TV Home Forum

40 years since itv extended hours: 16th Oct 1972

Started with rainbow a british Revolution in better Kids TV (October 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SW
Steve Williams
Didn't they ultimately commission The Hoobs (from the same producers) as effectively a UK version of the show. They did air a 30 minute version of Sesame Street for a while before showing double episodes of The Hoobs instead.


One reason why they showed a thirty minute Sesame Street was because they took it off completely at the beginning of 1997 to make way for Light Lunch and other stuff, and got so many complaints they brought it back but only had half an hour in the schedules (at 12 noon, it had been at 12.30) so chopped it in half. There's lots about the Beeb not buying Sesame Street in Anna Home's Inside The Box Of Delights and it does point out that Monica Sims, the head of children's programmes at the time, said the main reason was that they had British shows doing the same thing, and also that they were prepared to buy individual sequences from it to show as standalone items but the CTW said they had to show the whole thing or not at all. Although they did later sell it in that way to other countries.

Of course at the same time as ITV started daytime telly, so did the Beeb, although schools programmes were still on in the afternoon so the schedules weren't quite as flexible. But I've got Radio Times from 1974 when there are programmes from after the schools programmes finish around 2.30 up to the kids shows, in April 1974 there was something called The Afternoon Programme which ran for ninety minutes twice a week on Wednesdays and Fridays, with Alan Towers introducing features including keep fit and cookery with Delia Smith. But at the end of 1974 they dropped them all apart from Pebble Mill because they ran out of money.
AM
amosc100
JAS84 posted:
And don't forget that "fanny" is completely different between True English and American English!!!!
Then of course there is pacifier, elevator, sidewalk, dipers (or is it dypers),
Neither, it's diapers.


And it's an older term that nappies:

Quote:
Diapers: [...] Modern sense of "underpants for babies" is continuous since 1837, but such usage has been traced back to 1590s.

Source: Etymonline

Quote:
This type of pattern was called diapering and eventually gave its name to the cloth used to make diapers and then to the diaper itself, traced back to 1590s England. This usage stuck in the United States and Canada following the British colonization of North America, but in Britain the word "nappy" took its place.

Source: Wikpedia

So what's that about "True English", amosc100? Wink

Now that we demonstrated just how off-topic we can get, let's return to our regularly scheduled programming...


True English is what we speak, and write, today that has derived and evolved from what we call English/British English which is basically "Olde" English from the country that gave the world the language in all its forms.

Modern English, on the other hand is the official "non-street" language of ours and is what is taught in classrooms across most of Europe.

American english is basically based on "Olde" English and has evolved much slower and differently to our own - hence still using terminology such as The Fall instead of Autumn. Plus they have their own oddities as when we took over the country they also spoke Dutch, Spanish and French and their language does show these.

Then of course there are other junctions in the history of "World" English in that countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc etc all have their own version of English - which is based on our "True" English with their own deviations. Also as a side note did you know that Australia (first known as New Holland) does not have an official language!!

Now still staying on topic, the problem we have is that educating children in the UK we should be using "Modern" English but growing up in families we are subjected to "True" English, but I firmly believe that we should not subject younger children to the US variant until they realise the differences.

Sesame Street, on the other hand, when shown in foreign countries, such as France, Holland, Germany are not shown in English! They are dubbed into their own language and as such the children are not subjected to what we would call "*******" English. It is like nowadays with the US young children imports shown on Channel 5 - they are, in the majority, dubbed in to "Modern" English.

The only major flaw with US shows, especially when shown in European countries, and when not dubbed but subtitled, are that the people are learning American English over "True" English and this can be seen when in conversation - which is such a shame when it comes to our own "True" English being decimated to basically a "foreign "or a minority language.
WW
WW Update
@amosc100: I known a little about linguistics, and I can assure you that no serious student of languages uses terms such as "True English," which doesn't really mean anything. There are several standards of the modern English language, of which British English (BrE or BE) and American English (AmE or AE) are the most widespread in the worlds of publishing, the media, and so on. Neither is more "original" than the other. In fact, many AmE words are etymologically older than BrE words, and many everyday words were adopted by BrE (and other varieties of English) directly from AmE. Without AmE influences, the English spoken in the UK would have been very different today.

I consider the hand-wringing of some Britons over the danger of AmE influences to be a classic example of Freud's "narcissism of small differences," but that is neither here nor there.

BTW, many small European countries aired Sesame Street in its original version, and that did not make their children American. I grew up watching Austrian and Serbian educational television, and I was no less culturally Slovenian because of that.
Last edited by WW Update on 18 October 2012 10:55am
:-(
A former member
Disagree about other countries, in norway/Sweden there use a lot of American English. But or course English is not the main spoken touge so there don't care, unlike here.

I have seen planty of dub shows on five, wiki page does have details as to why five don't show it.
WW
WW Update
And another thing...

The only major flaw with US shows, especially when shown in European countries, and when not dubbed but subtitled, are that the people are learning American English over "True" English and this can be seen when in conversation - which is such a shame when it comes to our own "True" English being decimated to basically a "foreign "or a minority language.


