DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA APLICACIÓN DEL SOFTWARE IDCT

In 1995 I spent just over ten months with the Natural History Unit; starting with initial investigations in the archives in February, through a summer of intense interviewing, and into an autumn of completing research strands. It is from this research that the stories of the previous forty years of wildlife broadcasting have been pieced together. These accounts show it is possible to trace the shifting relationships between scientists, broadcasters, film-makers and television executives, and the different values of programme quality and changing audience measures for assessing wildlife film-making. However, as well as furnishing the framework of history, these are issues that the Unit also have to negotiate on a day to day basis, without the clarity of hindsight. These debates are evident in the development of every individual production, but are perhaps best exemplified by debates over commissioning new programmes. Here, instead of looking backwards, the Unit has to try and look forward and consider how to produce the milestone programmes of the future. In this chapter, I want to give an account of the Unit meetings over the summer of 1995, exploring the development of the editorial process though which decisions are made over future programmes, assessing their outcome and examining how members of the Unit are represented in these processes. Using a language of risk, I want to suggest that the historical networks of natural history film-making influence the future of natural history film-making.

The most significant decision-making process in the year of the Natural History Unit is the Editorials. In this process, Alastair Fothergill manages programme ideas from the Unit; balancing the constraints and opportunities of the networks of natural history film-making to produce programmes which can bring innovation, but also support to the way animals, co- producers, audiences, scientists and film-makers have been incorporated. Ideas are carefully selected in the spring, they are then put forward to channel controllers, where they must compete for money and slots with other departments and independent productions. The channel controllers and Head of the Unit meet several times over the summer to decide the programmes to be made over the next couple of years. The preparation for these meetings and

the results are conveyed to all members of the Natural History Unit through a series of Unit meetings. These Unit meetings are held approximately every couple of months. They are the only time the whole department meets together, and for these purposes they move out of their converted Victorian houses into a new part of the site; to the conference room where they sit in rows in front of head of department, Alastair Fothergill. The makers of radio and television programmes, blue-chip specials and British magazine programmes, from senior producers to new researchers all attend these meetings to discuss Unit matters, to talk about ideas, to discuss films, and follow the progression of the Editorials.

The meetings generally take all morning and are divided into three sections. First, there are updates of current developments at the BBC, presenting the implications of current news about the BBC for the Natural History Unit - the need to cut overheads and downtime, the commercialisation of the macro studio, the loss of the in-house cameramen and reports from staff feedback. Secondly, there is a presentation of progress made in editorials. Programme ideas for each channel, at every price range, which are going forward to the controllers are introduced, their reception summarised, their scope refined and their progress monitored. By the end of the summer this section of the meeting will comprise more or less firm offers for commission. The third part of the meeting is feedback on films. Fothergill reports the controllers' opinions on programmes, sheets of audience figures are circulated and Wildvision summarise the overseas sales. The remaining time in the meeting is then taken up by the Unit's discussion of films. Alastair Fothergill chairs the discussion as members of the Unit take the place of the audience, to offer feedback, comments, views and opinions on films produced by other members of the Unit.

Three times over the summer of 1995, I joined these meetings. At the first meeting, ideas going forward to editorials were discussed; at the second, preliminary feedback from controllers was presented; and at the third, a clearer idea of films that would be commissioned was revealed. I continued to have interviews with members of the Unit throughout this period, which provided insights into the role individuals felt they played in this process. Different people in the Unit, having joined at different stages, with different ambitions felt differently incorporated in these decisions. The history of the Unit represents childhood entertainment through to career fulfilment to members of the Unit, and provides each with a unique set of resources, expertise and future ambitions. Some of these will be fulfilled through the commissioning process and some will not. For some people attending the meetings, the process will have meant that they can continue in their position; for others it may mean a change of emphasis in their work; for others the loss of a job.

The commissioning meetings in 1995 came just after considerable press coverage of further cuts at the BBC: 8% efficiency cuts for that year, following 2 years of 5% cuts, which affected the money available at the editorials. The moratorium on new commissions brought in to

reduce the £200 million overdraft finished early that year, but had resulted in the decommissioning of a Nature special and 3 Natural Worlds, and had pushed a number of programmes forward into the year 1995 to 1996, further restricting the slots and money for new programmes. At the beginning of the summer, it looked likely that early autumn would bring a dip in numbers of programmes and staff, as summer programmes like Nature Detectives and Watch Out finished and there was relatively little to fill the gap in the Unit. One new researcher explained how this affected his position within these meetings:

"This ban or moratorium on commissioning has obviously affected us, or will affect us very soon; the fact that in a few months time, there are a lot of programmes finishing and not many starting. And from a personal point of view that could affect me very directly as I won't have any work" (Adrian, interview 26.7.95).

For the Natural History Unit, the programmes that go forward may write the next bit of history, or may be forgotten. This chapter therefore presents a very different perspective on the networks of the Natural History Unit. Whilst the historical chapters recover past motivations, they are stories about how decisions have been made and how things could have been otherwise. This chapter focuses instead on the uncertainties of the active processes through which members of the Unit seek to support their claims of quality, expertise and experience to make programmes for the future, and it therefore presents an opportunity for people to reflect on how things could be different. Whatever the outcome of the Editorial process, the ideas are extremely sensitive to different people and different organisations. In light of this, I will only discuss the few ideas that have received publicity in arenas like the BBC Wildlife Magazine; some programmes which did not make it through; and those that have already gone through the whole process and have been transmitted by August 1997.