Sitting at home flicking through television channels, instantly puts into stark contrast the difference between professional and “not so professional” TV stations. The exercise makes your local station stick out like a sore thumb.

   The sad thing is, that many people don’t seem to see why that should be the case. Television programme making is a very expensive affair.

   A simple example for starters; compare the difference between producing a discussion programme on television and on radio. On the radio it’s a one man job — a presenter who is his own producer, soundman, can handle a phone-in, he’s a timekeeper, he interviews the panel, plays music and commercials and whilst those are playing, can even make coffee for all his guests if their throats need a little oiling!

   Not so on television. On the cheap you would need at least six or seven bodies. But that, in my mind is not the main limitation — financial resources, important as they are, not just for more staff but for equipment etc — no, it’s the limited pool of talent available in a small town.

   Take presenters, not as common a commodity as you might think. As far as we’re concerned here in Gibraltar, say you’re auditioning prospective candidates; yes, they look good, have a good voice, but can they present in English convincingly? Are you sold by the way they put themselves across? Again yes, he or she can speak the language, but what about the usage of it — does it sound right, are things said that way?...

   “But never mind,” you’d like to think, you are now going to audition another eight or nine, who in many cases already have television or radio experience, are out of work actors or actors fresh from training, as would be the case in larger organisations in bigger countries…

   Oh no, you’ll no doubt have more of the same and you’ll have to make do with one who shows some promise somewhere. Sometimes, he or she may turn out to be good, but it’s near enough impossible to hit the mark every time in a small place.

   That’s just one example. What about set design? Lighting? Presentational writing, be it for news or other programming? Camerawork? Makeup? Editing? Directing? And so on… in one word TALENT is understandably not in abundance.

   It’s all of those things and others that flash through your brain instantly without you realising it, as you zap through your 131 channels on your TV set.

   That’s the case with all television stations in the area. Whether it’s GBC, Telesur (no longer there), La Linea municipal, San Roque or whatever. I spent a year in Jersey in 1970 and there again, the difference between the local output and the mainland feed was plain to see.

   Lack of resources, both human and material, are sorely absent and you can’t hide it because the deficit is there, dare I say it... for all to see!

   What may seem like simple straightforward British television programmes to produce, like Countdown or The Antiques Roadshow, may involve scores of production staff and other personnel.

   Recently the presenter of the ‘word building’ programme Countdown asked the producers to have the programme recorded closer to London, where he lived, so that he didn’t have to keep travelling up north once or twice a month. The makers replied that it would involve having to relocate over 40 production staff, so they turned down his request. Who would have thought that a programme like Countdown required more than 40 professionals to produce!

    Expensive is just not the word when it comes to producing television programmes professionally. There are things like ‘continuity presentation links to camera’ during a variety show or any other kind of show where speaking to camera (that is to you at home) is required. That is a job for a script writer who will ensure that continuity is delivered smoothly and without repetition and so on by the presenter.

   There are so many little and not so little necessary practices that mark the difference between the professional and the ‘not so’, that may not be evidently obvious to you, but your brain perceives, somewhere, are missing.

   So next time you watch a show or any programme — even the News — on any of the major TV channels, don’t get up to make a cup of tea or pour yourself a whisky straight away afterwards, stay put and watch the credits roll for the next minute or so and see what’s involved in producing what you’ve just seen.

   However, repeating the old adage — there is always room for improvement — firstly we must home in on programme ideas with wide appeal. If your local programme output is limited, don’t choose minority subjects to waste your tiny resources on. Also programme content could be tightened up by editing down repetitious interviews. Many times you’ll find the interviewee has basically said the same thing twice, on occasions three times, and it’s all left in. A more ruthless approach should be practised when editing interviews — cut out questions and answers of no consequence, a more concise piece will sound and look much better.

   Programme and continuity captions should be refreshed more often. Keeping the same ones running makes a station look tired and in dire need of a facelift. Again, because pennies and qualified staff are in short supply, record programmes on site, at a hotel, someone’s home, big store or even outdoors. Sets in the studio very often look cheap and amateurish.

  There are probably other bits and pieces that could be tried which would improve the product. But as I have often said to many people about my old place of work, “some improvements can be made, but not to the extent you may think”, for the reasons already stated.For instance, “Why are discussions so boring sometimes?” I’m asked. It’s mainly because we have a limited pool of interviewees to draw from and often their views on the issue being discussed are limited to one or two points and they don’t stray much away from those, so they keep on coming back to them. They haven’t much to say in other words and their delivery may not be very exciting — they’re not what you would expect to see in a debate on one of the major channels, and what I like to call ‘professional interviewees’, where you ask the question and they know what you want and proceed to deliver.

   Another, and I think very important point that the powers-that-be and the viewing audience would have to learn to understand and accept, is the possibility of reducing programme output to perhaps, one hour a night. A well produced 60 minutes, therefore affording more staff and resources to achieve a better and more ‘professional’ — there’s that word again — product. This idea, I know, has been bandied about for some time now but has, so far, not been taken up.

   Lastly, what’s perhaps most important of all, vocation. Broadcasting, like other occupations, is not a 9 to 5 job… “That’s not in my job description, so I’m not doing that,” especially in a small setup... looking constantly over your shoulder to see if your colleague is doing as much as you are and therefore, in your estimation, not pulling his or her weight... and on and on it goes.

   You work in broadcasting because you love it and it matters to you as a public service and that’s what you want to do. It’s not the ‘put down tools it’s time to go home’ type job. If you’re genuinely really into it, take it home with you, it’s part of your life.

   The limitations are clearly there, but if you get everyone interested and singing from the same hymn sheet, local television can be better, and maybe when you land on your local TV station as you flick through your 131 channels, the contrast won’t be so stark.