The opposite of "reality TV"

We all know what talk shows are like, don’t we: they’ve a fairly rigid formula. Entertainingly witty host, celebrity guests who are all publicising something, laid back chat , then time for the theme music. Or you have the political variant, which has soundbytes, talking heads and arguing about the headlines in easily digestible chunks.

What would it look like if someone did the opposite of all that?

You’d get After Dark.

For 10 years, back in the mid 80s to 90s, the UKs Channel4 (back in the days when it took risks and innovated), found a creative solution to an unusual problem. TV in the UK was just starting to broadcast 24 hours a day, which left them with large blocks of overnight time to fill, which advertisers were reluctant to sponsor. So they came up with a format that turned the discussion show on its head.

Each episode had:

  • A controversial or interesting topic.
  • Four or five experts on comfy sofas
  • A host to get them talking
  • A drinks trolley to keep the guests refreshed
    And the cameras just kept rolling until the discussion ended. Wide-ranging discussions of two or three hours were common, on all manner of topics. Sex, terrorism, secrets, war and history were all put under its microscope.

This little kitty was a little bit too young to appreciate it at the time. This staple of post pub TV ended before I was legally allowed to be purchasing strong beverages, but some episodes are available online, like the one linked below- two and a half hours of in-depth discussion about spying and official secrets in which some seriousl explosive claims are made,on live broadcast.

It’s something tha could only have happened when it did. Today’s media landscape is much more tightly controlled in many ways, and hours of air time of indeterminate length wouldn’t be given over to such a program today. But it should.

7 Likes

It’s still around, it’s called In Our Time With Melvin Bragg.

3 Likes

On his show, he frequently betrays the fact that he has an agenda,

1 Like

Which is…?

Each show, he has a list of things that he wants to cover-- and quite often, his guests get involved in a tangential discussion. Bragg will try to hurry them up and get the discussion back on his track. You might argue that this what any good host should do. But most hosts will try to disguise that fact on air and very gently guide the discussion back where it “needs” to go. Bragg is brasher.

(It’s actually been a while since I’ve listened to his podcast)

3 Likes

Yes, well that was an unfortunate selection by the onebox summary. In context, they’re saying how widespread the praise was for the programme. They had a following from a wide swathe of the press, who could not normally be capable of agreeing on much beyond “water is wet”.

2 Likes