arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

"The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the "best" sources. " Walter Karp of Harpers magazine

What follows is a few brief words about Bristol based video activists, i-Contact video network, [http://www.videonetwork.org] and their experience of working with the mainstream – UK channel 4 to be more specific.

About six weeks ago we were approached by WarkClements (a Glasgow based Production company headed by BBC ‘Newsnight’ supremo Kirsty Wark) to contribute a 3.5-minute film around the subject of subvertising. They were looking for “anarchic” content for an alternative news pilot show called ‘alt.news@4’ – they promised us ‘full editorial control’…we had some apprehensions but thought we could pull it off.

It was being scheduled for a pre 9pm slot, so no swearing and no titty – no problemo. We were told at the start that we could not target individual corporations for fear of redress…IE we couldn’t systematically pick on individual multinationals, but had to spread it about a bit…ok ok we thought - we can deal with that…

What slowly began to emerge was that we couldn’t target ANY multinational corporations at all. i-Contact submitted a list of corporate targets we wished to include in the film…here is some of C4’s reply – it makes interesting reading

Example 1-- Image :Tory v. Labour--
Reason Why not : Coca Cola would probably take exception
http://www.subvertise.org/politics/spol0012m.html

Example 2 - Image : No Escape from Slow Death--
Reason Why not : Nescafe would freak !
http://www.subvertise.org//corporations/scor0010m.html

Example 3 - Image : Loctout--
Reason Why not : Loctite would take exception I imagine and,
blimey, its almost as if we're encouraging people to glue locks up!!!
http://www.subvertise.org/revolution/grev0019m.html

We submitted many more subverted images to them and it soon became apparent that only the most watered down images could be used…”just to be on the safe side” we were constantly told…

We then quickly had another idea nipped in the bud. We were planning on a montage of shots where billboards would morph from their original ads to improved digitally altered subverts. Quite simple you would think…we received word from C4’s commissioning editor that this was NOT ALLOWED! No way, no how, no can do…There was no discussion about this – we were no way allowed to do this – end of story. We still have not been given a satisfactory reason why C4 found this idea offensive – but only that the decision came from the commissioning editor and was her decision alone…

Okay we thought – this isn’t exactly our idea of ‘full editorial control’ but we’ll go along with it.

So we followed a bunch of Billboard liberation folk in Bristol and filmed them at work. As filmmakers and self professed ‘alternative media’ bods, we gave them our word that we would not misrepresent them or change anything that they told us. We wanted to portray what they do as a legitimate anti-consumerist statement, and not just mindless vandalism.

So we submitted a rough-cut version for Channel 4’s legal department to examine and much to our surprise they gave the film the thumbs up. The final shot of the film was of a Billboard being pulled down by a rope – we thought that if C4 approves this we’re in the clear…

C4 asked for a some minor changes, which we duly obliged. A few more billboards got trashed and some more footage appeared in the film…the film also got trimmed down from 5minutes to 3.5 minutes. A couple of weeks passed and C4 asked to see a 2nd ruffcut.

No major changes to content had occurred and we thought that we were home and dry, so we booked our online edit for May3rd. As we were recovering from being chased around by the old bill on mayday, we got sent a bombshell from C4. This took the form of a 2-page list of specific changes that C4 insist that we made. Many changes we felt were inappropriate and unacceptable, and coming at such a late time smacks off unprofesionalism on C4’s part…

We had an awkward meeting with WarkClements where we both recognised that the fault lay with C4 and their legal department. They had goofed up because the changes they were insisting that we make should have been identified on the first viewing.

Hmmm

We asked for a time out and scooted back to Bristol to confer with the Billboard liberation folk – after all the piece was mainly about them…we spoke about all the options available to us and decided to agree to many of C4’s changes but we would not remove the collapsing billboard shot at the end of the film – as we felt that C4 were already asking us to water down the content…and we would not allow C4 turn this into another piece of TV fluff.

Channel 4 got back to us with the rather draconian attitude that ALL CHANGES MUST BE MADE – END OF STORY.

We felt that C4 had given us two options – comply with their demands and submit a shite watered down film or that we withdraw the film. We chose the latter as we felt that C4 were asking us to misrepresent the good folk that we’d been filming.

So much for “complete editorial control”…

We plan to finish the film as and show it as best we can. We’re also trying to publicise this as much as possible – so if you’re a journo get in touch…

cheers
ian [i-Contact]