Mark Thomas' late night comedy series (variously labelled) appears to be an interesting amalgam of comedy and social commentary. In the beginning, the show was described as "part stand-up, part 'prank' show". The viewer is invited to laugh, join in and participate but also to have their social conscience pricked by what they see, to be provoked into direct action (whether it be in the form of lobbying, boycotting, taking part in stunts).
And, in all fairness, as a way of presenting information, and engaging people to listen to potentially difficult messages, it can be effective. I'm sure some people take in more put across this way than they would in watching a serious journalistic piece on, say Newsnight. Indeed, Mark himself confirmed the importance of this when OTT asked him "How important is it to you that you get laughs as well as getting your point across?" He replied "Very. I'm constantly asking C4 to extend it to 40 mins so we don't have to keep cutting out the punchlines in order to tell the story. You know, how many [people] would have watched a Dispatches programme about Nestle? Hopefully, the way that we do it is entertaining and enjoyable. And still full of relevant information."
In many ways, this use of television (increasingly supported by the internet) appears to be a better vehicle for change. During an Edinburgh Festival Fringe interview in 1996, Mark Thomas was quoted as saying "If you think you're going to change anything through Parliament at this stage in the game, you're sorely mistaken. You've got to believe - and I certainly do - that there's a better way." And he is not alone in this belief. More people seem to be treading the fine line of subverting from within, without becoming part of the system they want to subvert. The most notable example, from the USA and also shown on the minority channels, is Michael Moore with TV Nation and The Awful Truth.
I do like Mark Thomas, and have fond if distant memories of seeing his stand-up show many years ago. Generally I do like the TV series. I have found it funny, and thought-provoking and stimulating, although maybe not all at the same time. But I have never found it as shocking as I suspect I'm supposed to. I have never felt outraged, incensed or moved to do anything about what I have seen on the screen. And this apathy has increased as the scope of the programme has got wider, until I now find that the new series leaves me rather cold.
Series one aired on Channel 4 in early 1996. Its most notable item was the programme on Conditionally Exempt Works of Art, which spun-off into a Dispatches programme the next year on the Conditionally Exempt Land and Buildings Scheme. Other serious topics were addressed, such as the Export Credit Guarantee Loan Scheme, and Thomas stood for Parliament in the Hemsworth by-election. But the majority of it was pranking, and they ended the series by betting the production budget for the last show on a horse race, and losing.
Two years later, series two was broadcast. It felt different, concentrating more on serious exposés, and featured programmes on ethical investments, radioactive pigeons near Sellafield, and genetic engineering, although there were still some excellent pranks, like the float in the Lord Mayor's Fair. On a related Mark Thomas website entries on shows now ran to several pages, with links to other sites, and contact details for relevant organizations. Much was made about the censorship of some of the shows, and the threat of legal action. Tellingly on the site, there are no details for show five - it simply says Access Denied. During the programme on genetic engineering, parts of the show were read from a laptop on stage, such was the need to be 100% accurate. For me, this series struck the right balance. It seemed focused, relevant, interesting and funny. It was Thomas at his best.
Series three, a year later, started on a slightly more ominous note. The first two shows were dedicated to Thomas's attendance, as a bogus PR company, at one of the largest arms fairs in the world - Defendory International. From the remainder of the series, only the nuclear trains story was memorable. The rest somehow felt like nitpicking, or getting at people simply because they were high profile. Somehow it didn't hang together, and stories that seemed genuinely shocking, like the Jubilee Line extension workers, felt sidelined in a show which covered three other stories/pranks. The campaigning stance was still there, and the attendant websites continued to supply all the information you needed to follow up the shows, including "Links to make you think". But where were the campaigns?
In May 1999, the MTCP did a special on Kosovo, and the first show in the new series was an attempt to highlight the regime in Burma. It's really this more global focus which doesn't work. At the arms fair in series three Thomas spoke to Major General Njoroge, Deputy Commander of the Kenyan Army, and Major General Widjojo of the Indonesian Armed Forces amongst others. In the first show of series four he interviewed an Ambassador from Burma. However in my opinion, Mark Thomas has neither the journalistic skills nor natural ability to tackle these people to best effect. His opening gambit took the form of a joke at his interviewee's expense. It smacks too much of Jeremy Beadle, despite the fact that, according to Thomas "... Beadle is cruel ... it's just absolute crap. We're not interested in his kind of shit. You've got to engage people when you prank them ... you've got to think about who you're actually having a go at, where you're going with it, what you're trying to prove ... there's got to be a point to it all." These stunts (like giving the Burman Ambassador tripe as a present) feels like Thomas is hedging his bets - ensuring that, if nothing else, he has something funny committed to tape. But on a more serious note they can detract from the main message (in this instance, a brutal regime). It feels distasteful to this viewer to be invited to laugh at somebody from some cheap intellectual high ground.
Neither does Thomas have the skills to successfully interview these people. The style he is attempting to employ, when used successfully, is to take a passive, reflective stance and let the quarry dig its own pit, and then jump in with both feet. Mark Thomas, however, cannot do this. Instead he does all the talking, and does so in such deep analogy and metaphor that few can follow him, let alone somebody for whom English is not their first language. The interviewee is then invited to agree with what Thomas has said. Responses such as "You could say that" are hardly a powerful indictment of a brutal regime. And in the end, the show starts to look so biased, the viewer is less affected by it. I have no problem with somebody taking a stance, indeed I would applaud it. But obvious bias prompts you to begin to consider the viewpoint of the other person - not, I think, what was intended. So the possibility that the whole set-up is unfair presents itself - "Does this guy really understand what he has just been asked?" This detracts considerably from the import of what the "bad guys" are saying.
Thomas' heart is obviously in the right place, but whilst he continues to pursue this strategy he does himself a disservice. He is at his best when laying out his argument simply and clearly, rather than attempting to befuddle his subject into some form of admission. At subterfuge he fails to subvert, but when he's honest and in your face he can change the world.
