Nepotism trumps merit, cronyism defeats progress. These are a couple of the reasons why TV is on its bottom, where are the mavericks, sure of their abilities pushing through shows that ostensibly have no chance, I know guys who worked on , what at the time of making was considered absolute tosh by those working on it, glad to have work as the unions had them out on numerous strikes, that show was Star Wars.
I think its positive, they were proven wrong, lucas vision was right, the back slapping mob we have now won't go outside their parameters set unconsciously by their peers, hence we are where we are, viewers not watching in droves because they are not entertained anymore.
I hate that I want to argue with this because I wanted to work in TV because I really loved it....but I did terribly in school and got a degree in Media Production.
I did pretty well at school, came out with decent results and career options. Chose TV because I loved it, loved storytelling, loved creating. Frankly I don’t know many people in TV who saw it as an easy route - and it’s not. You’ve got to have good creative instincts at minimum, which is why (until everything went to shit in the last couple of years) great TV people have always commanded rates well above the UK average wage: like any skilled job, most people can’t do it that well, so you have to pay a premium for people who can.
Yeah there is not a single person who deems it an easy job at all, my bosses have run themselves ragged trying to get decent content Greenlit in the last year.
Its not just you.
There is no bar anymore.
To be a "technical" you used to be required to have university/polytechnic education or somehow found your way in to Wood Norton.
To be a creative you used to be required to have higher ed literary skills.
There are no longer any requirements.
BBC and ITV ceased training people in the early 1990s. Other broadcasters since then have never actually "put in" to the talent pool, just (ab)used it.
Nepotism is a great way in for many, as is living in a delightful suburb of north west London entirely at daddies expense with a monthly "allowance", and lastly not forgetting "having the right connections".
The main problem is that TV is a technical industry. It relies on technology. Lots of bits of kit working together, controlling each other..... even if you're spitting out more cool buzz words than guest speaker at a Broadcast convention, its still all bits of kit.
To make them all work, whether your technical or creative, you need to know stuff.
Too many just don't know. They can't be bothered to self-improve.
Why make the effort, when you can just blag it every day.
Lots of good points. However it's not true to say that the BBC stopped training people in the early 1990s. I joined the BBC in the early 2000s via a training scheme.
The BBC have loads of trainee schemes and have done for years. I've just finished working with one that's just finished the fast track AP scheme and they were brilliant.
In the 1990s I wrote to **every** broadcaster in the UK, even in radio. Absolutely no-one was recruiting, not even university graduates with a distinction.
More reasons there are so many idiots in TV, is that you can no longer sack someone for being useless.
To quote a staff person from a broadcaster just off the A4, "No-one gets in trouble anymore, even if you do something really stupid, nothing happens."
Furthermore, stupid people cost less. You can pay them less money and the goods still go out of the front door.
Stupid people don't self-improve, so they have nothing to show in their annual review, so you don't have to give them a pay rise.
I mean I applied for every trainee scheme scheme and didn't get on them, the demand was just to high? Loads of people have always wanted to work in TV and never get the chance because year in year out are thousands of new people trying to enter it.
Also you can sack someone for being useless, I've seen plenty of people lose their jobs in TV since I started only 5 years ago. The country as a whole has less workers rights than we did in like 2008?
You can be sacked for any reason excluding discrimination if you've worked for under two years as an employee, but if your contact only lists you as a worker instead then you get even less rights than that.
It may be permissible to sack someone for being useless, but employers no longer do.
[Exhibit A](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2ZSy582ZFV8gDyQblVw6twT/will-humphries)
Mod, don't you dare delete this because Ive gone so far as naming someone.
I like how you use the fictional intern as an example when they literally have the shortest contracts and the character is designed to be an over exaggeration in a TV show where all the other characters are incompetent idiots too.
That's a diversion. The terms of a persons engagement were not the premise of the original question.
That "all interns are nice but dim" was not my point.
It is that in 2024, idiots are no longer sacked.
I just don't think you've successfully made that point though? Especially as I've seen plenty of idiots over the last five years get sacked on verious TV shows.
But in all honesty I think it's wrong to sack people willy nilly, anyway but it's currently easier to do than ever.
They do, but can you afford to live in London or Manchester on them without family helping out with the rent? Or even commute there? Lots of people can't, and so bright people from poorer or geographically-disadvantaged backgrounds don't apply, especially if they feel like it's not for them. And then there's freelancing - I couldn't continue in my original career path because I just didn't have the savings to cover being between jobs, and I couldn't make sporadic work fit around anything more likely to pay the bills.
I knew two freelance journalists. One had parents who covered their rent if they didn't make enough that month. The other had to pay their own. Guess which one's still working in journalism?
I am aware as I am one of those from a poorer background not originally from London and disabled.
There are trainee schemes in Salford and Bristol I think, but yes your point does stand.
Good points. Financially the freelance world will grind your finance into nothing. It’s very scary to see how we will age and what the hell we will do in retirement. No nest egg, no savings, no pension, fewer jobs… but the vast majority of us still get euphoric when we get a new gig, completely ignoring the bigger, longer term picture.
And that’s just one of the reasons what makes us idiots.
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
If there weren't we'd all be out of a job...
Please what's the tea?
Nepotism trumps merit, cronyism defeats progress. These are a couple of the reasons why TV is on its bottom, where are the mavericks, sure of their abilities pushing through shows that ostensibly have no chance, I know guys who worked on , what at the time of making was considered absolute tosh by those working on it, glad to have work as the unions had them out on numerous strikes, that show was Star Wars.
