Events | 2009.07.19
Strictly Come Sexism | Mark Lawson
Whatever the BBC says, its treatment of Arlene Phillips will give rise to disquieting perceptions
There have always been people who suggest that media studies is not a proper academic discipline. But the newer school will now be able to set classes a puzzler on a par with Fermat\'s last theorem in the maths faculty.
Question: explain why Graham Norton is not blamed for the failure of the peak-time weekend show Totally Saturday and will be offered many other lucrative presenting roles, but – conversely – Arlene Phillips is not credited with any of the success of the peak-time weekend hit Strictly Come Dancing , and has been dumped and replaced by Darcey Bussell and Alesha Dixon.
Many examinees will have a two-word answer – ageism, sexism – especially if they had as a guest lecturer Mariella Frostrup , who has recently written a series of pieces arguing that television operates a system of female euthanasia at what used to be called a certain age.
Some broadcasters would argue that the success of a series results from a complex combination of elements – time slot, talent, format and what\'s on the other side – and that long-running shows are regularly "refreshed", a modern euphemism fit to rank with "ethnic cleansing" and "efficiency savings" (although, clearly influenced by the botched dropping of Edward Stourton from the Today programme, the BBC has been careful to line up a new package for Phillips on The One Show, where she will analyse this year\'s Strictly moves, like a cricketer retiring to the commentary box).
My own answer would be that Norton has a longer track record, but that the contrasting examples also remind us of the extent to which television is an art rather than a science. The BBC1 leaders who are so certain that the 66-year-old expert choreographer is the part of Strictly Come Dancing that needs refreshing were presumably equally certain a few weeks ago that Totally Saturday – a flop so total that it is being dropped before the end of its run – was the perfect vehicle for one of their most talented and highly paid performers. Management – in broadcasting – is a series of hunches and gambles. And so the failure of one decision inevitably casts doubt on the wisdom of others.
As a result, many viewers will continue to believe that Arlene Phillips has been punished for her birth date and her gender. This view will be encouraged for some by the fact that the same BBC press conference announcing Ms Phillips\'s departure previewed another series from David Attenborough, who, like continuing Strictly host Bruce Forsyth, is old enough to be her father. Sir David, though, is the wrong target.
In almost all cases, television and radio presenting roles are leasehold rather than freehold. Everyone gets the knock on the door eventually: even Forsyth has been thrown away at least twice. Only a very small number of performers – Attenborough, Wogan, Paxman – will be able to do what they want until they want to stop.
Female conspiracy theorists will note that all these time-deniers are men, and it is unarguable that, historically, two different rules seem to have applied to male and female broadcasters once the expense accounts of their managers have been charged for a certain number of birthday cards. The case of Selina Scott – who successfully settled with Channel Five for age discrimination – suggested that some men in broadcasting have the attitude to women presenters that business tycoons have to wives: swap frequently for a younger model.
Surprisingly, America is an exception to this practice. Television audiences can be sexist – as shown by the difficulty of Katie Couric , the CBS evening news anchor, in establishing herself against male rivals who are in no obvious way superior – but there are many surviving performers of both sexes who remember when Roosevelt was president. The reason for this is not altruism but the fear of writs, which overcomes the executive desire for younger flesh. But the result is an equal opportunities policy: those men and women can even be seen to have had an equal amount of work done on chin reductions and hair extensions.
But in Britain, with its history of women vanishing from the screen once they can count their age on the fingers of five hands, there will inevitably be deep suspicion about Ms Phillips\'s replacement by two younger women. We will only know the truth if the emails of the relevant BBC departmental managers are released under a freedom of information request or if their voice-mails are published in the News of the World – and not even then if the executives in question have been careful.
Jay Hunt, the controller of BBC1, insists that the choreographer\'s weakness was not her seniority; but broadcasting is increasingly a branch of politics, in which denial and counter-argument can do little to overturn perception. And, whatever they say to and about Phillips, the perception stinks.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]ism-television-arlene-phillips
