Back in the year of Glasgow’s COP26, TV land engaged in an unprecedented orgy of transtextuality to ensure that the climate crisis message was well and truly seared into the alpha-wave soused brains of the great unwashed British public. The collusion started with Emmerdale, where a bloke called Liam was shown producing a TikTok video featuring his new, ever so sustainable allotment. Apparently, this fictitious video went fictitiously viral before being fictitiously picked up by Coronation Street’s Gary, who shows it to Maria while they sit in a cafe discussing the plans for a new bypass. Maria clunkily explains for the benefit of the eavesdropping licence payers:
When are the council going to realise we are in a climate emergency — what with the storms and the floods not being a big enough wakeup call for it? Our council should be trying to save this planet, not building more roads.
To which Gary responds: “Yeh, your right, ‘course you are.”
Yes Gary, of course she was. And that is why she went on to organise a protest.
But that’s not where this extraordinary display of soapy cross-talk ends, because it wasn’t too long before Nate in Hollyoaks was showing his mate Ripley a news article reporting Maria’s fictitious air pollution protests. Nate then suggests working with Ripley to do business more sustainably.
And on it went. By the time they had finished fabricating their interwoven storylines, Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Hollyoaks, Eastenders, Casualty, Doctors and Holby City had all got in on the act.
An ensemble’s operatic production requires quite a substantial level of orchestration. But to witness such an ensemble of ensembles playing in such synchrony is to see orchestration taken to a new level, particularly when you consider that such crossover of storylines had previously been considered strictly verboten. So what brought about this remarkable tour de farce? Could COP26 have had anything to do with it? I don’t know. Do bears shit in the woods?
We could of course just accept the earnest exhortations of the actors themselves. For example, Coronation Street actress, Samia Longchambon (aka Maria) said:
We sort of go out of our way not to usually ‘cross contaminate’ the soaps but with this, it’s been such a brilliant idea and it’s a unique opportunity for us to get together to cover this climate change message in a special and entertaining way that will stay in people’s minds.
I don’t want to sound bitchy, but ‘special and entertaining’ were her words, not mine. Nevertheless, I don’t doubt her sincerity. And to add to her special and entertaining pleading we had Emmerdale actor, Jonny McPherson, bemoaning that:
It’s hard not to feel like the world is burning around us…
Actually, it’s quite easy if you try. But I must admit, it is getting increasingly difficult to find anyone up to the task, thanks largely to the brainwashing that Samia and Jonny seem so eager to support using their special and entertaining talents. But rather than place the blame at the feet of the foot soldier, perhaps we should be asking who are the military masterminds behind all of this?
Well I might have guessed; look what we have here from those psycho-boffins at the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT):
An estimated 4.3 billion people watch TV content on different devices for an average of 2h 54 minutes a day, across the world. In our latest report, produced in collaboration with Sky TV, we provide new data on viewers’ attitudes towards green behaviours and nudging. We go on to outline 10 recommendations for broadcasters on how they can use their content to encourage sustainability.
If you want to plough through the report yourselves, that’s your lookout. Personally, I wouldn’t bother. Suffice it to say that, amongst a great deal more, the BIT advises:
Broadcasters should also make sure to feature relatable characters taking up green behaviours, including those who represent more sceptical audience groups (e.g. older more conservative viewers). Plotlines should build in credible motivations for taking up sustainable behaviours (e.g. preventing waste or saving money), show their learning and growth over time, and demonstrate their ability to overcome barriers. Broadcasters should also work with their talent – actors, moderators, sportspeople, and other television celebrities – and encourage them to use their reach to influence viewers via multiple platforms by sharing green knowledge, attitudes, and modelling green behaviours.
Before you go away thinking that the BIT is just another bandwagon-riding charity, peddling climate change snake oil, I should remind you that this is the UK Government’s own Nudge Unit we are talking about here. Do not be fooled when it presents itself as an independent advisory unit. It was set up as a government department and has only recently been partly privatised in order to give the impression of independence. Be aware that it is still 30% funded by the government and that the Cabinet Office remains its principal client. So when they ‘recommend’ what broadcasters should be doing, they are not just dropping hints. They might be a bunch of ‘weirdos’ and ‘ultra-lefty academics’, but they also speak with an authority that is not to be ignored. And, as behavioural scientist Dr Patrick Fagan indicates:
Like true leftists, behavioural scientists also salivate more than one of Pavlov’s dogs when it comes to the idea of state control, a handful of bureaucrats deciding on the “right” behaviour and then rewiring the entire public into compliance.
Not that I think the weirdos and lefties comprising your average TV production team would need any arm-twisting. You could just substitute ‘TV executives’ in the above quote and leave the rest as it stands. It’s not just behavioural scientists that are the problem here — it’s the whole of the liberal intelligentsia who just can’t help themselves when it comes to infantilising and preaching to the supposedly ‘gammon-faced’ lower echelons of society on matters as far-ranging as climate change, vaccination safety, Brexit, Islamophobia, and a new biology of the sexes.
But I do hope I haven’t put you off enjoying your favourite TV programme. I’m sure the wisdom of those clever chappies from the department of nudge, combined with the special and entertaining talents of the ‘actors, moderators, sportspeople, and other television celebrities’ from TV land are being put to good use, guiding you through the tricky minefield we used to call free will. Of course, you can switch off and try going it on your own. But, judging by the following tweet, the BIT mob are confident that you won’t:
New BIT research finds 8 in 10 support the idea of broadcasters nudging #green choices through content and 1 in 3 say TV has inspired them to make changes. #decarbonisation #netzero #cop26
New BIT research, eh? I think they forgot to add ‘#nudgingbullshit’.