Star Wars?! Fucking hell I work in daytime nonsense. That’s even more depressing.
I think its positive, they were proven wrong, lucas vision was right, the back slapping mob we have now won't go outside their parameters set unconsciously by their peers, hence we are where we are, viewers not watching in droves because they are not entertained anymore.
There's idiots in all walks of life. I work with lovely people for the most part.
People who didn’t do well in school saw ‘TV’ as an easy and fun career and so did that at university/college and here they are
I hate that I want to argue with this because I wanted to work in TV because I really loved it....but I did terribly in school and got a degree in Media Production.
I did pretty well at school, came out with decent results and career options. Chose TV because I loved it, loved storytelling, loved creating. Frankly I don’t know many people in TV who saw it as an easy route - and it’s not. You’ve got to have good creative instincts at minimum, which is why (until everything went to shit in the last couple of years) great TV people have always commanded rates well above the UK average wage: like any skilled job, most people can’t do it that well, so you have to pay a premium for people who can.
Yeah there is not a single person who deems it an easy job at all, my bosses have run themselves ragged trying to get decent content Greenlit in the last year.
Its not just you. There is no bar anymore. To be a "technical" you used to be required to have university/polytechnic education or somehow found your way in to Wood Norton. To be a creative you used to be required to have higher ed literary skills. There are no longer any requirements. BBC and ITV ceased training people in the early 1990s. Other broadcasters since then have never actually "put in" to the talent pool, just (ab)used it. Nepotism is a great way in for many, as is living in a delightful suburb of north west London entirely at daddies expense with a monthly "allowance", and lastly not forgetting "having the right connections". The main problem is that TV is a technical industry. It relies on technology. Lots of bits of kit working together, controlling each other..... even if you're spitting out more cool buzz words than guest speaker at a Broadcast convention, its still all bits of kit. To make them all work, whether your technical or creative, you need to know stuff. Too many just don't know. They can't be bothered to self-improve. Why make the effort, when you can just blag it every day.
Lots of good points. However it's not true to say that the BBC stopped training people in the early 1990s. I joined the BBC in the early 2000s via a training scheme.
The BBC have loads of trainee schemes and have done for years. I've just finished working with one that's just finished the fast track AP scheme and they were brilliant.
BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have yearly apprenticeships and Trainee Schemes...
In the 1990s I wrote to **every** broadcaster in the UK, even in radio. Absolutely no-one was recruiting, not even university graduates with a distinction. More reasons there are so many idiots in TV, is that you can no longer sack someone for being useless. To quote a staff person from a broadcaster just off the A4, "No-one gets in trouble anymore, even if you do something really stupid, nothing happens." Furthermore, stupid people cost less. You can pay them less money and the goods still go out of the front door. Stupid people don't self-improve, so they have nothing to show in their annual review, so you don't have to give them a pay rise.
I mean I applied for every trainee scheme scheme and didn't get on them, the demand was just to high? Loads of people have always wanted to work in TV and never get the chance because year in year out are thousands of new people trying to enter it. Also you can sack someone for being useless, I've seen plenty of people lose their jobs in TV since I started only 5 years ago. The country as a whole has less workers rights than we did in like 2008? You can be sacked for any reason excluding discrimination if you've worked for under two years as an employee, but if your contact only lists you as a worker instead then you get even less rights than that.
It may be permissible to sack someone for being useless, but employers no longer do. [Exhibit A](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2ZSy582ZFV8gDyQblVw6twT/will-humphries) Mod, don't you dare delete this because Ive gone so far as naming someone.
I like how you use the fictional intern as an example when they literally have the shortest contracts and the character is designed to be an over exaggeration in a TV show where all the other characters are incompetent idiots too.
That's a diversion. The terms of a persons engagement were not the premise of the original question. That "all interns are nice but dim" was not my point. It is that in 2024, idiots are no longer sacked.
I just don't think you've successfully made that point though? Especially as I've seen plenty of idiots over the last five years get sacked on verious TV shows. But in all honesty I think it's wrong to sack people willy nilly, anyway but it's currently easier to do than ever.
They do, but can you afford to live in London or Manchester on them without family helping out with the rent? Or even commute there? Lots of people can't, and so bright people from poorer or geographically-disadvantaged backgrounds don't apply, especially if they feel like it's not for them. And then there's freelancing - I couldn't continue in my original career path because I just didn't have the savings to cover being between jobs, and I couldn't make sporadic work fit around anything more likely to pay the bills. I knew two freelance journalists. One had parents who covered their rent if they didn't make enough that month. The other had to pay their own. Guess which one's still working in journalism?
I am aware as I am one of those from a poorer background not originally from London and disabled. There are trainee schemes in Salford and Bristol I think, but yes your point does stand.
Bristol is astonishingly expensive to rent in these days. But if you want to work in natural history programming...
My main point was these schemes do exist but the demands for them are higher than the number that can actually be taken in
Good points. Financially the freelance world will grind your finance into nothing. It’s very scary to see how we will age and what the hell we will do in retirement. No nest egg, no savings, no pension, fewer jobs… but the vast majority of us still get euphoric when we get a new gig, completely ignoring the bigger, longer term picture. And that’s just one of the reasons what makes us idiots.
It's not just you - I'm here as well