On developing a medium

The Edinburgh TV festival this year was all about 'new media'. By which I think we're talking anything that had a big spin build-up in the late 1990s, only to be knocked down in the early 2000s. Nothing like an s-curve to confuse people! Thank heavens we've now reached the bit of the curve where expectations and reality are more aligned.

In the middle of various predictions and proclamations Simon Schama was a breath of fresh air. He discussed his reaction to PBS wheeling out academics to do their piece to camera, then moving them out of the way to let the professionals make TV.

Schama wants to spend time in the cutting room. Lots of it. He wants to see the shots that didn't make it, he even wants to watch the rushes coming in, and he has strong opinions about the fine details of how shots should be sequenced and layered to make the point. The professionals seem to agree that his work has made a major contribution to the grammar of history programming, particularly around the use of reconstruction. But after 15 years of making programmes he still does not have all the answers. He dismissed recent attempts to blend contemporary shots into historical programming as 'too hard' to make work well.

Al Gore picked up on a similar theme in his Alternative McTaggart lecture today. He observed that while TV viewing is tremendously immersive, it is weaker than the Internet in maintaining multi-way conversation and encourage a meritocracy of ideas. This is particularly relevant in the U.S., where political communication is dominated by paid-for spot ads. He urged TV festival delegates to consider how the natural strengths of current TV and Internet media can be combined.

It is almost 70 years since the BBC began scheduled television broadcasts, but we are still improving our understanding of how to best use the medium. Boundaries are being pushed by people like Simon Schama getting deep into the gritty detail of making great TV. What can we learn from him as we develop our 'new media'?

One obvious conclusion is that the last decade, frustrating has it has been, is only the start of a long journey. For me, the most interesting question is the degree to which creative people need to stick their head under the bonnet of a medium. Is it sufficient to write your content into a shiny web interface, as I am doing right now? Or should we, like Simon Schama, take more time to understand the possibilities of the raw material, rather than just the edited gems? In TV richness exists in the raw footage. In the digital world technology also create opportunities - for richer interfaces, more interactivity, and better connection with others. I am not convinced that the Simon Schamas of the Internet are taking time to gain a detailed understanding of the possibilities.