Climate Scepticism 
This is the problem. The haunted fishtank has become a tool of psychological oppression, par excellence. Many think it’s ‘just’ entertaining and informative and that they are immune to any nefarious ‘nudging’ which might be going on. You’re not immune. Every time you switch on, you’re being ‘innoculated’ against harmful ‘conspiracy theories’ whilst at the same time having your psychological immune system damaged repeatedly and severely such that it is wide open to whatever junk misinformation BIT and other actors might wish to insert between your ears and have it ‘stay’ there, as in the case of the ‘climate change message’ so eloquently explained by Coronation Street’s Samia Longchambon.
Which is why I gave up watching TV over 10 years ago. Which is why I am currently being ‘investigated’ by TV Licensing on behalf of the British Brainwashing Corporation. I could have made life simple and just told them I am not obliged to buy a licence because I do not watch or record live TV. I did that before and they left me alone, but such was the threatening, authoritarian, presumed guilty until proven innocent tone of their initial contact letter that I decided not to play ball at all with them. So now, after over two years of belligerent warnings, they say they are finally going to pay me a visit in about a week’s time, which I am looking forward to.
I just wish more people would disable the tool of their psychological oppression. It works so well because it, unlike the internet for instance, is entirely passive-receptive and doesn’t require you to think, just absorb like a sponge. I know people who sit in front of the box or have it turned on, all day, and their brains are mush.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Holy cow Mr Ridgway, I have been compiling material for a piece on the exact same theme, the entertainment industry’s organised insertion of climate messaging. Strangely there is not much overlap between my examples and yours, although I now have 30,000 words of material to boil down to 2-3000. Much of it is US sourced but I am also a scholar of things like BAFTA-albert UK.
Also strangely, I have few examples from Australia, other than the government-funded ABC and SBS (for ethnics). There are many climate agitprop outfits here but they don’t seem to have interfaced much with the TV-movie sector which has its hands full pushing the Aboriginality motive (vs colonial settlerism) rather than climate. I suspect the typical Aussie viewer would greet messaging about nice wind farms and electric cars with ribald scatological epithets.
Anyway I’ll pick the eyes out of your piece and add them to mine, acknowledging you of course in a tiny footnote 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jaime,
Well done to you. Fagan has a chapter in his book titled ‘Turn off your TV’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime,
You and me both. It seems I am also under investigation. Looking forward to their visit – they might learn something. 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
Surely the repeated battering we get from our TVs about things climatique that are inserted within popular dramas can be markedly counterproductive in several different ways. Firstly it can put some people off watching at all. I scarcely watch any drama series and certainly don’t like to be preached at. But more damaging (to those wishing to influence us) is the reaction of those who do notice the nudging, especially if they discuss it negatively with others who haven’t noticed but object to being manipulated.
I would agree that unnoticed nudging might be very effective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan,
You are right, it all boils down to whether the nudging is noticed or not. The Patrick Fagan article I linked to above is about Sadiq Khan’s ‘Maaate’ advert, targeted at toxic masculinity. Unfortunately, it was so naff that it went viral for all the wrong reasons. Bad nudging always backfires.
LikeLike
Jaime & Mark – when you say “I am also under investigation & they are finally going to pay me a visit”, what happens when they knock on your door?
Seem to recall they can be told to “take a hike”, if true, more (licence payers money wasted).
LikeLike
dfhunter,
I have nothing to hide, but in the unlikely event that they follow up on their repeated and heavy-handed threats and actually attend at my property, they won’t get past the front door, and they will be sent away with a flea in their ear.
When I decided not to renew my TV licence I went online and answered all their questions to confirm that I no longer required a licence. That ought to suffice, but instead they harrass me with threatening letters. It’s all pretty disgraceful, really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – Kind of reminds me of the Post Office drama where black cars turn up & pseudo cops/enforcers step out.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
They have no right of entry unless the court has issued a warrant. TV Licensing procedure is to harass the occupier of an unlicensed property with increasingly threatening and belligerent letters in the hope that the occupier will succumb to buying a licence or at least fill in a form declaring that they are not legally obliged to buy a licence, but even in that case (as with Mark) they may still pay a visit just to check that you are not lying. The whole thing is set up on the presumption of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and that annoys me intensely, which is why I refuse to engage with them at all. If they come round I will not let them in, give them my name or sign anything they put in front of me and will only confirm that I do not watch or record live TV and have no means of receiving a signal from an aerial or satellite dish or broadband wifi. That’s it. They will then go away and get a warrant if they are so inclined. The BBC are fascists who presume they have the right to charge you for their non-stop woke drivel and politically biased propaganda on the basis that the majority of the populace watch and record live TV and therefore are required to purchase a licence. It’s way past time the government put an end to their belligerent authoritarianism and fascist enforcement policies by abolishing the TV Licence but they won’t of course, because the BBC are complicit in brainwashing the populace into compliance with government policies, so they’re very useful in that respect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours programme regularly runs pieces on harassment by debt collectors . One on harassment by the TV Licensing Authority is long overdue.
LikeLiked by 1 person