try to turn us towards the path of righteousness, and occasionally they offer us blandishments in the form of prizes if we pay up.
It has never seemed to occur to the government that it is ridiculous to either bar huge sections of a poor population from the most accessible form of education, information and entertainment, or to criminalise them for sneaking a look. Information, like health care, policing and public transport, should be one of the priorities of the state.
The concept of a television licence is not carved in stone and could be eliminated. Just getting rid of the paperwork alone – the thank- you letters to those who pay up, the threats to those who don’t, the complicated, spread-out paying system operated by, I think, surname initial or something irritating, as well as the above-mentioned adverts and the administrative staff involved in the whole licensing system – should lessen the blow.
While most of the blame lies with the government, it also never seems to occur to the SABC that it is not only the amount of their resources which is a problem, but the way in which those resources are spent. Quite frankly, if I were in government I’d think twice about giving money to people who think trash is innovative.
Dramatic productions, it appears, are totally funded by the SABC – which leads, as we have seen recently, to some very dicey decisions – but documentaries and magazine programmes, excluding news, get no such funding and have to be completely sponsored.
One of the magazine programmes which has suffered through the restraints of sponsorship is Gardens Wild and Wonderful, which returned to our screens last week. Written and produced by Ian Hooper, this is a programme which conforms to the highest international standards. Gardening, like cooking, is an ever- popular activity which appeals to people everywhere from all walks of life.
Unfortunately, although there are superb gardening programmes available overseas – some of which regularly appear in viewers’ top 10 favourites – they won’t travel to more exotic climes. Luckily, with people like Hooper and his team, we’ve got the talent to make our own.
So what do we do? We cripple them by treating their topic as if it were less worthy than a drama.
Gardening, of course, doesn’t attract the advertisements which other topics might. Small nurseries and gardening- implement manufacturers don’t usually have the funds to place expensive ads around a programme. But there is no merit in this state of affairs: after all, if it were permitted to have programmes on guns and cigarettes, there’d be no shortage of sponsors.
The implications of this state of affairs are quite significant. We won’t be getting any locally made magazine programmes or documentaries unless they appeal, not to the majority – which gardening probably does – but to the pockets of the advertisers.
This financial constraint has meant that the hugely popular gardening programme has returned to our screened slashed from half an hour to15 minutes. The fact that it is being screened on SABC3 on Friday evenings and repeated on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings is nice, but benefits the sponsors not the producers.
That being said it was good to see it back and to get a lesson in tree planting from Doug McMurtry. Tumi Makgabo, who made her name on this programme, has alas now gone to read the news, and it is to be hoped that new anchor Yashika Singh will eventually settle down and get out of her pretty party gear.
While on the subject of programmes which attract sponsors, it mystifies me why The Practice – on SABC1 on Wednesdays -doesn’t attract the ads that, say, Seinfeld, does. Not that I’m complaining – the number of commercial breaks make Seinfeld almost unwatchable at times.
The last episode of The Practice included a poignant court case where an obese woman sued a comedian for poking cruel public fun at her. And, in a criminal case, John Larroquette gave a chilling yet funny performance as a gay, sinister and witty genius accused of murdering his lover.
Even his attorney was dismayed at getting his mad client off for the second time – he murdered another lover a few episodes ago. The excellent script and acting, as usual, made this series one of the best on the box.