Back in the mists of black and white TV, my uncle James's formation dance team won Come Dancing, so I've always had a sneaking regard for the old warhorse and was both delighted and amazed to see the show's grandchild emerge as part of a revitalised BBC Saturday night that my seven year old self would have thought as much part of British life as fish and chips and Morecambe and Wise, writes David Docherty.
As a family, the Dochertys settle happily together to watch the brilliantly camp mugging of Keith Allen in Robin Hood - thank you Peter F - and the engaging Strictly Come Dancing. But, in common with many of the fans on the Strictly Come message board, doubts are setting in.
Gabby Logan: voted off Strictly Come Dancing despite her strong performance. Photograph: BBC
On Saturday, I was left trying to explain to my girls the difference between mob rule and democracy when two of the best dancers - Gabby Logan and Penny Lancaster - were relegated to a dunce's corner that should have contained most of the blokes, who have two-left feet and hip movements that would shame geriatrics, and Kate Garraway - great presenter, dances like a new born giraffe.
The defenestration of Gabby does raise that fascinating question about the role of expertise in television's most demotic age. Rather entertainingly, the judges resemble various Muppets. Uncle Len is Sam the Eagle, Bruno would be hilarious camp Kermit in a live action panto, Craig Grumpy Double Barrel would do a passable Gonzo, and you can take your pick for Arlene.
But, the key point is that these people are experts. Beneath all the bluster, bollocks and gamesmanship, they care passionately about ballroom as much as Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger care about football, or as much as Richard Dawkins cares about rationality.
So, I had much sympathy with the judges' outrage about being forced to choose between two talented and hard working dancers, rather than John Barnes (floats like a footballing bee, dances like a hippo) and the Garraway shuffle, particularly as the new voting system was supposed to sort out the viewer's tendency to dump people because they a) are jealous of them, b) don't know who they are and c) they're not in EastEnders or Emmerdale..
I've long been an advocate of viewer interactivity, but never succumbed to the view that this should replace expertise and judgement. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, just because the public act collectively, that doesn't represent a democratic choice. The reason we have representative democracy is that we need expertise to help mediate our conflicting aspirations.
When my uncle James won Come Dancing, I knew it was because he worked incredibly hard at what he did and was genuinely talented. So, the question is: what are we celebrating on the new wave of talent shows? When mediocrity wins out, we might write it off as "just good telly", but shouldn't good telly appeal to the best of our ambitions?
There has to be a balance between expertise and the popular vote, and talent shouldn't always be subject to a referendum. Sometimes, nanny does know best.
David Docherty is chief executive of TV channels operator CSC Media. He is a former deputy director of TV and director of new media at the BBC, managing director of broadband content at Telewest, and chief executive of YooMedia.
.jpg?w=600)