The major reason why English (of any variety) is so widely spoken in Europe -- and pretty much anywhere outside the British Commonwealth -- is the cultural and political influence of the United States, particularly since World War II. In the early 20th century, before the emergence of the US as major power, both French and German were considerably more widespread as second languages in Continental Europe.
Last edited by WW Update on 18 October 2012 12:10pm
ST
stevek2
so Emerdale's 40th is down to ITV extending it's broadcasting hours to afternoons in 1972

that rainbow pilot was interesting, no george or geofrey, and Bungle was left handed (well the actor was)
:-(
A former member
so Emerdale's 40th is down to ITV extending it's broadcasting hours to afternoons in 1972

that rainbow pilot was interesting, no george or geofrey, and Bungle was left handed (well the actor was)


That was how the whole first series was like Embarassed it took emmerdale five years to get into Peak time expect some compaines moved it to early evening:

* Anglia Television, Grampian Television, Thames Television and Westward Television preferred 17:15: 1977 - Mid 1980s
* STV did the same but some times showed it when ever 17.15, 18.30, 19pm until 1980 then stuck at 17.15 until 1987. but moved it back again in 1993 - 1998.

What was the second longest programme? to start from 1972?
:-(
A former member
Here is the reason why five does not broadcast it :

Quote:
Channel 5 preferred to dub British voices onto their imported shows, and feels that utilising puppets is outdated. The BBC has stood by its original decision, and its position that other children's programmes in the UK cover similar learning themes and values
IT
itsrobert Founding member
And another thing...

The only major flaw with US shows, especially when shown in European countries, and when not dubbed but subtitled, are that the people are learning American English over "True" English and this can be seen when in conversation - which is such a shame when it comes to our own "True" English being decimated to basically a "foreign "or a minority language.


The major reason why English (of any variety) is so widely spoken in Europe -- and pretty much anywhere outside the British Commonwealth -- is the cultural and political influence of the United States, particularly since World War II. In the early 20th century, before the emergence of the US as major power, both French and German were considerably more widespread as second languages in Continental Europe.


That's all well and good, but you're still not addressing the point about the UK having its own version of English and why young children here should not be subjected to a different version to the one we officially learn and use here. Why should we roll over and use American English when for the most part we don't want it? You don't seem to exhibit any appreciation of the point that young children are at a vulnerable stage in their linguistic development and that to subject them to the "wrong" version of the language we use could be damaging. I had first hand experience of watching my German cousin growing up speaking both German and English; she would frequently switch between the two within the same sentence. The same process is now happening with her much younger half-brothers. So if it was hard enough for them to grasp that German and English are two separate languages, just imagine how hard it would be for equally young children to appreciate subtle differences in spelling and punctuation within one language! Granted, it may be corrected during schooling, but why put them in that position just for the sake of watching an American TV show when we've always had a strong selection of British programming?
WW
WW Update
That's all well and good, but you're still not addressing the point about the UK having its own version of English and why young children here should not be subjected to a different version to the one we officially learn and use here. Why should we roll over and use American English when for the most part we don't want it? You don't seem to exhibit any appreciation of the point that young children are at a vulnerable stage in their linguistic development and that to subject them to the "wrong" version of the language we use could be damaging. I had first hand experience of watching my German cousin growing up speaking both German and English; she would frequently switch between the two within the same sentence. The same process is now happening with her much younger half-brothers. So if it was hard enough for them to grasp that German and English are two separate languages, just imagine how hard it would be for equally young children to appreciate subtle differences in spelling and punctuation within one language! Granted, it may be corrected during schooling, but why put them in that position just for the sake of watching an American TV show when we've always had a strong selection of British programming?


Right, but this not about forcing anyone to adopt American English. This is about the mere availability of an innocuous television show that happens to be produced in a different variety of the English language. I'm certainly not suggesting that the UK should not produce its own educational programming, but why not give parents and their children an additional choice? Why should some higher authority be the one to decide that Sesame Street isn't acceptable to British children (even though British parents disagree)?

I simply don't think that children are confused by access to dialects other than their own. In Switzerland, children grow up speaking SchwyzerdŁtsch (Swiss German), but most of their television is in Hochdeutsch (High German). That doesn't make them confused. In Ireland, a considerable amount of TV programming for children is in British English, yet I don't think many Irish people see that as an existential threat to Hiberno-English.

In fact, I would argue that children are better able to deal with various dialects and languages than adults. And it's the family environment that is by far the most influential factor in the linguistic development of young children.
Last edited by WW Update on 18 October 2012 8:09pm
:-(
A former member
Parents DO HAVE A CHOICE, you just have to go and view the sky channels. Playhouse Disney is full of US show and that awful special agent OSO. Nick Jr is also a bad affaderds. So There is choice, yet Cbbbies stil get more viewers.
WW
WW Update
Parents DO HAVE A CHOICE, you just have to go and view the sky channels. Playhouse Disney is full of US show and that awful special agent OSO. Nick Jr is also a bad affaderds. So There is choice, yet Cbbbies stil get more viewers.


Yes, but we were originally talking about the situation in the 1970s and the broadcasters' hostility to Sesame Street at that time.

Newer posts