Click Here For Virtual Reality

I recently attended a recording of Click, BBC Radio's technology show: the subject was virtual reality. If virtual reality on the radio sounds a little odd, remember that the BBC once broadcast a radio programme called Educating Archie, which featured a ventriloquist act, and in that tradition, this episode of Click included shadow puppetry to accompany a somewhat surreal song about Gravity and Virtual Reality going on a date to the zoo. It worked for the audience in the Radio Theatre (well sort of), but may have been lost on the listeners at home. But, as presenter Gareth Mitchell said, radio is a form of virtual reality, (as is reading, I would argue). Both reading and listening allow the listener or reader to imagine for themselves visually what is being presented to them, during and after the event. The vividness of the imagining leads us to sometimes find fault with TV or film adaptations of our favourite books. You may, as I have, sometimes been disappointed by a film version when the actors or locations do not match the images you created in your own mind while reading the book.

Peter Brough and dummy, Archie. Click HERE to experience Educating Archie in VR!

Visual reality (VR) technology seems to be the coming thing - be it Google Cardboard, Oculus Rift or Samsung Gear - the tech giants are aiming to have us all watching films or playing games in VR; but is it going to be worth buying? That, I suppose is the $64,000 question. As Sandy Smolan, an award winning director of features, documentaries, television, and commercials, and who was interviewed for Click, said, content is key. VR has practical applications in education (particularly medicine), science and engineering, but how successful it may be in the entertainment industry is moot. After all, 3D television was the coming thing six years ago, but has disappeared almost without trace. Sky TV launched their 3D channels in 2010 but - on demand content apart - abandoned it last year, two years after the BBC, who dropped their 3D output in 2013. The BBC cited viewers' dislike of the 3D glasses necessary to watch the extra dimension, together with the expense of producing shows in that format, specifically the specialised cameras. Potentially, VR could go the same way: it may be an immersive experience, but even more so than wearing a pair of 3D glasses, wearing a VR headset will make watching films a somewhat solitary one. And as many people watch TV with a drink in one hand, a sandwich in the other, and all the while making sure that their children and pets are not getting up to mischief, how are they going to do so with a VR headset on? For gamers, I can see the attraction; for the average (or even most technophile) TV viewer, less so.

Is this the future for our work, rest and play?

3D was the selling point when I last bought a TV, but it is not something I have used other than to see what it was all about; it certainly did not enhance my viewing experience, and a bad programme is still a bad programme whether it is in 2D, 3D or VR. As Sandy Smolan said, the quality of the content has to be right, as it has struck me  on more than one occasion over the years that film makers have exploited new technology, be it  surround sound, CGI, 3D or whatever, simply because it exists and they can use it, with little or no consideration given to plot, dialogue or characters. Given that I have a pretty good track record at being wrong about this sort of thing, I won't bet against VR becoming very popular indeed, but I'm not going to rush out and buy a VR headset.

Google Cardboard. Why does everyone using VR have their mouth open?

Whether or not the BBC embrace VR for shows like Strictly Come Dancing - "View the show from your favourite dancer's perspective" perhaps? - remains to be seen, but reports suggest that programmes like Strictly may have to be rescheduled by the corporation to avoid clashes with high profile shows such as The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent that are being broadcast in prime time on ITV. The Mail on Sunday quoted a government source as saying that " when ITV had a flagship programme they were hoping to get high ratings for ... it would be unfair for the BBC to take it on head-to-head." While these reports have been denied, Media and Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has previously expressed concerns about the BBC's 10 o'clock news bulletin being broadcast at the same time as ITV’s. The cynic in me thinks that the Government is flying a kite here; sufficient opposition will allow them to deny that it was ever on their agenda, public apathy will enable them to press ahead with the idea, but also that up to a point government officials may feel that the BBC need putting in their place (wherever they feel that might be, it probably is not where the Beeb feel they should be).

John Whittingdale.

Even if it came to pass, and I sincerely hope it will not (I'm with Shadow Culture Secretary Maria Eagles on this one, because as she says, it would be " completely unacceptable interference in the independence of the BBC") it would presumably have little, if any impact on viewers, because in case anyone in Government hasn't noticed, viewers have been recording programmes to watch at more convenient times, or where they clashed, for over thirty years. First came video recorders and now we have digital TV recorders, plus we have the +1 channels, and on demand services like the BBC iPlayer, All 4, ITV Hub and Sky On Demand.  Recording TV programmes for later consumption is something that certainly has stood the test of time. I cannot be alone when I say that quite often I do not watch a TV programme at the time it is being broadcast.

It is difficult to see what purpose any such interference on the part of government would serve other that as an exercise in petty vindictiveness. Politicians from all parties regularly accuse the BBC of bias; on occasion left and right wing politicians accuse the Beeb of bias in favour of their opponents over the same story, which to my mind suggests that they are quite good at striking a balance.

Balance is something the BBC are attempting to strike in their recruitment policy, as having been criticised in a 2014 report by the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which found that senior BBC staff were “disproportionately from a narrow range of backgrounds” the corporation is apparently aiming to ensure that the make up of its on-screen and back office employees reflect the same share of disabled and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people as the general populace. This is at least in part because of pressure from government and comes at a time when the corporation's charter is up for renewal, a somewhat disquieting note as far as I am concerned; government interference in the BBC's TV scheduling we may laugh off as an outlandish joke, impinging on its recruitment policy at a time of charter renewal seems somewhat more sinister. Inevitably, such stories instantly remind me of the wonderful W1A in which the newsroom boss Neil Reid (played by David Westhead), realising that in terms of black, Asian and ethnic minority (BAEM) personnel, he has actually exceeded his target, therefore does he need to get rid of some?

David Westhead as fictional Controller of News and Current Affairs Neil Reid, in BBC's mockumentary, WIA

Quite how we got from Virtual Reality to the BBC's policy on recruiting staff from the LGBT community I am not entirely sure, but if nothing else this serves to prove that far from just reporting on news, it is difficult to keep the BBC out of it. Which one of those stories we will continue to hear about in a year or two's time remains to be seen.