Why did "Channel 4" even air "Benefit Street"?

[Ken Burch]

As I understand it, "Benefit Street" used "reality tv" techniques to create a deeply distorted and inflammatory picture of people who have been forced to depend on the UK benefit system, and put into that situation largely due to the toxic changes Margaret Thatcher imposed on the UK economy(changes no succeeding British government has ever altered in the slightest). Benefit Street essentially started the massive public backlash against those on benefits, and played a major role in the election of a majority Conservative government this May.

As I also understand it, Channel 4 is traditionally considered the more left-of-centre television channel in the UK.

Why would Channel 4 air something it had to have known was basically going to be right-wing, poorbashing propaganda?

[T_i_B]

1. "Poverty Porn" TV is a big thing at the moment

I've even been approached myself by a TV producer asking if I would like to employ a methadone addict as a cleaner for one of these sort of shows. Needless to say that the offer was refused.

Channel 4 and Channel 5 both have quite a few "poverty porn" TV shows. Which might explain why I hardly ever touch either channel these days.

[Denzil_DC]

2. I remember when Channel 4 first started back in 1982.

It was a revelation - documentaries on the Spanish Civil War, arts and politics coverage you couldn't find on other channels etc.

The rot really started to set in after 1993, when Channel Four Television Corporation took over control and it became more reliant on raising its own advertising revenues, and years of financial uncertainty followed. It focused more on importing US shows like ER and Friends to draw big audiences (which, to be fair, subsidized the more alternative and artsy strands of programming on subsidiary channels like E4), then Peter Bazalgette pioneered Big Brother. There was subsequently some official griping that it wasn't fulfilling its public service brosdcasting responsibilities which led it to include more "minority" programming, but otherwise it was downhill all the way to Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, then the Benefit Street schlock point-and-tut franchises.

I think Channel 4 News (produced by old hand ITN) is still a cut above the other stations' offerings, but I don't rely on it much nowadays.

[Ironing Man]

3. C4

amazingly, C4's output on the subject is a bit more nuanced than some suggest.

its current 'how to get a council house' series is an incredibly sympathetic portrayal of the shortage of social housing, its impossible for anyone of whatever political view to watch it and not think the UK needs to build vastly more social housing.

Benefits Street showed good and bad, and i'm afraid that one of the reasons that society has become a more hostile place for social security is that the left stuck its fingers in its ears and pretended that there was no one taking the piss, no one coasting along on the wages of others (much like the immigration debate - ignore a small, but growing issue/problem because its politically uncomfortable and have it explode out of all proportion to its actual impact 10 years later), and that everyone who accessed the various forms of social security were all salt-of-the-earth types who did their level best to get on their own feet whenever they could.

well, the reality is that some - like in every other walk of life - are cheats, idle, venal, and have an entitlement complex.

the current 'poor bashing' is the wild public over-reaction to the stupidity, cowardice - and lets be frank - clientist attitudes of those who denied that there was ever a problem with the way some people used the welfare state.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I don't think people's attitudes to poor people are caused by (real or perceived) left-wing denials.

It's the other way round; if you think there's a lot of people taking the piss, you tend to think that the people in charge are denying it. Hostility to people perceived as taking the piss is based mainly on their own perceived actions; not on others' 'denial'.

IMO what is happening is that lots of people (even those not currently poor) feel very insecure, and this leads to a lot of mutual suspicion. The exploited, hard-working immigrant may think that unemployed native Brits are scroungers; the unemployed person may think that immigrants are 'flooding the country and taking our jobs'; those in traditionally low-paid jobs may be suspicious of both the above groups. Some of this is a natural though regrettable result of chronic insecurity; some of it is fuelled by the media.

I think that chronic insecurity is by now so taken for granted, that most people, even on the left, fail to see how disastrous it is for individuals and society. It is vital IMO that the social safety net be preserved - but it is also vital that the root causes of poverty be addressed: low pay, job insecurity, and in many places, high cost of living.